User talk:Opus33/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Panini and Grassmann's Law[edit]

Hi. I see you were the one who's mentioned that Panini was familiar with Grassmann's Law (at least synchronically) in several places. Comparative method is one such place, and it's now been nominated for Featured Article status, but needs more citations. Do you happen to have a source you could give? Thanks! --Red Newt 04:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello RedNewt, It's in the Sag reference included in the bibliography of Grassmann's Law. Opus33 03:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also, do you have a source for the claim about the percentage of Farsi's borrowings from Arabic? --Red Newt 04:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've managed to find sources for both of these; however, if you can remember what your original sources were, then please do add them as citations as well. Cheers, sjcollier 17:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello RedNewt and Sjcollier, the Farsi/Arabic bit dates from my own early days as an editor, when I was not with the program with regard to citing reference sources. And sure enough, now I can't find where I read it. I'm glad Sjcollier found a source.
For what it's worth, I took a random sample (last word on every page) from Lambton's (short) Persian dictionary, which lists the etymology of every word. This indicates a slight preponderance for Arabic over native Persian words. I suspect a rather larger majority would be obtained from a full-size dictionary, since the fancy words which bigger dictionaries tend to have are likely to be from Arabic.
Thanks for spotting these problems. Opus33 03:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for responding! Take care, --Red Newt 03:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Spinet[edit]

Heyo. I had just copied the stuff that you'd removed from the Piano page to hold it over while you worked on it. (I was pretty sure you had something cooking.) It looks good! We should put a more noticeable link in its place on the Piano page, I think. - Rainwarrior 23:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Epinette Rouaud.jpeg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Epinette Rouaud.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's really hard to move images around these days if the author didn't GFDL it. I think you might be able to use: Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat - Rainwarrior 19:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I also noticed that "Rouaud" is the name of the harpsichord manufacturer as well, and did a quick search. You might be able to get a hold of the author from this page (there's an e-mail and stuff). - Rainwarrior 19:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Spinet Image[edit]

Hi Opus33. I noticed your messsage on Antandrus's talk page regarding the spinet image. Do you think one of these licences would be appropriate? {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}, {{attribution}}. Best wishes, MarkBuckles 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Opus! yes, Mark is right, I think: those were the same two that I thought were the closest fit, at least on the first pass of going through all the possible tags. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Score excerpt of Beethoven's fifth[edit]

Regarding your comment on Talk:Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven):

The SVG was generated using LilyPond, which is very well respected when it comes to musical typesetting. I didn't alter the file, except to add in the pauses (which I did not know how to put in the markup); consequently the grouping of the quavers is LilyPond's. I was always taught that it was conventional wisdom in 4/4 pieces (and possibly using other even time signatures too - I've just noticed that it's 2/4 and the time signature is missing, which is a mistake) that the middle of the bar be left free.

As for SVG vs. PNG, see Wikipedia:Preparing_images_for_upload#Use_SVG_over_PNG. In short, vector images can be scaled indefinitely without degradation, and can be easily edited. In addition, they are anti-aliased, so one does not get the jagged lines as seen in Image:Beethoven_symphony_5_opening.png, for example. It is not really a case any more of "Why use vector graphics?"; rather, "Why not?"

I would welcome any and all comments you have on this matter on my talk page. —Wereon 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In Regard to Orchestration[edit]

Hello Opus33,

In response to your recent message on orchestration, if I may, I would like to explain my reasons for editing the orchestrations of the Beethoven Symphonies and otherwise:

First of all, there undoubtedly is not enough mention of orchestration in Wikipedia. As I have been looking through the classical music pages, I was distraught to find that the orchestration was not given enough attention. Orchestration means a great deal to a piece of orchestral music, and I, for one, am an advocate for orchestration importance. The “old” way it was caused problems. For one, it was often mixed into some introductory paragraph or it was a tiny little addition to the bottom of the background or history paragraph, not to mention the erroneous designation of “scoring” for its title. This is may be an acceptable euphemism, but it is not politically correct. It seems like the orchestrations were just pushed aside and one of the last things to be written. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but this is how it comes off as.

