User talk:Kleinzach/Archive 23

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

Bot run

I've completed the 50 edit trial. I started just by parsing the parameters from other templates. Of the 134 articles scanned 50 were assessed as start by another project and assessed by the bot, 15 had no assessments on the page, 64 contained assessments other than Start, and 5 had no class parameter on the page (ie {{Composers}}). I manually checked every edit before I OK'ed them so there shouldn't be any problems. Results at Special:Contributions/ShepBot. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm back and I've checked the auto-ranked articles. All clean, no problems. I see that all of them have already been rated as start by other projects, so I assume that that is how the bot script was written, right? If so, can we finish the bot run on that basis? Best. --Kleinzach 07:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As above, I started with banners that already had start class, which would help me keep out most of the false positives when I get to running on the other batch (ones without any class). I'll finish the bot run on your basis of just parameter scraping, then report back. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, so I assume we will do a second bot run later for the ones without other project ratings. --Kleinzach 01:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes. Yes of course! Sorry I haven't dropped by, my program is on the fritz after an update and I'm trying to get a stable version. Exams are finshed finally, so I should be able to get everything back in shape soon. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much finished assessing. 1500+ edits made. What should I do if there is more than one assessment? Select the highest or leave it unassessed? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. If there are different assessments by different projects we can leave the article unassessed for 'human' ranking. --Kleinzach 02:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. I found a few articles that contain a stub template and will auto-stub them. After that I should be done. §hep • Talk 02:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we still have about 850-odd unassessed articles. I been through about 20 of these and I've found that almost all of them have wrong/out of date 'stub' ratings from the Biography Project. Perhaps we could ignore the Biography banners and rate all of these as 'Start' unless there is a stub tag on the article page?--Kleinzach 02:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That could be possible. Should I also ignore other classes or just stub? I'm going to be off in about 10 minutes, 3 exams tomorrow and I should porbably study a bit, but I should be able to look at this in depth tomorrow evening. §hep • Talk 02:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's just ignore Biography stubs - I think that will account for most of them. Good luck with your exams. --Kleinzach 02:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Can we resume our work on this? --Kleinzach 08:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Knew I was forgetting something, I really need to get some sort of new reminder system. Yes, I'll look into it. §hep • Talk 21:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm having some issues with my code and I'm not sure what's not working with it. Figures. §hepTalk 00:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this related to Template:Composers? We've been having problems with this. I've asked Alanbly about this, see below under Re: Template:Composers. --Kleinzach 00:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No. The biogrpahy project likes to set their templates on pages all funky like:

{{WPBIO
|living=yes
|class=Whatever
|etc. etc.
}}

and for some reason I can't pull the class out of it, it shouldn't be that hard...somethings not right (but it's definitely on my end). §hepTalk 00:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but we decided to just ignore the Biography Project ratings because they are unreliable, see above 14 January. --Kleinzach 00:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I know. The way they're setup, it can't read what banner the assessment is in. I can't catch multi-lines and I don't want to skip an article because I can't read the assessment. To the program right now a Stub-Class BIO might as well be a Start-Class OPERA if it's in the above setup. §hepTalk 00:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, can you think of another approach to reduce Category:Unassessed Composers articles? If we can get the number to say less than 100 we can do them by hand. --Kleinzach 00:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm tryin' my best. My brain can only do so much. §hepTalk 01:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

List checks

I should have some time for it this week, starting this afternoon. --GuillaumeTell 11:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I started this evening, and Gassmann took me over an hour - have a look. I'll try to make a point of doing at least one or two a day.--GuillaumeTell 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
That's excellent. If you have a moment could you have a look at List of operas by Flotow? This was a (rare) case where I didn't trust Grove. --Kleinzach 23:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that tomorrow - of course our time zones are rather out of synch. --GuillaumeTell 00:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Having finished with Gluck, I thought that I'd mention what I'm doing (and by implication what I'm not doing!). I'm checking against the list in Grove Opera to see if any operas have been omitted from the list. I'm casting an eye briefly over the 1st performance dates in case Grove has better information, but I'm not checking all the dates against Grove. I'm adding links to theatres with WP entries (quite a lot of those). I'm checking the sorting of all columns - I was relieved to find that when a theatre name is piped, the entries are sorted by what appears in the public display rather than by the actual links. That's all, except if I spot a typo. I'll deal with Flotow later today. --GuillaumeTell 15:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. That's very thorough. I think this division of labour is working well. --Kleinzach 01:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW, you may be interested in my 'interview' here. --Kleinzach 00:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. I didn't realise that you'd moved up a level, as it were. --GuillaumeTell 15:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been mostly out of action for the whole of last week - wireless networking problems involving lots of time-wasting on helplines and having to drag a lot of heavy kit around the flat to work out where best to re-site it. Anyway, I also got bogged down in Flotow (including thinking "why am I doing this? - is anybody actually interested in it?"). Once I'm in a stable position, I'll start again and do Handel, but only along the lines indicated above, and will then select lists according to the amount of interest that I have in them. --GuillaumeTell 19:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I find these lists equally interesting, perhaps motivated by a general feeling that modern Anglo audiences don't really understand that they are only looking at the tip of the iceberg and have a distorted view of what opera is like - particularly in the late 18th century. So these lists have value for opera history rather than practical info for opera goers. Re the ugly Handel shenanigans. I'm happier when I don't have to spend three-quarters of my time defending the list from jealous, bitter would be 'owners'. Anyway do work on whichever list interests you - there are so many. --Kleinzach 23:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Word break

