The categorization system is having growing pains. There seem to be several different view about what our category system should be; a way to browse, an index of articles, a classification system, and/or a database search tool. Each of these views leads editors to different conclusions about how categories should be populated, and many conflicts result. To deal with these problems, Rick Block and I have been working on a proposal to add the ability to create category intersections. We think our proposal will address these problems and add some very useful new features. We are asking editors and developers concerned with categorizaton problems to take a look. We'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 06:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you edited an article related to, or expressed interest in Iowa. Therefore, I was wondering if you would be interested in joining (proposed) WikiProject Iowa? If so, please add your name to "Interested Wikipedians" at Proposed WikiProject Iowa -- Tim4christ17 03:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I notice that you have recently edited a few of the X in literature articles (like 1874 in literature). Several of those articles are not in anyone's watchlist which means they are vulnerable to attacks of vandalism and incorrect information. I was hoping maybe you would put those in your watchlist and babysit them a little. Thanks! :) — Wknight94 ( talk) 19:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello to you too! Right now I'm slogging through the literature categories, so we might bump into each other now and then. Hope you're well. Cheers, Her Pegship 00:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I see you have started a new opera category. Would it be possible to underpin it with an article and sources? Grove etc. - Kleinzach 20:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Good to hear from you. My advice is to go ahead and write the "Pastoral opera" page if you have the sources to do so (I only have info on the French side of things). Then we can see whether it's worth merging Pastorale héroique into your article. BTW I'm a bit exhausted at the moment, having just finished a total rewrite of French opera, so I don't envisage making any major contributions to WP for the next few days! But I'll get round to expanding Pastorale héroique eventually. Yours. -- Folantin 17:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Grove has got quite a decent article on the genre, so I can add bits from time to time. See you round. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 20:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [ unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! -- Ozgod 21:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your notes on my talk under this heading. Es freut mich, Ihnen kennenzulernen.
Thanks again for the pertinent questions and your interest.
--
Jerzy•
t
11:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As you may see by comparing my contribs page to the history of the Es page, i became free to review your changes there about 4 minutes after you finished adding, and 3 minutes before you finished subdividing. I think i did so quickly enough to see the additions before your subdivision of the sections, and IIRC to be momentarily confused when i opened an edit of it, intending to subdiv it myself. (I don't remember stopping to think whether you'd said you wanted that experience for yourself.) I found you'd done so, and inspected, arriving at a two-character correction, as to a matter that is confusing bcz of a stylistic inconsistency between page and section titles: the potential width of the navigational rows of the "access to rest of list" boxes is a reason for avoiding unnecessary spaces in those lines, and consequently in the page titles: legibility be damned. You probably were imitating that practice when you keyed the section heading markup, and IMO you're entitled to blame my inconsistency for the only part of your work on that page that i saw reason to change: you've probably got the whole thing down, via careful observation and interpretation, which is great. You'll also see i wound it up a minute before you put your question onto my talk page. How odd; how neat.
--
Jerzy•
t
06:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I recommend duplicate entries. The purpose i see for the list is navigation, and those seeking him have very little basis for knowing whether to look under Heek or Hegius. If they were only a few lines apart, one entry might cover both possibilities adequately, but those two might as well be on different pages for all the likely that the searcher's eye will fall on the other. (For that matter, speaking of different pages, i wouldn't hesitate to put another dupe entry under Von Heek. This is especially valuable for US figures, where names like
van den Berg have often become e.g.
Vandenberg.)
--
Jerzy•
t
14:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw your work on Category:Medieval music manuscript sources and was wondering if you could examine the newly created Category:Music illuminated manuscripts. That category was created to group the 10 articles in Category:Illuminated manuscripts together that all dealt with music. I was wondering if the new cat was helpful, and if it could also fit somewhere in the Medieval music categorization tree (right now it is in the "illuminated manuscripts" tree and the "music books" tree). A more centralized discussion has been ongoing at Talk:Illumianted manuscripts, but feel free to reply where ever. Thanks for your consideration.- Andrew c 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Apologies. Thanks for the reminder re civility. Cheers, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 13:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your question. It's true that I included that on purpose. The notation means "for five voices". It is a kind of shorthand, based on the original Italian name of the books. I noticed you were making edits concerning Monteverdi. With him it doesn't matter so much, because he only wrote a certain number of madrigal books, but saying how many voices the book was written for is more important in the case of someone like Philippe de Monte, who wrote a number of books for five voices, and a number for four voices, etc. I don't know if a5, etc. is the best way to write that, but I saw it in a source, and figured it would do until we can enter the original, Italian, name of the book. - Geoffg 14:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
One of the strengths of WP is the likelihood that someone will second-guess you -- so you don't have to be right. See
Talk:John Hickman re my second-guessing you re
List of people by name: Hi. Thanks again for all your good work -- including this one.