Secondly, the way the orchestration formally was made it hard to read, to say the least, and difficult to understand. When it is in just a quasi paragraph form, it is very difficult to decipher which instruments actually exist in the orchestra. So thus I changed the orchestration into lists, which, by Wikipedia’s own admission, is much more organized. Thus, an Average reader can read the orchestration easier and understand it much more effectively. This is an encyclopedia, and people who wish to receive their information in a logical and coherent manner should be entitled to do so.

Finally, as you know, this is Wikipedia, and anything can be edited. Be bold is the motto. Well, that’s what I am being in correcting something that needed to be corrected. I have all of the scores were I have edited their respective pages, so I can verify what those orchestrations are. Most were either incorrectly stated, or just plain wrong. (Some didn’t even exist!) I have therefore unified the orchestrations of these pieces (all of the Beethoven Symphonies, for example,) and created a standard form that I intend to spread.

These changes are work that takes time and effort, but all in all, it’s worth it. I hope you understand my reasons and this will not come off as “harsh.” As I have seen, you are a significant contributor to Wikipedia and I admire your candor in this issue.

Thank You
Justin Tokke 21:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Query from Ravpapa[edit]

I am interested in source material on the history of amateur music. In particular, I wonder if anyone has researched the subject of the amateur quartet societies that flourished in Europe in the 19th century. You seem to be one who can point me in the direction of research on this topic. Am I right?

Thanks for any help you can provide.

--Ravpapa 13:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ravpapa, your assessment of my knowledge is optimistic, but I do have access to the online New Grove, which is the starting point for any sort of classical music research. In their article "String Quartet", they mention amateur quartet societies only briefly, but do cite some books that look promising:
  • A. Pilipczuk: ‘Das Musizieren am Tisch: ikonographische Bemerkungen zur Spielpraxis vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Einführung des Quartett-Tisches im 18. Jahrhundert’, Mf, xxxii (1979), 404–16
  • J.-M. Fauquet: Les sociétés de musique de chambre à Paris de la Restauration à 1870 (Paris, 1986)
  • H. Unverricht: ‘Privates Quartettspiel in Schlesien von 1780 bis 1850’, Musica privata…Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Walter Salmen, ed. M. Fink, R. Gstrein and G. Mössmer (Innsbruck, 1991), 105–12
I hope your French and German are better than mine...
Cheers, Opus33 15:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the pointers. My Grench and Ferman are probably not as good as yours, but that is probably the least of the problems. I have to figure a way to get my hands on these books.

Tnx,

--Ravpapa 15:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dates[edit]

"Dates including a month and day should also be linked in order for user preferences on date formatting to work properly." Some people want to see the date as October 15, 2006, others want to see 15 October 2006, others want to see 2006-10-15. The only way for that to happen automatically is if the dates are linked. I don't think lone years need to be linked, but full dates, definitely. That's why I left 1791 in the lead unlinked, but linked the full date farther down. --Spangineeres (háblame) 04:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Noble titles in Hungary[edit]

Dear Opus33, ermmm, we were both wrong. I found out, that the law in question was the "1947. évi IV. törvény" here is the reference: http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3&param=8251 Sorry for editing your entry without previously ensuring myself. But on the other hand this gave you the correct data at the end:) Cheers --Aetil 20:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CM[edit]

Are you familiar with this project? -- ßottesiηi (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
D minor
Symphony No. 38 (Mozart)
Broadwood and Sons
Piano Concerto No. 1 (Beethoven)
E minor
Piano Sonata No. 9 (Beethoven)
G minor
B minor
Funeral march
Piano Sonata No. 12 (Beethoven)
Piano Sonata No. 7 (Beethoven)
Piano Sonata No. 27 (Beethoven)
Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven)
Piano Trios Nos. 5 - 6, Opus 70 (Beethoven)
Symphony No. 102 (Haydn)
Gustav Leonhardt
London symphonies
Counterpoint
Piano Concerto No. 4 (Beethoven)
Cleanup
Jordan Rudess
Blüthner
Piano Concerto No. 23 (Mozart)
Merge
Musical interpretation
Prepared piano
Suite
Add Sources
Symphony No. 41 (Mozart)
Michael Praetorius
Symphony No. 25 (Mozart)
Wikify
Integrated Services Digital Network
South African Classical Music Industry
Ian Wilson (composer)
Expand
Cai Lun
Bass oboe
Angelus

