User talk:Jmar67

Start

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Jmar67, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Thank you! - Now I can use thank-you-clicks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

C.D.[edit]

22 August
Debussy au coin.png
Happy birthday
C.D.

Thank you for your help for The Little Nigar. As for advertisement: if it was a dog article, I might be concerned, but I don't think that a reader of an article about music will change the brand of dog food. - The line (which was inspired by a conversation on user talk:Drmies/Archive 115#The Little Nigar) stands for: the music is catchy enough to serve for advertisement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For the river of copy edits you have unleashed to date. Keep it up! Vami_IV† 17:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I support that, couldn't have said it that well, but feel the same! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Your help desk questions[edit]

I saw you got an answer to the first one, but the second one did not get a response. Did you find what you needed elsewhere?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Thank you for the follow-up. Yes, I asked at DYK. Unfortunately there is no shortcut. Would like to have one. Jmar67 (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
It might be possible to ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) but I'm not sure how that works.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

2019[edit]

Bachsaal Schloss Koethen.jpg


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your help last year, including meticulous copyediting! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

TNX[edit]

Danke für deinen Dank.Sca (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

April
Waldsauerklee, Rauenthal.jpg
... with thanks from QAI

... and the comments for the Sieben Worte! - and being back! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I am no longer following your contributions page, but ping me if there is something you think I can help you with. Always impressed with your dedication. Jmar67 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I have a section for Quality on my user page, - peer review for Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist. If you have extra time, you can look at new productions by my French friend LouisAlain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I want to review only those files that are considered to be ready for CE and will not be changed significantly while I am looking at them. How do I recognize Louis' files? Jmar67 (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Those with problems are here, look at the draft ones if you have time, those marked for ce. Others need referencing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for becoming a member of the cabal of the outcasts ;) - welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Please explain the "cabal" remark. BTW, I deleted a strangely formatted reference to this from the QAI article. Looked like vandalism. Jmar67 (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
It's an old nickname, check my 2013 user talk page archive. The group was founded in protest to the socalled TFA cabal, because that one's head would not schedule articles by a certain user (who incidently wrote today's, and more than anyway else). So we felt like outcasts, and when one of the founding members was blocked, and another banned, the name became even more appropriate. We are sort of proud of it ;) - If you don't want to belong to such a gang (missing banned users, using inflammatory images such as a blue sapphire ...), I'd understand ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Recurring problems encountered in copy edits[edit]

cite book edition[edit]

  • @Gerda Arendt and LouisAlain: The "edition" field of the "cite book" template requires an ordinal number (1st, 2nd, etc.). I have updated the doc. Jmar67 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, always learning ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Citations for Kutsch/Riemens and similar works[edit]

  • @Gerda Arendt and LouisAlain: This edit produces a better citation format for books like Kutsch/Riemens. Jmar67 (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    Seen, thank you, - behind on several things ... - just translated the article planned for 1 May. C. 200 articles should be changed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

DNB reference to non-person[edit]

  • @Gerda Arendt: A DNB reference to something other than a person, such as a work, needs the "TYP=Literature about" parameter as shown here.
    Thank you, seen. Could you check Bach cantatas? - I am busy, another recent death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Worldcat reference to non-person[edit]

  • Similar to the "DNB" problem, the template {} is needed if the subject is not a person. Jmar67 (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

ChoralWiki reference to work[edit]

  • The parameter "prep=of" is required. Jmar67 (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

in/at/on cemetery[edit]

  • @Gerda Arendt and Yoninah: Someone is buried, or a gravestone is located, in (not at) a cemetery. Jmar67 (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry, I meant @LouisAlain:, not Yoninah. Jmar67 (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    I look at the category "burials" and they all go Burials at Père-Lachaise cemetery, Burials at Arlington National Cemetery etc. So which is which? English is easy to approach but endlessly complex in the end. (Or is it at the end? Face-wink.svg. LouisAlain (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks. Let me think about that. You have a good point. Jmar67 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    I will try to remember, but while "in" for buried has some logic, the other escapes me. Two more died, sigh. I asked project opera for help for Deborah Cook (soprano). It's exhausting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Gerda Arendt: A gravestone is "within" a cemetery, shortened to "in". Isn't English an "in"-teresting language? Jmar67 (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yes it is. Ping me once per thread please, - I'm watching. All these gravestones ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    LouisAlain and Gerda: Reverting my initial comment here, sorry. I cannot find anything to support not using "at". Just a very strong personal preference for "in". "On" is wrong, however. Jmar67 (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    Learning. In German, it's "auf dem Friedhof" - which translates to "on" ;) - Like "auf dem Berg" - "on the mountain". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

on a libretto[edit]

  • Operas are often phrased as "composed by A on a libretto by B, based on...". Is "on a libretto" a standard phrase in this context in English? It sounds strange. I have usually changed to "with a libretto", in part to avoid repetition of "on". How would you have phrased it in German?Jmar67 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
In German it's "auf ein Libretto" ;) - Our magic flute says "to a libretto". - I heard the same thing on ERRORS. "with" makes it sound a bit like "on the side", and the wording "with music" seems particularly strange, because without that music, if woudn't be an opera. But learning. The Komposition (in German) has no preposition or conjunction, plain "eine Oper von Giselher Klebe", - never heard "mit Musik von" in that context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
"to a libretto" is probably OK, better than "on" but IMHO not idiomatic. Could be ENGVAR. "With" in the Klebe case is not a translation but rather a "circumvention". "With music by A and lyrics by B" is very common in the U.S. .Jmar67 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
See lead of Antigone oder die Stadt for an example of recasting to avoid the construction. Edited by Gerda. Jmar67 (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

alongside[edit]

@Gerda Arendt: This is not an error, but you use it too often. Try "with" or "accompanied by" for variety. Jmar67 (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Like "creating a role", it's opera speak. I say "with" for the conductor, and "accompanied" for an accompanist, which is understood as a supporting function, although it's often just as hard. "partner on stage" might be another possibility, especially when it's lovers in the plot. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Use of "his"/"her" in series of works[edit]

