User talk:GuillaumeTell

Sir Roger Clifford: hanged or hung?

See my latest three comments on the York Castle talk page. I now lean towards hung, but the evidence is scarce, and ambiguous. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Layerthorpe

Hi - many thanks for a very interesting and informative article. I know the area well, having commuted through it more times than I care to think about before I left York. My only criticism of the is that it is unreferenced - if you could add your sources this would make the article even better.

On an unrelated note, have you considered archiving this talk pages? 110 sections dating back nearly two years is rather a lot!

Thanks again for your contributions. – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UoL ref

Your ref added today to UoL seems to be about colour palette rather than BH? PamD (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have mended it. PamD (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rossini's work

I totally agree with you but I just added the frame based on the roles written in the article. I do not have much ref to Rossini's works - Jay (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rearranged Il viaggio a Reims and Mosè in Egitto, the ref taken from the internet. I am not sure whether they correct. - Jay (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Mozart Operas wide

A tag has been placed on Template:Mozart Operas wide requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage typo

"a very substantially contribution"! PamD (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her Majesty's Theatre

Thanks for all your input. Do you have further comments on the article? If not, are you ready to support the FA nomination? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. It would be tricky to put subheadings in amongst all the images. At this point, after it has been reviewed by so many editors at the FA review, I am afraid to fool around with the article structure, since one of the important criteria for advancement to FA is that it must have settled down and become "stable". Perhaps in the future, a reorganization of the section, such as you suggest, could be discussed. Let's see what Kbthompson thinks, but I have seen him say in other talk page messages that he is loath to shake up the article any further until the FA review is concluded. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi y'all. Let's divide that section by period of management, but later. The ballet and opera were performed concurrently (alternate seasons?), so, difficult to untangle them. Easier to identify the management - but even then, they seemed to enjoy limited 'repeat' engagements in some cases. Thank you for all your good sense and valuable suggestions. They are much appreciated. Kbthompson (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made clear that Haymarket Opera House is an informal name. I suspect the practise grew as an antonym to the Covent Garden Opera House - another building cursed with a string of informal epithets. It wouldn't be too difficult to divide the section by Taylor, Ebbers, Laporte, Lumley, Mappleson. The only criticism of that would be too few paragraphs in each section. Maybe groups Laporte and Lumley together under the Revolutionary committee? Kbthompson (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a collaboration. Thanks for providing some sanity in this process! Kbthompson (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adina

Sounds good to me. Thanks for the feedback.Nrswanson (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tchaikovsky operas template

Hi! Thanks for the explanatory note. I just thought it might be easier to deal with if the template itself cleared out the newlines, so that people who use in it don't have to do any special formatting in the articles themselves. My edit to the template seems to have worked, at least; see Iolanthe, which used to have two blank lines at the top and doesn't anymore. What do you think? --Masamage ♫ 01:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments: speculative idea . . .

I've been wondering how assessments might be implemented etc. IMO the only way feasible would be to bot-mark all non-stubs (also non GA/FA) as 'Start' class and then promote them individually. Is that something you could support? (With 4,100 articles we need a plan that is practical.) -- Kleinzach (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I think that would be sensible basis for moving forward on assessments. Would you make a proposal to the project?

I agree with all your suggestions, except re: "articles where another project has awarded a class other than Start . . . It would seem to me to be polite to replicate any already-awarded class" . That might be technically difficult to do. If the notice says the assessment is made automatically, there should be no misunderstandings. (Also many assessments by other projects tend to be poorly considered.) Another thing I'd suggest putting aside until later is the importance scale. I think that will complicate things if it is included in the initial proposal. -- Kleinzach (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of major minors

Perhaps you would like to have a look at the list Folantin and I have done at: User:Folantin/Userspace_Folantin4 ? Perhaps you would like to add some titles? -- Kleinzach (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new Oxbridge user box

GuillaumeTell...I am currently in the process of writing a user box for all of the colleges that are part of Oxbridge. This template is meant to replace your current college template. Please take a look at the work in progress and comment on it. My main concerns are college abbreviations and color choice. I am using scarf colors for the colleges. Thank you. - LA @ 16:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Project welcome doc

I've drafted a welcome doc for new project members. It's here. Let me know if you have any comments - or edit directly on the draft if you prefer. Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I've added something about references. -- Kleinzach (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments . . . part two