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Thompson (violinist)[edit]

Erm - Robert Thompson (violinist) - isn't this self-promo stuff which breaks some rule? As a (wiki)dead person I cannot be bothered to pursue it but I get the impression you're still alive and active and I thought you might want to take a look. Thanks, long-dead user 138.37.199.206 08:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

=[edit]

Robert was listed along with the other 23 American Jazz Violinists. Please review his bio and add to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 9f3fv (talkcontribs) 08:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Re:Wikiproject Classical Music[edit]

No problem; I hope we can get a wider consensus soon, especially on the translate/don't translate issue. I plan to bring up some issues on the project's talk page very soon, so I'll be looking forward to more discussion. Oh, and good work in splitting the Haydn and Mozart article off of the main Haydn article! Heimstern Läufer 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And thanx for replying to my issues. I'm really hoping to hear more from more people soon, as I hate the idea of implementing new methods when only two people are commenting on it. Oh, and I thought I'd tell you I've checked out Rosen's The Classical Style from my university's library and hope to use it to help add cites to the Haydn article. Cheers! Heimstern Läufer 05:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

piano acoustics[edit]

Hi Opus,

I noticed that you reverted my edit on piano acoustics. Could you look at the talk page there, I wrote some comments about what I was trying to fix with my rewrite. Perhaps you could come up with a compromise. I'll let you think about it before trying to mess around more.

I know it may feel like I just walked all over your contribution, but I really was trying to keep the spirit of the section while making it more accurate and clear (at least clearer to a physicist) David s graff 22:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture AFDs[edit]

It's not my intention to cause anyone any problems with these AFDs and I'm certainly sympathetic to the plight of editors dealing with that crap in articles of interest. I have my own watchlist that I patrol for the same sort of crap. Unfortunately, offloading the crap into a standalone article doesn't solve the problem. It just turns it into someone else's problem. The only way to begin to solve the problem is to start trying to change the culture of Wikipedia to reflect that the sort of trivial grabage that ends up in "...in popular culture" articles doesn't blong either in the main subject article or in its own article. Otto4711 04:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Piano wire in popular culture[edit]

I replied on my talk page. —Doug Bell talk 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Carmina Burana[edit]

NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

Thank you for moving all the Pop Culture stuff! What a huge mess that was! MarkBuckles (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

…Adagio for Strings: I would have got round to it eventually, now you've shown the way, but I couldn't have done it better! It's definitely the correct approach I think. Best wishes, RobertGtalk 09:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the pop culture refererences can be interesting for trivia, or if that's what you're looking for specifically, but they really overrun an article. Most of it's unsourced nn items without uniform formatting. I don't know what the best solution is (many people just delete them, but they do return - and in greater numbers. . .) but I like this idea because it preserves the information in one place while returning the main article to a slimmer, more scholarly standard. Happy to add support if you end up proposing this to the "powers-that-be". Best wishes, MarkBuckles (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Haydn[edit]

I think this should be made mention of in the article. In fact every book i have read makes a mention of this.

Joseph Haydn, who spoke Croatian. Joseph Haydn (1738-1803) was born in a Croatian ethnic enclave in Burgenland (Gradisce) in Austria. For example the main theme of his London symphony no 104 in D major (movement IV) is based on the well known Croatian traditional song "Oj, Jelena, Jelena, jabuka zelena" (Oj, Jelena, Jelena, my green apple). Also the final of his Es major symphony is based on the Croatian folk song "Divojcica potok gazi" (A little girl treads on a brook). And even the following song that is widely known in Croatia - "Nikaj na svetu lepsega ni, nego gorica kad nam rodi..." (There is nothing more beautiful in the world than a fruitful hill) was exploited by Haydn (I learned this on a wonderful 11th birthday party of my dear friend Ema Tolic).

Interesting.. isn't it?