--
Jerzy•
t
18:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you've got a good attitude abt it. And if we maintain that attitude long enuf, it seems logical we'll reach a point where we've made all the mistakes once, and become perfect editors. I've decided to be patient about that. [wink]
--
Jerzy•
t
23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, no worries :). -- TimNelson 14:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You recently spoke, on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, against the blanket removal of infoboxes from articles about composers, or on an attempt to reach a compromise solution. Despite around a dozen people doing so, there are claims that consensus for their blanket removal was reached. You may be interested in the ongoing debate on the former talk page. Andy Mabbett 10:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to worry. Nothing has been lost! Cheers. -- Folantin 15:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi LiniShu,
I apologize for snapping at you here [1]. You are one of the ones who not only is making conscientious assessments of composers articles, but then actively improves them. Indeed you are an example to us all, and I thank you not only for your hard work but for your obvious efforts to maintain civil discourse at all times. Not all of us are that way, alas.
Not that it matters, but I have been frustrated by the 15-second "this article is start class" taggers who are tearing through articles on my watchlist; for a while I was changing them to "B" class where I thought I had written thoroughly from existing sources. I've left them alone for a few days though, since I feel like I'm shoveling sand against the tide. The only reason I haven't left a note on the assessment drive talk page saying what I think about this tagging drive, largely carried out by people ignorant of the subjects they rate, is that it seems like an unnecessary conflict to me: it would be easier to clean it up after they're all done.
Thank you for your excellent work on Cavalieri, and I hope you stay around Wikipedia for a good long time. Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The categorization system is having growing pains. There seem to be several different view about what our category system should be; a way to browse, an index of articles, a classification system, and/or a database search tool. Each of these views leads editors to different conclusions about how categories should be populated, and many conflicts result. To deal with these problems, Rick Block and I have been working on a proposal to add the ability to create category intersections. We think our proposal will address these problems and add some very useful new features. We are asking editors and developers concerned with categorizaton problems to take a look. We'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 06:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you edited an article related to, or expressed interest in Iowa. Therefore, I was wondering if you would be interested in joining (proposed) WikiProject Iowa? If so, please add your name to "Interested Wikipedians" at Proposed WikiProject Iowa -- Tim4christ17 03:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I notice that you have recently edited a few of the X in literature articles (like 1874 in literature). Several of those articles are not in anyone's watchlist which means they are vulnerable to attacks of vandalism and incorrect information. I was hoping maybe you would put those in your watchlist and babysit them a little. Thanks! :) — Wknight94 ( talk) 19:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello to you too! Right now I'm slogging through the literature categories, so we might bump into each other now and then. Hope you're well. Cheers, Her Pegship 00:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I see you have started a new opera category. Would it be possible to underpin it with an article and sources? Grove etc. - Kleinzach 20:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Good to hear from you. My advice is to go ahead and write the "Pastoral opera" page if you have the sources to do so (I only have info on the French side of things). Then we can see whether it's worth merging Pastorale héroique into your article. BTW I'm a bit exhausted at the moment, having just finished a total rewrite of French opera, so I don't envisage making any major contributions to WP for the next few days! But I'll get round to expanding Pastorale héroique eventually. Yours. -- Folantin 17:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Grove has got quite a decent article on the genre, so I can add bits from time to time. See you round. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 20:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [ unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! -- Ozgod 21:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your notes on my talk under this heading. Es freut mich, Ihnen kennenzulernen.
Thanks again for the pertinent questions and your interest.