Now that CotM April is out of the way do you want to launch the assessments discussion? Or would you like me to do? Or should I do a draft to show you? Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the draft. The first two paragraphs are fine, no problems. I am concerned, however that we may be pushing our luck in para 3. How about putting more emphasis on gradualism and working out the details (numbers of assessors, points scale etc.) later. Two reasons. One - we don't want it rejected by the project. Two - Personally, I'm not going to have time to be involved in the actual assessing in the way I was with the Wagner project. What do you think? Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's good now. Let's post it and see if we can establish a consensus in favour and then get the technicalities worked out with SatyrTN. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait until you get back. (Last time I confused SatyrTN if you remember!) This will also give the project a chance to digest the idea. -- Kleinzach (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still no comments so I guess that's a green light for going ahead with the bot marking of 'start articles'. Would you like to talk to SatyrTN? After that's finished we can maybe pressgang people into having a real discussion about assessments. BTW I have marked up some FAs, GAs etc as FA/GA, e.g. List of major opera composers, Agrippina (opera), Venus and Adonis (opera), to make it easier for the bot. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid SatyrTN is getting more and more popular. It's becoming more and more difficult to politely wait one's turn. I had the same problem last time I contacted him February. So yes I think it's necessary to try again. --Kleinzach (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SatyrTN seems really busy, doesn't he? Should I give him a double ping? What are our other options, I wonder? Are there any other similar bots? --Kleinzach (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see he hasn't been online for the past three days so I think we might wait until he's back . . . I can't remember where we originally found him, but it wasn't Bot Requests as far as I know.--Kleinzach (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's now been off for a week - without putting any notice on his userpage. Maybe it's time to think about Bot Requests? --Kleinzach (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm heavily involved in the big debate about getting rid of the 50,000 image placeholders (the sllhouette 'No Free Image' things) here so I'd really appreciate it if you can handle it. I imagine it will be tricky to explain it all to a new bot, but maybe there will be no alternative. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singer categories

If you have a moment I'd be grateful if you could have a look at this as well. It's a similar situation to the assessments in that I'm hoping to take a step forward in sorting out a problem, rather than trying to do it all at once (and going into gridlock). Similar also in that I have a guru lined up to do it all automatically - if the idea is accepted. Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The move from Sopranos etc. to Operatic sopranos (plus Oratorio sopranos, Jazz Sopranos and whatever) is intended to be a non-controversial step forward to a more specific cat. I hope it's something we can all agree on - i.e. that it's better to depopulate the top level (Sopranos etc.) and have an exclusively operatic cat (which we can manage/access/count etc) instead of the present mess.

You ask:

(1) ". . . am I to assume that moving singers into categories such as Operatic mezzo-sopranos is a preliminary to combining those categories with French (etc) opera singers to make categories such as French operatic mezzo-sopranos?" Answer - No, that would be subject to further discussion.

(2) "a lot of singers of opera also sing non-opera (Lieder, oratorios, crossover, etc.) and a lot of singers who specialise in non-opera do sometimes sing opera (Martyn Hill and Mark Padmore spring to mind). Does opera in those cases mean necessarily staged opera, or do they count as operatic if they've only appeared in recordings of opera and never on stage?" Answer - strictly speaking we are only responsible for opera on the opera project. Editors are free to add cats as necessary. Lieder is generally neglected on WP so there is a problem much wider than just cats. Oratorio singers could probably be catted quite easily. Crossovers likewise. This would have to be discussed in various places but the point is we would be moving forward not left in gridlock. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination for Oxbridge

Hi, I nominated Oxbridge for deletion since it reads entirely as WP:OR. You can find the discussion here. Coldmachine^Talk 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

York CC

Many thanks for the photos - the county court photo now brings up the rear at List of county courts in England and Wales! Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 13:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italo Tajo

Thank you for fixing my article. Yes, I made mistakes but my goal was to write an interesting article not to give you or anybody else work. If it's to much for you just leave it alone ! Marleau (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Italo Tajo is just but one article, considering my input (which is considerable) I think the job is on the whole "well done", but I agree there is always room for improvement. Marleau (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MelonBot