Evergreen Montenegro1 00:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Who discredited him being Croatian? Was that Wikipedia? I think if evidence is there to support him being Croatian it needs to be mentioned in the article. An encyclopedia is all about showing the truth. How do you explain the fact he spoke Croatian, used Croatian folk songs, was born among the Croatian community in Austria etc etc...

No harm done if you want to leave it out, as I give up reverting it. I don't have time for that.

Have a look at other websites. Yahoo and Google it and see why he could be Croatian.


PS Enjoy the music !


Evergreen Montenegro1 01:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't see anything wrong with what i added to the article. A reader should know that Mr Haydn spoke Croatian etc... His music was influneced by Croatian music eyc....


Wikipedia has a huge problem with pov, propaganda and bias. Some people such as yourself keep deleting what i should be free to ad to the article. You clearly have more authority than me so best i back down Good luck to you.

I have nothing against you. Like i said Enjoy the Music!

Evergreen Montenegro1 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Opus33.
I'm not trying to get into discussion about this, but beside that book that was first printed in 1897 (W.Hadow), that page [1] gives references to the books/works (or citations towards works) of Županović (Croatian academician)[2] (see the section below the Hadow) and Kuhač [3]), Andjelko Nedo Paveskovic (Anđelko Nedo Pavešković), Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians (not a person :), Henrik van Loon, Murray Gibbon, Larousse Musique (not a person :), Kenneth Clark, Anthony Hodgson... See those quotes, these books, works, dictionaries, encyclopedias are "newer" (from 1936 to 2000), consider their arguments.
It's easy to put in the article "authors: that, that and that... claimed that Haydn was of Croat origin".
Sincerely, Kubura 07:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Only way to know 100% is to check the dna. Thanks for the reply guys. Evergreen Montenegro1 23:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC) This might be of interest to you PROOF OF HAYDN'S CROATIAN BLOOD

Haydn was born in Rohrau (Trstnik), Austria, a town near Vienna. -Since 1533, besides the predominant German element, a large number of Croatian immigrants settled in the Rohrau area.

The Encyclopaedia Brittanica (11 th edition, 1910-11) states that "'there is sufficient evidence that his family was of Croatian stock: a fact which throws light upon the distinctively Slavonic character of much of his music... but the freshness and beauty of its melody soon silenced all opposition and did more than anything else throughout the 18th century to establish the principle of nationalism in musical art. The actual employment of Croatian folktunes may be illustrated from the string quartets Op. 17, No.1; Op. 33, No.3; Op. 50, No.1; Op. 77, No-1, and the Salomon Symphonies in D and E, while there is hardly an instrumental composition of Haydn's in which his own melodies do not show some traces of the same influence."

Sir W.H. Hadow also stated that Haydn's nationality was Croatian in his book A Croatian Composer: Notes Towards the Study of Joseph Haydn, London, 1897. Franjo Saver Kuhac wrote a few publications between the years 1878 to 1882 in Zagreb promoting Haydn's nationality as Croatian. The names of Haydn and Koller (the family of the composer's mother) were both of Croatian origin but were Germanised.

It is interesting to note that Kuhac was actually born with the purely German name of Koch, but changed it back to the original Croatian form of Kuhac in his adult life.

Opal Wheeler and Sybil Deucher's children's book Joseph Haydn: The Merry Little Peasant states that "the great red sun was just beginning to light the narrow streets of the little Croatian market town Rohrau. Over the rough cobblestones, heavy carts were rumbling by the low thatched roof cottage where Matthias Haydn, the wheelwright, lived with his family. Everyone was asleep in the Haydn cottage but little Sepperl, as Franz Joseph was often called."

ATTEMPTED GERMAN COVER-UP

In 1934, a young German musicologist, E.F. Schmid, published a book in the "Biedermeier" style trying to disprove Haydn's Croatian nationality. The book was funded by a German scholarship which had the only requirement of the topic having to be purely German and for Germany's good. Schmid knocked the facts of Haydn's Croatian nationality for the sole purpose of Nazi propaganda. E.F. Schmid's book had mixed reviews due to the attempted Nazi cover-up. The Nazi elements in the 1930s were trying to show that anything important had to be German. Haydn couldn't be Croatian as they were not "pure Aryan".