  • @Gerda Arendt: Again not an error per se, but the use and repetition of "his" in cases such as "Esser performed as a guest at major European opera houses, including the Vienna State Opera, where he appeared as Tristan in Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, as Siegfried in his Der Ring des Nibelungen, and in the title of his Parsifal." is irritating. The reader will assume that a series of works cited after a composer is named would all be by that composer. I doubt that this usage is common in reliable English sources. Jmar67 (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
And what instead? Repeat Wagner's name three times. I don't think the average reader would induce it's the same composer. You could argue that der Ring and Parsifal are unmistakably "his", though, - accepted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
"where he appeared as Tristan in Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, Siegfried in Der Ring des Nibelungen, and in the title role of Parsifal". Could also be rephrased as "where he appeared in the Wagner operas Tristan und Isolde as Tristan, Der Ring des Nibelungen as Siegfried, and Parsifal in the title role". It is the repetition of "his" that I find annoying. Jmar67 (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Wagner would find his Tristan, Ring and Parsifal being described as "operas" annoying ;) - enough reason for me not to do that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Infoboxes[edit]

@Gerda Arendt: When you get a few minutes (?!), I would like a brief summary (here) of the infobox controversy you have been involved in. Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Just returned from the funeral (see my talk). My POV is on WP:QAI/Infobox. Perhaps start reading at the bottom, where admired people said good things. The last debate was on Pierre Boulez (in 2016, when he died, Archive 1). I didn't want any more of the kind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Wrong, the last debate was Georg Katzer when he died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I noticed that and thought about you. Still don't understand the objection to infoboxes. I have seen them so often that an article without one looks incomplete. Jmar67 (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
You could ask them that question, and perhaps get an answer. I asked, got no answer, but was told that I'm wrong. - I thought about bringing flowers iunstead of the question, but if the question is not understand, how will flowers be? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, how about starting a little history of the infoboxs wars which began in 2005. As other religious wars, they are not so much about a faith (infobox yes or no) but about domain, power and alliances. The prime objection to an infobox seems to be that it dominates the upper right corner (for mobile the beginning of the article), and thus snares away the reader's attention from the "beautifully crafted" (not making that up, it's a 2013 quote) lead and article, and that reader may go away without ever looking at the beauty. Therefore opposers don't write infobox, but IB, meaning ídiotbox.

I can't tell you anything about 2005, because I joined in 2009. As you know already, if you followed my project link, my history with the infobox wars began in 2012.

2012[edit]

  • April 2012: Samuel Barber - Gerda Arendt meets the infobox wars. Infobox was added by Andy (Pigsonthewing), perhaps the most-hated player in the field, which she didn't know. It was reverted, he began a discussion. She opposed - and was converted in that discussion, by a beautiful line. The discussion is short, still on the talk, and was never resolved.

There are a few no-nos if you go to infobox discussions. Don't do it on the day an article is today's featured article (Jules Massenet today and three more days)! Don't ever mention the word ownership! Stay factual. Best advice: don't go at all ;) - Andy and I soon became friends. He (who once called an article without infobox "naked", - that was when he was forbidden by our highest court to add an infobox to an article he had created, but that's 2013 already) rarely touches an infobox discussion these days, nor do I. I just failed to look up who wrote the Katzer article, or would simply have left it as it was (so certainly no Main page appearance, with exactly one ref used inline twice). Sooo many other articles are missing. If you want to do something for the future, ask the question in the peer review of Orpheus in the Underworld. Better you than I ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to write these notes. It is often difficult and always time-consuming to wade through past discussions. Jmar67 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • June 2012: WP:QAI was founded by a few users who were unhappy with the TFA system, then run by one user who never scheduled articles by one of the members, Wehwalt. Today, we have three who alternate scheduling, one of them Wehwalt, - goal accomplished. The first on the list, PumpkinSky, and I wrote Franz Kafka, FA 14 October that year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • October 2012: The second-most hated player in the infobox field (and my friend) was Br'er Rabbit. For a sample, perhaps see Talk:Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. At the end, he quoted: "One despairs, one really does." - After a fruitful year, in October he decided to have himself banned, very successfully so. I still miss him, and am not the only one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    That was an enlightening discussion. Not sure how I would have reacted at the time. Working almost exclusively in the mobile view, the infobox follows the lead. I never gave much thought to how it looks in the desktop view. I am not persuaded by the redundancy argument. An IB is by no means objectionable as far as I am concerned. Jmar67 (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    And that was just a book. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • December 2012: Andy and I collaborate creating {{infobox Bach composition}}. (transclusion count today 221) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

2013[edit]