Can we break Sub/divisions? There are rules on breaking words — though I don't have them in front of me — and I think Subdi — visions is unusual. --Kleinzach 05:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Breaking "Sub-divisions" doesn't achieve much of a column width reduction, "Subdi-visions" distributes the two parts more evenly.
I'm no expert in the rules of breaking words into syllables and late on a Thursday afternoon before a long weekend I don't feel much like reviewing the literature on hyphenation algorithms. At this time, I hyphenate by trying to sound the syllables of a word, and in this case I get "sub-di-vi-sions"; the last one sounds a bit iffy (strangely, "sub-di-vi-si-ons" sounds less iffy — one can hear this kind of thing occasi-onally, maybe in G&S?), but the first two seem perfectly valid. Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a rule that words should not be broken in the middle of a syllable - but also that going by etymology is desirable. (There's a section on 'Division of Words' In Hart's Rules.) In any case, i think the normal pronunciation is sub-div-izhn. No? --Kleinzach 09:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course words should not be broken in the middle of syllables; my point is that the syllables of "subdivision" are: sub-di-vi-sion. I've now looked it up in 3 dictionaries: OUP's The Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 2nd ed. 1963; Langenscheidts Taschenwörterbuch, 30th ed. 1962; The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English sub·di·vi·sion; they all agree. Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm not being clear enough. It's not just the syllables — it's etymology as well. Sub / division is both a syllable break and an etymology break. Should we ask GT to decide? --Kleinzach 04:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what needs to be decided. Breaking after "Sub" doesn't achieve a sufficient narrowing of the column; three dictionaries allow the breaks sub·di·vi·sion. The fact that the word consists of two distinct Latin roots doesn't prevent it from being divided in further places. (it's not like Helicopter where etymology and spoken sound contradict each other (etym: Helico·pter [ἕλικ] & [πτερόν] vs. spoken Heli·copter). Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've used Sub/division on Wenzel_Müller and it looks fine. What do you think? --Kleinzach 07:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it doesn't matter much in tables which are not extremely short of horizontal space — the difference is probably not more than 1.5 mm. However, I found a much more suitable glyph to indicate syllable breaks: the HTML "soft hyphen": named: ­ or number: ­. I used it on the Wenzel page to good effect: it actually disappears if the browser window is wide enough — marvellous. (I've put it in the sample table header above; you can observe its operation if you narrow or widen your browser window of this page.) Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't say that Subdi/vision as displayed above delights the eye, and indeed it looks really ugly to me. If it's just a matter of 1.5 mm, then it isn't going to be all that significant, but I'd certainly cast my vote for putting the soft hyphen between the b and the d. Then again, try forgetting the syllables and just see what looks good and what looks silly - maybe between the v and the i might be worth trying as an alternative? --GuillaumeTell 21:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC) (still toiling away over the Handel list and associated articles, though I'll be away from Thursday to Monday)
The 'soft hyphen' is a really good idea. I've added it to most of the articles - between the b and d. Thanks to both of you. Also thanks to GT for taking on Handel. --Kleinzach 01:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Template:Composers

Hi. I think you may remember working on this one. It's been changed recently and we've had a strange problem with the way the ratings /Comments assessments pages display. I wonder if you would have a moment to look at it? (We've taken off the protection to make this easier.)