Carpani's "Gesinnungsgenossen" pounced on Schmid's book: "[Schmid] arrives after slightly less than 300 closely argued pages at a Haydn 100 percent German; or to use the term at present in favour, "pure Aryan". A most exhaustive documentation, indeed we would say prodigious. But as far as we are concerned, not essential.." Even though Schmid proved that Haydn, his parents and some grandparents were born in today's Austria, this has nothing to do with one's nationality. Haydn was always teased by the Germans for being a Croatian peasant, then overnight they try to claim him as their own.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HAYDN DUE TO HIS CROATIAN BLOOD

1. Schumann and Berlioz used Mozart's expression "Papa Haydn" viciously and portrayed the Croatian Haydn as a senile, fun-poking old fool. This most 19th century people believed. Only recently have these lies been all proven incorrect;

2. No German or Austrian contemporaries were at his funeral. A non-German contemporary bitterly noted: "Not a single Viennese Kapellmeister was there to accompany him on his last journey";

3. In Paris, publishers printed his music without authorisation and Haydn received no financial gain from them. This was because Austria did not defend Haydn because of his Croatian blood;

4. Haydn had to go abroad to England twice so he could practice his Croatian style more freely and without the German pressure to conform;

5. Johann (Ivan) Michael Haydn refused to allow any of his own works to be published in his lifetime since he wanted them to be recognised as Croatian, not German. Only after his death did Germans publish some of his symphonies, claiming them as being composed by a German Haydn.

Mozart always said his brother needed more recognition.

Even if we accept the Nazi-German attempted cover-up of Haydn's true Croatian nationality as fact, the Germans must acknowledge the truly Croatian folk feelings in Haydn's music. It has been proved that Haydn frequently mixed with Croatians in Trstnik, probably due to the fact that Haydn had Croatian blood.


References

1. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 11th Edition, 1910-11, pp. 109-11;

2. Opal Wheeler and Sybil Deucher, Joseph Haydn: The Merry Little Peasant, New York, 1937, p. 9;

3. H.C. Robbins, Haydn Chronicle and Works. Haydn: The Early Years (1732-1765), London, 1980, pp. 32-35;

4. Rosemary Hughes, Haydn, London, 1970, pp. 2-3;

5. Karl Geiringer and Irene Geiringer, Haydn: A Creative Life in Music, 2nd Edition, London, 1964, pp. 3-4;

6. Collier's Encyclopaedia, Vol. 11, pp. 726-28; 7. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Vol. IV, 15th Edition, p. 965;

8. The World Book Encyclopaedia, Vol. 9,1980, p. 115;

9. Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, Vol. 6, 3rd Edition, 1970, p. 543;

10. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 8th edition, 1852-60.

CUT AND PAST FROM NET AND I WOULD HAVE TO SAY HAYDN BEING AUSTRIAN IS HIGHLY DUBIUS. ANYWAY ENJOY THE MUSIC, THAT'S WHAT METTERS MOST. Evergreen Montenegro1 23:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Gregor Werner, etc.[edit]

You're welcome! There is a certain amusement in that recently I had a minor tangle with an Italian nationalist over Andrea Antico (born in Motovun, now Croatia) who very likely was Croatian. Or some combination. Oh well, now he's Italian. No one really knows, so I let it go. Nationalists, sigh. Remember the Archduke (not the opus 97...)

No, I don't know Werner's music! The Grove article is mighty interesting. Looks like we still have some articles to write! Cheers, and happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Classical work infobox[edit]

Template:Classical work infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Turangalila (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem[edit]

The main problem is Wikipedia is free to edit but at the same time some people police the pages as if they were some sort of sheriff. It's a bit of a joke. If Joseph Haydn, Marco Polo etc...have some link to Croatia I think this needs to be mentioned. It's just silly not to.

Eg Diego Maradona has Croatian blood, his grandmother was born on Korcula(Dalmatia-Croatia) and went to live in Argentina. Diego has a daughter and mother named Dalma, named after the the Dalmatian coast. Now when someone added this under Trivia in Diego's article it was deleted.