  • March: Andy and Voceditenore (and I a bit) begin and develop {{infobox opera}} (today 1030 transclusion), a discussion happens about the sense (?) to collapse an infobox, and a discussion on Robert Stoepel who is a composer among other activities leads to him having an infobox (inspite of the 2010 guideline by WP:Composers that composers are too complex people to simply say when and where they were born and died, - a guideline still linked in discussions in 2019 such as Georg Katzer, believe it or not). Gerda Arendt thinks the infobox is over. This line will be a mantra for years to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 14 March: I experimented with infobox opera on Motezuma. It was reverted and called "disruptive", the first time I was called that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 21 March: The "wars" were not over, as I noticed when I suggested on the talk page to give Bach an infobox, as a birthday gift, and the resulting discussion (first thing: someone changed the thread header) made GFHandel leave forever, missed much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 30 March: I add an infobox to the Sparrow Mass, resulting in a little edit war including article protection over Easter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 4 May: A short notice on project opera said that {{infobox opera}} is under development. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 16 May: In preparation for the bicentenary of Richard Wagner, I following advice by Newyorkbrad, to place an infobox on an article talk page if it was not wanted in the article. (It wasn't wanted, as the peer review had shown, article by Smerus.) So. See what happened. - The kafkaesque thing is that nothing was supposed to happen, - the design was planned to sit quietly on the talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    It is astounding how long these threads (and those on MOS) can be. My contributions are always short because I am entering with my index finger. But the idea of a collapsible infobox is interesting. Was that ever discussed? Jmar67 (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, also around the time. It's in place (and was heavily discussed) for Frank Sinatra and Peter Sellers, and is in place for Little Moreton Hall (without so much ado). It was disccussed in great length in general (March 2013), showing its absurdity to me because it was there that Moxy said how much trouble he has to click the "show" button to open the hidden stuff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 30 May: The Rite of Spring, a discussion which became a major topic in ARBINFOBOX, and which is still on the talk. Unfortunately, the lead image was deleted in the meantime. It was a colourful image of a stage set, looking like a painting of a landscape, - nothing which would make you think of dance and music without explanation. Btw, it was this discussion in which "beautifully crafted" was coined. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 3 June Project opera announces infobox opera as ready to be used, and on 18 June (end of the same long discussion) announces that it has been inserted as an option in the project guidelines. It means that the traditional side navboxes of project opera (compare Rinaldo (opera)) can be replaced by a combination of bottom navbox and infobox (compare Carmen). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 25 June I make the topic part of QAI, one opera example (after it was reverted) and the line that still sits on top of that page: "I dream of the day that the infobox is a simple tool of accessibility." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 26 June Remember the Sparrow Mass? After the edit warring mentioned above, it had an infobox. On 6 June, it was removed, on 25 June I brought it back. On 26 June, I was welcomed to the "infobox warrior club", citing three diffs, two from March, one from June. The discussion is still on the article talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 6 July Back to opera: during the following weeks, some users prepared the way by adding the composer's navbox to opera articles, and others added infoboxes, for example Viva-Verdi and I to Rigoletto. The next step was a longish discussion, in the only archive of that opera. The same happened on other operas, but so similar that looking at one should do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

ARBINFOBOX[edit]

  • 12 July Ched, a QAI member seeing the several time sinks of discussions, requests an ARB case on the matter. He (and I) should have known better, by the ultimate guide to arbitration. His request came as a surprise. Here's the link to the request and all that followed in the case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 17 July The case was opened. It was the first for me ever, - I had no idea what arbcom was, nor how you have to behave, so made some mistakes you'd better avoid. I trusted that the arbs would easily see how much more user-friendly and elegant an opera article is with an infobox than with the side navbox. Only: they were not interested. It didn't take long until the case focused on Andy being hated by many, and the long history of that. Please see yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    To be more precise: I'd like you to take a brief look at the evidence page, and tell me how you read it. Imagine your were an arb and had to do something about an old "war". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you again for taking the time to add details. This controversy is much more complex than I had realized. I read your entry here and skimmed through some of the others. It does appear that the arbiters (that's my preference) decided to focus on the warring rather than the propriety of infoboxes. But there does seem to be the need to address the policy about resolving infoboxes at the article level. That invites warring. I need to read the policy again, but I would require consensus to add an infobox to, or delete one from, an established article. As a copy editor, I like the additional opportunity to find and correct errors and think less about the possible redundancy of information. Jmar67 (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    Define redundancy. The same information is normally given in an article three times, in the lead, in the infobox, and in the body. The same information serves different kinds of people, and I haven't heard complaints about the lead being redundant to the article. Also: define "same". As the Pierre Boulez discussion points out, the date is there in lead and infobox (if there is one), and one who commented even pointed out in bold and extra-large font how it is in the lead. (As if I needed shouting.) However: The date in the lead is a character string, the "same" date in the infobox offers granularity (day/month/year) to calculate with, to compare, and to be correct in different languages. Worth having, I believe, and not detrimental for those who don't care about this aspect. - In the evidence, you will have seen the Pilgrim discussion again, including the threat of the main author to leave Wikipedia if her article had to suffer an infobox. Adding to the guilt of infobox supporters that they drive away those extremely sensitive and valuable FA writers. - Not without irony: I reviewed said article for DYK when it was new ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    Did you really add 14 infoboxes in 30 minutes? Alle Achtung. Is there an article somewhere on Wikipedia records? Jmar67 (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yes. Kafka stories, all following the same model, and excessively uncontroversial ;) - all to get Kafka ready for TFA day. In the decision, even the arbs agreed that it wasn't a crime. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 20 July First comment in the workshop - any questions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • August While there was much talk about editor behaviour in the case, I made a factual list of 59 infoboxes that got reverted. A mistake. Who cares about facts and detail in arbitration? Some delicious edit summaries with the reverts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 6 August The discussion of discussions, and illustrating "speaking terms" mentioned next: Talk:Siegfried (opera)#Infobox. If I had been arbitrator, I would have told all participants in the case: do it like this from now on ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    I see that IB variant made it to the article. My initial reaction: much too short, defeats the purpose. Also, I noticed the term "music drama", which was likely a point of contention. Jmar67 (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    If you look up the discussions when developing the template (s. fiirst in 2013 above), it was meant to be short, to minimise controversies. In this particular case, Siegfried is part of Der Ring des Nibelungen, so a parameter such as "based on" could be handled once, not for all. - Did you see when the infobox made it to the article? Yes, 2015. Have a guess: how many of the 59 reverted infoboxes have found their way back? (Or: how few are still without?) - You could simply look that up on the talk of WP:QAI/Infobox if that talk had not been deleted, but this is jumping ahead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    I guess 50 have been restored. Jmar67 (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    Close, 56. One left without is BWV 105, a pet of Mathsci, reverted with a delicious edit summary. We did things together in the meantime, such as Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan. He had severe health problems, and hasn't edited for months, - I am worried. Another is Joseph, with juicy discussions, 2013 and 2015, the latter of which caused my friend Montanabw (QAI member) to not succeed when going for admin. Such things can't be forgiven. The last one is the saddest case, Elgar's Cello Concerto, by Tim riley (also edit summary worth reading), with whom I had good relations (at least I thought) until someone else proclamed in 2016 that I drove him (Tim) away from Wikipedia. Author of Massenet, featured article the other day when I cautioned to never say anything while an article is on the Main page. - He returned, and we'll get there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 7 August In the workshop, a design for a simple infobox for Beethoven. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    That provided new light on the controversy. I now better understand some of the issues. Jmar67 (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    Can you name one issue that Beethoven made you better understand? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    The discussions on the metadata and the IB content vs. the article content. Not sure where I stand on the latter, but I have never viewed an IB from that perspective. Just concerned with mechanical problems in the IB itself. Jmar67 (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 8 August On my talk page, Nikkimaria explains the fine line between "not contentious" and "shouldn't be contentious". She reverted many infoboxes, but we have been respectful of each other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    As you mentioned, it is "not debatable" (which you could have said) vs. "not debated" (which is what "not contentious" means). Jmar67 (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 16 August Same place, a discussion started by Smerus, based on a misunderstanding, but resolved nicely. He was another one on the opposite end of the case, and we also have been on good terms. The third one was Kleinzach, whom you met if you looked at Bach, Wagner, the Sparrow Mass and Rigoletto. He stopped working for Project Opera, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Pause Today is Sunday, so let's pause for a moment and look at the situation in evidence and workshop, and wait for the arbitrators to write their decision, Worm That Turned and David Fuchs. Today's featured article Rossini is by Smerus and Tim riley, and nobody praised me yet for not mentioning the topic in peer review and FAC ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Before going to the decision, we should look at Peter Planyavsky, who was a composer but mostly an organist. What do you see, history and talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Or more precisly: which of the edits will be cited in the decision to ban a user? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 17 August Proposed decision is posted. (In case you are happy enough to not have seen such a thing, it follows a pattern from priciples to finding of fact to proposed remedy, and while arbs do much off-wiki, decision-making in cases is done in public. All arbs on a case support or oppose what the two who wrote the initial "decision" have proposed.) Look and see how the result is simple and supports what my dead friend wrote in his ultimate guide: "the Committee does not carefully examine the evidence and circumstances leading up to a case". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps now look at some reactions (on the talk of the same), the first coming the first day after publishing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • In case you missed it: I turned to Floquenbeam for help, User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 6#Hearish? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 19 August "We start today ...", I said it then, I say it now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 22 August by now several voted, what do you see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • At that point, I could add again: "Gerda Arendt thinks the infobox is over." - do you see the same? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Only, it wasn't. If you check the votes on the proposed decision, you'll see that the pile on banning Andy grew. It's just easy to take one strong player out of a game, reason or not. I got restless and argued that I'd just continue his work, which fired back to that then I of course also needed to be restricted. Spare me details please, it still hurts. On 28 August, we reached a point of a majority of one vote for banning Andy, and the voter cited one edit. I asked above which one. - I went to a concert that night, thinking that a wonderful collaboration was ended because of Andy trying to help me. Great concert, but I had black feelings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 2 September Ched (who had requested the case to ease things for infoboxes, remember?) left Wikipedia, disappointed. I left the two projects Classical music and Opera. Erik came to my talk, and the term cabal of the outcasts was coined. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 4 September Relief. Not that the arb (who is again an arb now) noticed his mistake, but another one changed his vote, saying he didn't want his vote alone let ban a productive content editor. Not without irony, he had been the one who had requested to ban Br'er Rabbit (remember, who wanted that so, but still ...). I thanked him for a good approach, and wasn't the first to do so. Something is wrong if the (almost life and death) destiny of an editor on this project rests on one vote, imho. And then if that one vote is based on an edit correctly saying MoS in the edit summary ... - I should let go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Gerda Arendt: I have a question: why don't those who don't prefer infoboxes just use custom CSS to remove them?