Looks good. Regarding the idea of changing Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article ranking, to Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Assessment, this seems reasonable. We originally called it ranking because of opposition to doing assessments, but maybe that's no longer a problem. Maybe if you put a note on the talk page to say that it has changed/updated no one will be much bothered? WPBannerMeta sounds OK - but over my head, of course . . . I imagine you will leave a note with SatyrTN explaining why we have defected. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Frustrating. SatyrTN is still not active - only one small edit on 14 April. The only other thing I can think of is to ask the advice of Black Falcon, the techy admin who AWB'ed the singer cats. He doesn't have a bot but might have a friend . . . but maybe you will have a better idea. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new message to Wikipedia:Bot requests‎ to draw attention to our 'plight'. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No response to that and your original message has been archived! Any ideas?--Kleinzach (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A direct approach to User:Happy-melon would be a good idea (first?) and I can talk to Black Falcon (I haven't so far). I don't see any point in putting anything on the Opera Project page - I just think that's the wrong place. (AWB may not be relevant but it does enable you to do repetitive edits at a speed of about one a minute. It's good for category editing of course.) BTW How did you set up your snazzy signature?--Kleinzach (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Tell bit was brilliant - but do you have to put in by hand each time (copy and paste?) or have you automated it in some way? --Kleinzach (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo-Merchant Venturers Hall

Thanks for correcting me. It is the first ever photo I put on Wikipedia and then into an article, it took me about three hours over two days, so I am not surprised if it is wrong. I can see you know your York.....

And this is only the second 'talk' I have done so I hope it reaches you.

Benyon3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Points

First, thanks for your feedback on the tenor article. I will fix the errors you pointed out, most of which are not mine as I did not add them to the article. I am afraid that I am not as knowledgable on tenors as I am on other voice types so I appriciate extra eyes.

Second, I would appriciate your input on the current discussion going on at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre. There is a proposal for a debate relevent to the opera project going on there.Nrswanson (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion, please?

I would like your opinion at to the debate going on here : [[1]] at Wiki project theatre. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinemaidens: Categories

You recently deleted the "Opera" category from the Wagner's Rhinemaidens article. Since the Rhinemaidens in question are characters in an opera, created by Wagner based on a variety of possible sources (as explained in the article), it seems odd that you consider the Opera category "unsuitable". Can you explain the reasoning? Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning makes perfect sense. Thank you Brianboulton (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category for writers on opera

I noticed this yesterday as well. What about 'Opera critics' or 'Opera writers'? I think they match the other opera people cats which come under the main Opera cat. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about Opera writers, but I really think Opera critics is OK for Budden, Newman or anyone else who writes about opera. Isn't opera criticism like literary criticism? --Kleinzach (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think Opera critics could come under 'Critics', but also 'Opera' along with Opera singers, Opera directors, Opera managers etc.--Kleinzach (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2008

Delivered May 2008 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 10:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Opera assessment

Tie down your pigs! I think my code for project banner assessments is finally ready to go. There's just one caveat at the moment though: for various technical reasons (mainly because it's still in development and I anticipate having to keep stopping and starting the script, and don't want it to keep going back to the beginning of the list), I need to convert the banners from one template name to another. I want to use {{WikiProject Opera}}, as it's a redirect to {{Opera}} already, and as you can see from CAT:WPB it's also the most popular naming convention for wikiproject banners. In a nutshell, I want to convert the banners from {{Opera}} to {{WikiProject Opera|class=B|importance=}}. The existing template will still work fine, it just makes my life a hell of a lot easier when I have to keep stopping the script to error check. If you're ok with that caveat, I can start work immediately. Happy‑melon 10:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC) This is how the script is normally set up to work:[reply]

If the article uses a stub template, replace {{Opera}} with {{WikiProject Opera|class=Stub}}
If the article appears in the FA list, replace {{Opera}} with {{WikiProject Opera|class=FA}}
If the article appears in the GA list, replace {{Opera}} with {{WikiProject Opera|class=GA}}
If there are other banners on the talk page, which agree on their rating, copy that rating to the new banner
Otherwise, leave unassessed (replace {{Opera}} with {{WikiProject Opera|class=}})
Any of those steps can be disabled if you don't want to use them. The plan is to run that script fully, then it will be an easy job to go through Category:Unassessed Opera articles and replace {{WikiProject Opera|class=}} with {{WikiProject Opera|class=Start}} if that's what you want to do. I'll do a run of 50 articles since I need to submit a test of that size for the bot approval request, so you can take a look at those at the same time as BAG is reviewing it. I'll hopefully be able to do that short run this evening (UTC). Happy‑melon 12:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dvorak opera categorization

Oops.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  I'll leave the opera cats alone from now on.  Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot run/Your message of the 5th

I don't think I have anything to add. (Sorry not to have replied earlier but I've been away.)--Kleinzach (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]