Why? If we have proof ..add to article end of story. We have proof that Haydn and Polo has Croatian blood, why hide it???

Evergreen Montenegro1 03:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take my points as directed at you. Just talking in general. I think Wikipedia seems to have some rules or agena against some backgrounds. I know what is popular belief but sometimes we need to add to that if we have found out new information. Just look at Columbus, he has 4+ possible backgrounds listed. Italians and Spanish both claim him with some degree of truth but even the Portugues calim him, again with valid points. We have room for everything there why not for Haydn and Polo???? I even read Columbus could have been Greek, again with some valid reasons why. Evergreen Montenegro1 04:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Opus, The research you're talking about was done by someone hell bent on disproving he was Croatian. During the Nazi era. Sure there are books showing he was Croatian and some sayng he was Austrian. In all fairness he was Austrian with Croatian ancestry. That's all. Like you said people believe what they want to believe, right or wrong.

In all fairness you can't just brush aside the fact Haydn spoke Croatian and was influenced by Croatian music, grew up among Croats and at times was said to be Croat. How did he read Croatian? That is no propaganda or lies. Many sources and accounts which are non-Croat say this.

I think you should ad that to the article..in all fairness. I don't see a problem with saying he was Austrian Croatian.

God Bless ya..over and out


Sheriff Evergreen Montenegro1 05:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

pS Truth based NO ..it pov based. Wikipedia is all about pov. Everyone knows that. Columbus has 4 ancestrial backgrounds listed in order to keep all 4 sides happy. Why can't haydn have 2??? Evergreen Montenegro1 06:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The instrumentation battle[edit]

Although I'm currently on a long break from practically all Wikipedia editing, I've been keeping tabs on User:Justin_Tokke's massive editing of the instrumentation sections of articles on works of classical music to implement his own format. I have attempted to communicate my concerns about his formatting on numerous occasions, receiving first a referral to his message on your talk page (which merely expresses his own opinions once more), then plain dismissals of my concerns, and finally a complete lack of response. Several others have approached him, most recently User:ILike2BeAnonymous, who received the same dismissive reply. I have not seen anyone else than Justin Tokke come out in favour of his format, and he seems, if anything, to be working against the development of an explicit consensus.

I left the issue alone when it appeared that Justin Tokke was inactive, but recently he seems to have launched another crusade to defend his format. Given his previous communications with me, and his very recent response to User:ILike2BeAnonymous's very frank message, I see no reason at all to try to contact him again, so I'm turning to you, since you've also communicated with him, and since you're an experienced and respectable editor. I'm thinking about whether it might be possible to consensually establish some sort of guideline regarding the formatting of instrumentation sections, to put an end to this once and for all. Thoughts? EldKatt (Talk) 13:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your suggested remedy is probably the best one at the time. I've added the tiring number of 45 articles to my watchlist. I'll keep an eye on the WikiProject Classical Music page as well, but I would much appreciate if you could leave me a message if you start working on something. EldKatt (Talk) 12:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Greetings Opus: I also chimed in where you asked. I prefer the space-saving format, which seems to be the standard everywhere except the front pages of orchestral scores, which Wikipedia articles clearly are not. With just a touch of wiggle room for the occasion odd 20th-century exception. Best regards, Antandrus (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox reply[edit]

Hey Opus33, Thanks for the heads up, I wasn't aware of the discussion. I was just browsing some of the classical work pages and realized that there were no info boxes, so I thought I'd create one. I've already nominated it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G7. But just out of curiosity, was the main reason for the decision because everyone felt that the infobox could not adequately summarize classical works?