    But I guess the issue arises from an assertion that their preference is also shared by the average Wikipedia viewer?

    But on the other hand, I guess it could be said that I assert my preference for infoboxes by adding them to articles? I'm not sure I buy this, because infoboxes have been implemented fairly consistently across the encyclopedia. For me infoboxes are an expected feature of articles on Wikipedia. While the information is indeed intentionally redundant, I suspect an avid Wikipedia viewer will integrate the presence of infoboxes into their (sometimes subconsciousness) viewing workflow, either consistently browsing infoboxes or consistently ignoring them.

    But on the other hand, while it does seem like an issue of individual article ownership issues, I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to say every article should have an infobox. Still, I think infoboxes should be used where there is relevant data available to fill them. Retro (talk | contribs) 14:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

    You will have to ask them, not me. You can ask them individually because they are selected few. However, they are those who write our highest quality articles, so their preference counts a lot. Please (as you can read further up) never ever mention the word ownership (even if looks like it). - For me, infoboxes are useful, just like images, and so far nobody fought a war over the addition of images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    ps: look at The Rite of Spring, for the arguments, and user names behind them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Gerda Arendt: Regarding "ownership", I suppose I don't really mean it in the sense of WP:Ownership, but more in the sense of entrenched curation. But though I say that, this is not intended to be a negative reflection on any specific instance of infobox opposition, more a general rumination (I certainly would avoid using it in a debate about infoboxes, as it seems a bit ad hominem and ABF). Far be it from me to tell editors who have spent hours, maybe tens of hours researching and crafting an article the best way to present the information in that article.