--
Jerzy•
t
11:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As you may see by comparing my contribs page to the history of the Es page, i became free to review your changes there about 4 minutes after you finished adding, and 3 minutes before you finished subdividing. I think i did so quickly enough to see the additions before your subdivision of the sections, and IIRC to be momentarily confused when i opened an edit of it, intending to subdiv it myself. (I don't remember stopping to think whether you'd said you wanted that experience for yourself.) I found you'd done so, and inspected, arriving at a two-character correction, as to a matter that is confusing bcz of a stylistic inconsistency between page and section titles: the potential width of the navigational rows of the "access to rest of list" boxes is a reason for avoiding unnecessary spaces in those lines, and consequently in the page titles: legibility be damned. You probably were imitating that practice when you keyed the section heading markup, and IMO you're entitled to blame my inconsistency for the only part of your work on that page that i saw reason to change: you've probably got the whole thing down, via careful observation and interpretation, which is great. You'll also see i wound it up a minute before you put your question onto my talk page. How odd; how neat.
--
Jerzy•
t
06:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I recommend duplicate entries. The purpose i see for the list is navigation, and those seeking him have very little basis for knowing whether to look under Heek or Hegius. If they were only a few lines apart, one entry might cover both possibilities adequately, but those two might as well be on different pages for all the likely that the searcher's eye will fall on the other. (For that matter, speaking of different pages, i wouldn't hesitate to put another dupe entry under Von Heek. This is especially valuable for US figures, where names like
van den Berg have often become e.g.
Vandenberg.)
--
Jerzy•
t
14:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw your work on Category:Medieval music manuscript sources and was wondering if you could examine the newly created Category:Music illuminated manuscripts. That category was created to group the 10 articles in Category:Illuminated manuscripts together that all dealt with music. I was wondering if the new cat was helpful, and if it could also fit somewhere in the Medieval music categorization tree (right now it is in the "illuminated manuscripts" tree and the "music books" tree). A more centralized discussion has been ongoing at Talk:Illumianted manuscripts, but feel free to reply where ever. Thanks for your consideration.- Andrew c 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Apologies. Thanks for the reminder re civility. Cheers, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 13:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your question. It's true that I included that on purpose. The notation means "for five voices". It is a kind of shorthand, based on the original Italian name of the books. I noticed you were making edits concerning Monteverdi. With him it doesn't matter so much, because he only wrote a certain number of madrigal books, but saying how many voices the book was written for is more important in the case of someone like Philippe de Monte, who wrote a number of books for five voices, and a number for four voices, etc. I don't know if a5, etc. is the best way to write that, but I saw it in a source, and figured it would do until we can enter the original, Italian, name of the book. - Geoffg 14:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
One of the strengths of WP is the likelihood that someone will second-guess you -- so you don't have to be right. See
Talk:John Hickman re my second-guessing you re
List of people by name: Hi. Thanks again for all your good work -- including this one.
--
Jerzy•
t
18:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you've got a good attitude abt it. And if we maintain that attitude long enuf, it seems logical we'll reach a point where we've made all the mistakes once, and become perfect editors. I've decided to be patient about that. [wink]
--
Jerzy•
t
23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, no worries :). -- TimNelson 14:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You recently spoke, on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, against the blanket removal of infoboxes from articles about composers, or on an attempt to reach a compromise solution. Despite around a dozen people doing so, there are claims that consensus for their blanket removal was reached. You may be interested in the ongoing debate on the former talk page. Andy Mabbett 10:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to worry. Nothing has been lost! Cheers. -- Folantin 15:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi LiniShu,
I apologize for snapping at you here [1]. You are one of the ones who not only is making conscientious assessments of composers articles, but then actively improves them. Indeed you are an example to us all, and I thank you not only for your hard work but for your obvious efforts to maintain civil discourse at all times. Not all of us are that way, alas.
Not that it matters, but I have been frustrated by the 15-second "this article is start class" taggers who are tearing through articles on my watchlist; for a while I was changing them to "B" class where I thought I had written thoroughly from existing sources. I've left them alone for a few days though, since I feel like I'm shoveling sand against the tide. The only reason I haven't left a note on the assessment drive talk page saying what I think about this tagging drive, largely carried out by people ignorant of the subjects they rate, is that it seems like an unnecessary conflict to me: it would be easier to clean it up after they're all done.
Thank you for your excellent work on Cavalieri, and I hope you stay around Wikipedia for a good long time. Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)