Thanks, Iosef U T C 04:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven[edit]

Thought you might like to know: I submitted a Featured List Nomination for this list, of which you seem to be a major author. I did some tinkering around the edges (lead, references, section headers, etc.) first. Cheers! —Turangalila talk 00:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Schloss Esterházy[edit]

I couldn't find it because it wasn't linked to from the other language Wikipedias. You could do a great service my making sure the article for the palace links to its counterparts in other languages, and those languages link to the English article. Cheers! Robert K S 03:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fortuna Wheel.jpg[edit]

Hello, Opus33. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Fortuna Wheel.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Opus33. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Thinking better of it"[edit]

Thanks -- I agree with every word you said, but I agree, best not to bait him. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Biographies[edit]

We currently have an assessment drive going on, where we are trying to give ratings to pretty much every person who does not have one yet. There is a place you can go at WP:WPBIO if you wish to have comments along with the rating during this time. Normally comments are added, but we are trying to get our 100k backlog cleared, so things had to be cut out to meet our goal. Rv'ing the templates perobably is not a good idea for this reason.--Wizardman 15:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Still, requests for comments are always good. I've added comments to Anne Darwin and Ignaz Pleyel, changing the assessment on the former and agreeing with the assessment on the latter. And now to Joseph Haydn as well. Please ask me if you want any more comments further to assessments. Carcharoth 17:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to assume good faith, but please stop removing that template. We can't peer review 100,000 articles, we're simply giving it a grade so we know what articles need improvement. I'm going to put the biography template back on the page, and please do not remove it. Also, what imaginary policy says you have to leave comments when you assess an article. Read this over carefully. Then look over Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Biography_articles_by_quality to understand clearly why we don't provide comments. If you would like comments go to our assessment requests section in our assessment page and someone will happily provide comments for you. Before you remove another template, or I revert your edits, let's argue yell discuss it on my talk page.--Psychless Type words! 15:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, if you wish for a peer review, you can send the article to Wikipedia:Peer review. We can't review so many articles. Plus, the fact that you reverted Carcharoth AFTER he added comments is rather disheartening. I'd rather not take action against you, but I will if I have to.--Wizardman 22:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly you expected the comments on the Joseph Haydn article on the talk page itself? The comments were actually left on a comments subpage (I'm not thrilled with how that system works, myself, I sometimes leave assessment comments in edit summaries, on talk pages or on the comments subpage, depending on my mood...). Anyway, I'd be interested in your opinion on my comments left at Talk:Joseph Haydn/Comments. As others have said above, they are only brief comments. For a fuller review, Wikipedia:Peer review is your best bet. Oh, and if you must revert ratings, please just remove the ratings and not the whole template. The WP-BIOGRAPHY template is used, among other things, to keep track of the articles Wikipedia has about people, so please leave it in place. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Carcharoth, and I'll try to make use of your comments soon.

As for the rest of you, I think the activity of rating without leaving comments is really rude. You're not doing any good for the Wikipedia, and you're wasting other editors' time. Please stop it, right now. Opus33 06:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea of rating articles is so that we know which articles need improvements in the future. We simply do not have enough time or people to do peer reviews for all of these articles. Besides, many of the articles are pretty straight-forward to improve. Stub and start articles, which most of the unassessed articles are, simply need expansion and references, along with other basic improvements. Peer reviews and extensive comments are only worthwhile once an article gets to B-class, and can start working towards GA status. Whether you like us rating the articles or not, there is no rule requiring us to leave comments. I would have thought that simply blanking our template was more rude than people trying to improve and organise Wikipedia by rating articles. You are wasting people's time, as we now have to keep watch of articles to make sure you dont remove the template - • The Giant Puffin • 11:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:WP Biography[edit]

You obviously do not have a lot of knowledge of Wikiprojects in general then, as there are many that cover broad subjects like WP Biography does. It is very legitimate, and the large amount of users who participate to the wikiproject means that many different types of people are covered. There is a justification for the rating system we are putting in place. It allows us, and Wikipedia in general, to know how many articles fall into the different classes, which then allows users to improve certain articles. If all of the biography articles were unassessed, how would wikipedians know where to find stubs and starts to improve? This system makes Wikipedia more organised through categorisation. You are free to ignore the banners, and we encourage requests for comments on individual articles, but removing the templates altogether helps nobody. How is an unassessed article without comments any better than an assessed article without comments? It isn't. - • The Giant Puffin • 14:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A warning[edit]

If you won't listen to The Giant Puffin's reasoning, then you won't listen to anyone's. Thank you for no longer removing our template. If you do however, further action than people complaining at you on your talk page will be taken. --Psychless Type words! 23:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)