    On an interesting note, despite the 2013 opposition to the infobox (which I have not yet read fully), an infobox was added in 2015 and remains to this day. Retro (talk | contribs) 15:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

    Yes, to all you said. The best debate about infoboxes is no debate. Waste of time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 9/11 The decision arrived, and I responded: "Ich steh hier und singe", which means, "I stand and sing", which is a quote from the funeral motet by Bach (which I sang on some 11 June, funeral 12 June), - in response to the raging of the world ("Tobe, Welt, und springe"). Also Kafka, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

during[edit]

  • 9 September Brianboulton - a leading FA writer, in case you don't know - tries something to please the critics of infobox opera, announced here. The wars could be over, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Cannot tell what he did. Jmar67 (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, you could follow his link, and look in the article history for "box" or the date, or here you go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
His link is to the article. Still do not understand your point: that he added the infobox? Why would that please the critics? Jmar67 (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
This was infobox opera added not by a despised member of QAI to an obsure short opera article, but one of the most respected FA writers adding it (on trial) to a featured article, - a first. Gerda Arendt thought the infobox wars were over ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Jetzetle. :-) You meant "silence the critics", I guess. Jmar67 (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

after[edit]

  • Several comments follow on my 2013 talk, one linking to this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 11 October I don't know if the writers of the decision are aware of it, but they intoduced the concept of ownership in the matter, by allowing me (but not Andy) to add infoboxes to articles I created. Next question: what is the meaning of "created". taken to ANI, but rejected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 22 November Benjamin Britten's centenary, a bright day, Britten for TFA, nice comment a day later by author Tim riley, DYK article Festival Te Deum, new article A Boy was Born. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 24 November For the first time, I am interested enough in arbitration election to word questions for the candidates, derived from my disbelief about how poor the reasoning for banning Andy had been (citing one edit that clearly was only application of MoS), how little the arbs had looked into details, and how little a margin they'd accept when banning a prolific content editor. The questions are at the bottom, and they were answered mostly well by the candidates. I didn't mention the reasoning about calling be out for battleground behaviour but didn't think it had been any better in the case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 25 December A Boy was Born is DYK for Christmas 2013, and the year closed peacefully. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 29 December so it seemed, until 28bytes, the arbitration candidate with the best result, also my admin of trust, resigned, first only as an arb, then leaving Wikipedia altogether. Sickening. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

2014[edit]

  • January Smerus and Nikkimaria come to my talk in friendly mood, and I begin wok on my first solo FA, Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172, to become the first FA with infobox Bach composition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 11 March FA - and congratulations from Bencherlite, Tim riley, SchroCat and Dr. Blofeld, - amazing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Summary: we are now at a stage where Andy can add no infoboxes, and I only for articles I created, which was interpreted often as "initiated", - I got problems when I expanded a stub (and sometimes had forgotten I did that). Nikkimaria had "created" several Bach compositions by splitting content from existing ones (example), making the split-off part infobox-free (although the content was often written by me). Never mind. - Discussions on project opera about infobox for an opera vs. composer navbox in that position go on, with Andy, Viva-Verdi and Meister und Margarita for infobox, Softlavender and Robert.Allen for traditional navbox, Michael Bednarek open, and Voce saying: "Conversely, I hope that we can avoid a doctrinaire approach, learn to be comfortable with occasional variations when they serve the interests of the article and the reader, and above all treat each other with courtesy and good humour." The wars could be over with that approach. - 2014 was also the year Hafspajen decorated my talk, and I made my last comment ever on the talk of our founder. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 19 July A strange request for Arbitration Enforcement (AE) lands on Andy's talk. I later asked the new arb candidates about it, User:Gerda Arendt/ACE 2014. Perhaps first check out the diff that was given as a violation of the restriction, in which Andy alledgedly added an infobox. Did he? While that seems sooooo clear, we had long discussions across two noticeboards, and the best comment was by Boing! said Zebedee. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 3 December The talk of the QAI infobox page is archived for the first time (after the whole page had been moved to my personal space by someone who is not a project member, but reverted, and archiving set up by Andy). Various discussions, and table of how many infoboxes were there for the templates the project had created. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 25 December Handel gets an infobox, which stays after a short back and forth (which I didn't notice until later, - busy elsewhere on Christmas Day) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 30 December We have a cute persiflage of the infobox wars, and I think they are over, and best remembered as a farce. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

2015[edit]

  • 7 February Another FA with an infobox: Jesus nahm zu sich die Zwölfe, BWV 22. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 19 February Chopin. After discussions, Brianboulton adds a short infobox. Gerda Arendt thinks the infobox wars are over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 22 February meeting Alakzi, all for accessibility, and witty, - still present in my edit notice and on the QAI page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 26 February We now leave opera and classical composers, and get to a different type of infobox conflict, example Laurence Olivier, where a discussion began in January. Common features: article had an infobox, but when it was improved to Featured article (FA) those who do so remove it. I made three comments in the discussion, one more than my allowence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 11 March Back at Chopin: Francis Schonken, simply counting votes, not seeing that some voters had changed their mind in the discussion below, restored the plain photo "per talk". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 14 March Remember the first edit by me called disruptive? Trying an infobox for Motezuma. Restored. Refrain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 16 March Because of the third edit on Laurence Olivier and more, I am cited to AE (arbitration enforcement) but dismissed.
  • 27 March The low point in the wars for me. I will be short because it still hurts. My friend Dreadstar protected the article for a week because of edit warring over what? Over the hidden notice saying "no infobox". He was called out for it, with a request to desysop him as he had abused his admin privileges when involved. He was disgusted enough to leave Wikipedia forever, leaving his user talk like this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 9 May Tired enough of AE to put pride aside, I appeal with arbcom, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Amendment request: Infoboxes (May 2015). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 10 May sad news on project opera, we learn that Viva-Verdi died, an opera lover from the Santa Fe Opera, with profound knowledge. He had given - remember the discussions in 2013? - infoboxes to all Verdi operas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 14 May Beethoven. After discussions going back to 2014, an infobox is installed as the community consensus to Beethoven's article, by Worm That Turned (who co-wrote the infoboxes case, remember). Gerda Arendt thinks the infobox wars are over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 27 May In honour of Viva-Verdi, Tim riley takes Falstaff (opera) to FAC, leaving the infobox in place. Refrain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 31 May I am set free from arbcom restrictions, other than having to propose infoboxes for articles I didn't create before actualy applying them to these articles. Promise: if no block for violating in 6 months, all restrictions will be lifted. DYK that I was never blocked so far, not in 10 years (today)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 24 August Now I can add infoboxes to Bach cantatas which I not "created", such as Geist und Seele wird verwirret, BWV 35, but see at what cost of debating every little parameter ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • 29 August Alakzi re-adds an infobox to Lohengrin (remember, the short discussion?) per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 121#Infoboxes - Wagner operas., closed 3 September. To see Alakzi's comments to the discussion - one of which is quoted in my edit notice and on the QAI page - you need to open the collapsed section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 24 September (mentioned earlier:) The Rfa of Montanabw (QAI member from the beginning) failed, mostly because of her comments in the discussion of the one opera from the arbcase which probably will never get an infobox, Joseph (opera). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • October There were a few articles following the pattern of Laurence Olivier: article has infobox for long time but those improving quality don't like it and delete it. I won't name the articles because it has been considered as inviting another debate. One of these was prepared for the person's centenary in December, and the debate was only about collapsed vs. uncollapsed. Nontheless, I received the honour to be called a monster for thinking a revert of a long-standing infobox might deserve a discussion (1 Oct), and replied by citing Germany's peaceful Monday demonstrations (4 Oct, thread @Gerda). I made a Halloween card. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 30 November "Sanction expired" is the header of the information that I should be a normal editor again. Refrain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 1 December I happily archive most infobox-related links from my user page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 31 December The year ends with impressive numbers of infoboxes for musical composition (498 / 202 / 184), many compositions by Jean Sibelius for his anniversary, including Islossningen i Uleå älv, breaking of the ice ;) - Refrain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