I also wonder whether we might also add a (small-sized) text about assessments in the lower section of the box? If that's possibility I'll explain more. Best. --Kleinzach 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't using the COMMENTS tag so I've added it. It also can "suggest" that comments be added by adding '|COMMENT_FORCE = yes' to the banner. Let me know if something else is needed. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks good. Three questions though:
1. We have a new category called 'Composers articles with comments'. Can we delete this? I don't think we want it.
2. The formatting of the Assessment within the banner has unravelled with the heading turning back into 'equals' signs, for example see Talk:Colinet de Lannoy with the banner switched to 'show'. I guess this is a Comments page problem rather than one with the banner, but do you have any idea how we can solve it?
3. The TOC of the Comments page is displayed on the article talk page, see Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart TOC section 11. I have now idea why this is. Maybe nothing to do with the banner, but I'd be grateful if you could have a look. (Some other strange effects have been seen recently, maybe due to the WPBannerMeta that was added. )
Thanks. --Kleinzach 07:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
(1) Yes you can delete it if you like (it goes with the COMMENT_CAT param. (2) I have no Idea as it seems to work on some pages and not on others. I tried removing everything but the first heading and it still doesn't work so I can only presume it's an internal issue and should be reported at the meta template. (3) Same here, no clue. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Adam McCormick (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
(1) I couldn't find COMMENT_CAT, but anyway . . . (2), (3) I think I'd prefer to revert to your original, stable, no problem version as it existed in November, but how could we add comments to it? --Kleinzach 08:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Composer banners switched to show are now displaying not one but two TOCs! See Talk:Colinet de Lannoy. --Kleinzach 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Contemporary music

Hello Klein, sorry I never responded to your message. My academic life has entered a new stage, and I’m now all but dormant on Wikipedia. I’m not sure how the scope of Contemporary Music could be narrowed. Basically the problem is that editors who work in this field are not willing to collaborate on projects (improving Contemporary classical music for instance). It may simply be that people don’t check the project page. If this is the case a monthly newsletter might help. . . I’m glad to see there has been some discussion about the future of the project at least. I’ll do what I can. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a frustrating situation. There really is a need for a niche project to undertake articles abut contemporary music that fall between the cracks of the Composers, Opera and Classical Music projects, but the present setup doesn't have the clear sense of purpose that the other projects have. Are you willing to support some radical changes aimed at reviving the project? --Kleinzach 00:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo redirect Ruslan and Ludmila

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ruslan and Ludmila, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ruslan and Ludmila is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ruslan and Ludmila, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, leave this your message if you not agreeing with me. Cheers. — Al3xil ✉ 09:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's any problem. However I'm confused about Ludmila/Lyudmila. Can you explain which is preferred on WP? Maybe we should change the spelling for the opera and the film? --Kleinzach 04:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know about the correct spelling of Ludmila/Lyudmila (I changed the second variant as a redirect to the poem). Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian says that the second variant is correct, but the poem title in Old Russian orthography and the first title can be more established. May be you should leave your opinion about it in Talk:Ruslan and Ludmila#Ludmila vs. Lyudmila. — Al3xil ✉ 18:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've done that. As I explain, Lyudmila is the spelling in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera. --Kleinzach 03:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Slayer MfD

It turns out that it needed another pipe and the page name like this and is now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Slayer (2nd nomination). That is not the most obvious thing, I had to check a previous 2nd nomination to see how, so I updated the instructions at the MfD page. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. --Kleinzach 04:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Opéra comique

A tag has been placed on Opéra comique, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Flapperistic (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(copied from Flapperistic's talk page): May I ask why you put this up for deletion. It's a short article but not very short and many, many articles link to it. Also please note that you have to put new messages at the foot of user pages. --Kleinzach 23:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Melodrama

Well done with that! I have found some advice on how to go in the event that our friend continues against the consensus. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good. In the past DP has quit just before getting to the ANI stage. We'll see what happens in this case. Regards. --Kleinzach 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Music appreciation class

Maybe it's cabin fever or spring fever. Or even just a boring music appreciation class. (Or classes, since it appears to be widespread. Synchronized syllabi?)   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments/TOC problem

Now that I'm back from my wikibreak, I'll reprise my response to your question about changing the headers to use div or similar style tricks instead of wiki headers. This is certainly doable, but all the existing reviews will need to be retrofitted (possibly doable by a bot or AWB-assisted editor). I can change the model review to use something else, so future reviews won't have the problem. Magic♪piano 02:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The technical discussions got quite complicated while you were away. Equazcion did some work on an example: see Talk:George Frideric Handel/Comments. --Kleinzach 02:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
That change was more or less what I had in mind to get around the problem. I've changed the model review already. Magic♪piano 13:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kleinzach/Archive_23&oldid=1146386345"