2016[edit]

  • Ach Gott, wie manches Herzeleid (Oh God, how much heartache) becomes a theme of the year. Negative: dear people die. Positive: The article is one of more to come which I didn't create, but took to GA quality, and thus - per the "new owner's bonus" seen in Laurence Olivier - could add an infobox to. Refrain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 5 January Two people who died, and played a role in my life, were Pierre Boulez and Nikolaus Harnoncourt. While Harnoncourt had an infobox since August 2015, I tried one for Boulez, reverted, and the resulting discussions on both the article talk (Talk:Pierre Boulez/Archive 1#Infobox) and Project:Composers (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 40) made me decide to never ever try that again. When I said "waste of time" later, I meant those discussions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 18 January Notice that Dreadstar died. Remember: who quit over LO. No way to heal that unfairness. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 14 March A user added an infobox to Peter Maxwell Davies, and after revert and discussion, it was accepted. Refrain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 21 March I try to convince arbcom that restrictions for Andy are no longer needed, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Amendment request: Infoboxes (April 2016), succesfully so. Refrain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 11 July We loose Alakzi. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 16 July 2016 was the centenary of Max Reger's death. I wrote an FA for the occasion, Der 100. Psalm, and improved his article, then added an infobox. You will not be surprised that even in this case - where I had done the improving - I had to fight a revert by longish talk page discussion. But won. Refrain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 1 August Gustav Holst. After a discussion about the usual hidden notice on composers' articles, I try to find out how people think, because there was no "consensus" yet established about infobox or not. Closed as no consensus 6 weeks later, with some remarkable comments in the discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 29 August The QAI talk infobox is proposed to be deleted. A list (see below) strictly of articles where infoboxes were reverted is described as "victimizing" editors. Therefore ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 31 August The QAI talk is archived a second time: 498 infoboxes musical composition, + 202 Bach, + 184 opera. Of the infoboxes reported as reverted during the infoboxes arb case, only 2 are still without infobox, and 1 is to date (and probably ever shall be, given the main author's preference). Refrain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 1 September Wake-up call. I see sarcastic "congrats" addressed at my name, and get from the context that Tim riley left Wikipedia, and I am blamed for it, first by somone else, then by himself, and - needless to say - by his friends. To this day, I don't know how, - somehow probably related to the list of reverted infoboxes. Sad. Remember: always highly esteemed as a FA writer, with collaboration on Messiah (Handel) and a GA review for Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, especially esteemed for expanding Falstaff (opera) in memory of Viva-Verdi and leaving his infobox in place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 21 September "There is consensus that the page is furthering the infobox wars, whether or not that was the intention." is the edit summary for deleting the QAI infoboxes talk. This means that some people still think that there wars. Sad. These people don't like I list of the infoboxes they reverted. No surprise, actually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

2017[edit]

2018[edit]

  • Psalms. The project begun is to improve psalm articles, not 1 2 3 but in the order links are seen in articles. The first causes an infobox discussion which spills to my talk, but it turns silent, and by now all advanced psalm articles have an infobox, see Psalm 70. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • 12 October "Yay!", or: "And, no, there haven't been infobox squabbles in ages. I personally use them all the time now for biographies and operas. There are a few diehards left, but the general attitude from both perspectives seems to have settled on live and let live." - Refrain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

2019[edit]

  • Nice conclusion, isn't it? As of today, we have 1,750 infoboxes musical composition, 222 Bach composition and 1,055 opera. Not bad ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • One more: RexxS, a strong supporter of accessibility, becomes an admin. He wrote User:RexxS/Infobox factors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

IPA pronunciations[edit]

@Gerda Arendt, LouisAlain, and Elmidae: I recently tried my hand at adding an IPA template for Hans Günter Nöcker. It now occurs to me that many of the German-titled articles lack such templates. I would be willing to add them where I think they would be helpful, such as Bundesjugendorchester, provided that a native speaker checks them. Einwände? Jmar67 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know my way around IPA, I'm afraid, so I would be quite useless for checking these... when one isn't acquainted with the details, they readily "sound about right", which probably isn't quite sufficient :) As a general proposition, sure, go for it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
You could ask the Help desk where certainly s.o will help you. LouisAlain (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I can generate the template, but it's a question of having a native speaker look at it and judge whether it gives the right pronunciation and stress. See Help:IPA/Standard German for the symbols, sample German words, and English approximations. In fact, the finished template links to this page. I have now updated BJO as an initial step. Jmar67 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm no friend of IPA, at least where it normally is, after the name, then IPA, then translation, then - finally - what it is. Could they go to a footnote, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I have always seen IPA shown like this in the lead. Seems reasonable. Jmar67 (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Same for me, but look at Peter and the Wolf and see how long it takes until we even read that it's a composition, and by whom. And that is a short title. If at least it had an infobox ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed that you are "impatient" :) in that regard, but I appreciate the additional info up front. Jmar67 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Why a "t" for the end of "jugend"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that's the type of feedback I wanted. Would you pronounce as "d"? I thought it was closer to "t" (not voiced) if not stressed. That's how I would say it. The Duden audio seems to agree. See also note 2 on the help page. Jmar67 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
It's like "Sand" and "Land" which are somewhat like English (not the vowel, of course). May vary with dialect how hard the ending sound is, softer than "bunt". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
By the way, how do you pronounce the end of your last name? Jmar67 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
"t", you don' hear the "d". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not familiar with IPA, but can tell you that the "ch" in Bach is a completely different sound from the "ch" in Verzeichnis. Both don't occur in English, while I think "x" is common in English, as in "six". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I should have recognized this. There are two pronunciations given for "ch", one for "nach" and one for "ich" and "durch". I suspect Verzeichnis should be the latter. The "x" represents "nach". "Six" would be "ks". Jmar67 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Feedback might be better on the article's talk page, but I do appreciate it. Jmar67 (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I better leave my ignorance for IPA here than expose it openly. The "x" sound (ks) is so different from the "ch" as in Bach that I wonder if others won't derive "Baks" reading the IPA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
That is a risk, but most interested readers would know how to pronounce Bach already. Seeing the other "strange" characters will hopefully take them to the help page if they have any questions. I find the IPA fairly easy, but you should not worry about "exposing yourself". Once you get used to it, you can sound like an expert. And feedback from a native speaker is essential for quality. Jmar67 (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I hear radio speakers pronounce his name wrong (too long vowel, k-sound in the end) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The "listen" in his article is fine. I am not sure about "zeich", especially the vowel which is a diphthong, - missing the "i" part. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that myself while doing Mädchenkantorei Limburg and fixed it. I am just going to do the ones I think people might really stumble over. Jmar67 (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
for that article: the first vowel is a straightforward ä sound, is that the one you gave it? (Where's the list, for me to check without asking you. The "o" is also long, should that show. The stresses are on "Mäd" and "rei". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Click on the IPA to get the list. I will investigate. "Always learning." Have now changed per your suggestions. For some reason, when I edit in the desktop view I am being logged out and the edit uses my IP. Jmar67 (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
One more question in the Kantorei: in Limburg Cathedral? Would be "in the cathedral", no? And Limburg just says which cathedral. It's not really a name, just a shortcut, because the official name would be too long. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
That's somewhat controversial. :-) I prefer it with "at" and without article since it is effectively a proper name (treated that way as the article title). There was a similar complaint on WP:ERRORS recently about Canterbury Cathedral, preferring no article. Jmar67 (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

ä[edit]

The volwel sound in Wächter is as in chair (but short), however, the short ä has "Ende" and "hätte" which have completely different sounds, "Ende" like "Wette". For the short a, why not say "but" which seems really close, instead of "father (but short)"?

Bach cantata and related articles[edit]

@Gerda Arendt: Would like to discuss this informally. I do think a move is desirable, but it might be better to have the discussion here, as we both find time to do it. I want in particular to make sure I understand your reasoning for retaining the current title. Jmar67 (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The most important person to include when it comes to precision of article names is JHunterJ. The article title Bach cantata has been stable for years which is one of my reasons to oppose a move. I'd be more intersted in moving Mass for the Dresden court (Bach). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
What is the issue there, not German? Has it been discussed? Jmar67 (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
We have the title page, it says "Missa", we could say (as before) Missa in B minor (Bach), until User:Francis Schonken moved it (31 October 2014), with whom to discuss a lifetime is too short. It would clarify that this not any mass but the Kyrie and Gloria which became part of the Mass in B minor. It could also be called Missa in B minor, BWV 232a or Missa, BWV 232 I, and variations. Francis is blocked, though, and I kind of find it unfair to do anything while he's away (September). All I wanted to say is that we have worse titles than Bach cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
About "Bach cantata": German WP has "Bachkantate" redirecting to "Kantaten (Bach)". I doubt that the stability of the English title is due to consensus that it is valid but rather only that others have given up (or are no longer active). There was strong but mostly polite opposition in the last discussion. I might favor the current title if there were a qualifier such as "genre" or "musical form" to soften the strong impression that Bach wrote only one, which is the main problem. Again, just trying to understand your position. Jmar67 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the question is regarding precision for this topic, but Bach cantata is an unqualified title, so it's fine from a precision point of view, and Cantata (Bach) would be worth qualifying, but English Wikipedia prefers "natural" disambiguation to parenthetical disambiguation, so Bach cantata is preferred over Cantata (Bach). Mass for the Dresden court (Bach) is wrong from a precision point of view, since Mass for the Dresden court doesn't exist, so the disambiguator is not disambiguating anything. It should be moved: if there's a better title for it (such as Missa in B minor, BWV 232a or Missa, BWV 232 I), to that title, if not, to Mass for the Dresden court. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Or Mass for the Dresden court should be created as a topic article or a disambiguation page or a redirect, if the Bach composition is not its primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, both. There is no topic. It is this piece, which isn't even a complete mass, only Kyrie and Gloria, the first two of five sections of a complete mass. That is what Bach called a Missa, as the title page says. Francis was afraid that Missa and Mass is not sufficiently different. I don't know where he got the present title from. Yes, it was written for and dedicated to the Elector's court in Dresden, but it's not really a title. I'll boldly move and see what happens. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Cool. For what it's worth, "Missa" and "Mass" are sufficiently different (WP:SMALLDETAILS), with any potential confusion handled with hatnotes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I cannot comment. Please do what you think is right. Jmar67 (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. In my view, the problem with "Bach cantata" concerns the title vs. the content of the article. As the article is currently structured, the title would be more appropriate in the plural: "Bach cantatas". The equivalent German WP article title (translated) is "Cantatas (Bach)". I have no problem using "Bach cantatas" on our side. However, If the article were to clearly focus on the specific type of cantata Bach wrote, then "Bach cantata" is ostensibly more appropriate. But it is not precise in that it does not sufficiently convey the concept of "type". To most people coming to the page (including myself), the first impression is "But he wrote more than one!" In the interest of precision, a qualifier is needed. My preference at the moment is to retain the article content as it is and move the page to "Bach cantatas". The specialized term "Bach cantata" can then be discussed in the article. Jmar67 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Then Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) might apply, particularly the second bullet about things that are distinct but usually considered as a set. But this is really a good topic for the article talk page, either as a requested move or not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I had been trying to find that discussion, which Gerda had alluded to once. I wanted to talk "privately" with her before suggesting an official RM. Hope this thread does not violate any WP policy. Jmar67 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Not that I know of. But I guess I don't see the benefit of it either. The eventual consensus will out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
For a title Bach cantatas, I'd expect speaking about them (plural), but the main concern of the article is to explain what one cantata is, typically linked from an individual cantata, singular, of course. If it was a plural, every link would have to be piped. Not worth discussing, imho. - At present, the plural title redirects to the list of all, which I think is fair. We have several dedicated articles to the cantata cycles, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── A good compromise solution would be Cantata (Bach), justified by the singular/plural ambiguity of Bach cantata. There are also Church cantata (Bach) and Weimar cantata (Bach) as precedents. The question also arises as to whether the latter need to be separate articles. Jmar67 (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a good compromise, as JHunterJ and I explained above, for different reasons. Weimar cantata needs the sperate article, parallel to the other 4 cantata cycle articles. Church cantata (Bach) has the specifics of Bach's church cantatas vs. Church cantata in general. Not without irony, I typically link to the latter for Bach compositions, because it has readings and hymns. Bach's chorale cantatas are unlike any other chorale cantatas, and certainly deserve their own article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC) All these articles - not Bach cantata - are by the absent Francis Schonken, so let's be polite and not touch them. --
If JHunterJ is still opposed to Cantata (Bach), currently a redirect, as the actual article title, I cannot say any more. Jmar67 (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
"JHunterJ is still opposed" → "the article titling policy is still consensus". A good compromise might be a WP:RM to see if there's consensus for WP:IAR in this case to use the parenthetical disambiguation instead of the natural disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Expansion?[edit]

@Gerda Arendt: de:Hermann Weil (Sänger) on DYK today. Our article is Hermann Wilhelm Weil. Jmar67 (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Eventually, booked for a while ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Bagger 1473[edit]

Would you be willing to take a look at the above article and see if you can find any additional sources? I suspect that the subject is not notable, based on what I could see from its German Wikipedia entry, but I wanted to check if you can find other German-language sources before I open an AfD. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lord Bolingbroke and Gerda Arendt: I will see what I can find. May take a week or so. Gerda may be able to help. Jmar67 (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks like local prominence to me. To what would it be connected. But I would just leave it as it is, - why delete? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...[edit]

May
Raps, Ehrenbach.jpg
Rapeseed
... with thanks from QAI

... for improving article quality in May! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

... and for adding to the Six Motets, Op. 82 (Kiel)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

George Beauchamp[edit]

Hi!, thanks so much for your help. I'm confused and need help. Many sources say he died in 1944 during World War II and some say he died in 1965. What's true? I already asked another user but would like more than one opinion. Thank you. Best wishes. --LLcentury (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@LLcentury: Please see reply on article talk page. Jmar67 (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see it, should I clear my cache? --LLcentury (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to help me (not mandatory) could you help me "undraft" the article? I don't understand what must I do. Thanks again for your patience. --LLcentury (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I see that copyright violation is alleged, which seems to say that some text is copied verbatim from the refs. I have not dealt with this before but would be willing to see what I can do. It may just be a question of paraphrasing. I understand you are not a native speaker, and I do not have much time to rewrite articles. Will get back to you. It's an interesting topic. Jmar67 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've done my best. Still need help citing a book, Can't fix the error. May you help me with that last thing please? --LLcentury (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

YES! We've done it man! THANK YOU SO MUCH! --LLcentury (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for so much asking you for help, but really, you're the only one helping me, I've added more sources, several more to disputed info. Do you think the tag is removable? And please, if you wish to do so, I invite you to see my post on the article's talk page expressing my feelings. --LLcentury (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
For your immense help improving George Beauchamp (RMS Titanic) in technical issues I don't understand. Best wishes. LLcentury (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jmar67. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Hallo Ü-Wagen.
Message added 03:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {} or {} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...[edit]

June
Kornblumen, Ehrenbach.jpg
cornflowers
... with thanks from QAI

... for article improvements in June! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...[edit]

July
Lilien, Botanischer Garten Münster.jpg
... with thanks from QAI

... for improving article quality in July! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-36[edit]

09:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Clara Schumann[edit]

Clara Schumann's bicentary is tomorrow, I should have looked earlier ... - will you watch, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Ref 39 should read "An Artist's Life ...". Cannot find. Jmar67 (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Gefunden. Jmar67 (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! - I was out and no time to search yet. Thanks for thorough ce! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...[edit]

September
Herbstzeitlose, Neuhof.jpg
meadow saffron

.. for improving articles in September! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-40[edit]

16:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-41[edit]

15:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-42[edit]

23:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Present perfect[edit]

Present perfect tense is hard for Germans. Please explain. I thought it is used for things that began in the past but are ongoing, such as "they have made recordings, including 1 2 3". However, in "they made 3 recordings", that's past, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I was going to mention this on yours. Present perfect is also past but focuses on the present. Here, it is used frequently in the article. The idea is that they could produce more albums in the future. Jmar67 (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The math seems wrong though, - is that not disturbing to a reader in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Do not understand. BTW: German often uses PP where we would use the simple past. That is a special point in translations. Jmar67 (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)