This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
I have recently put a bunch of work into this article and would appriciate some feedback. I wrote a brand new lead, a photo, greatly expanded the information about her early life and education, expanded information about her career, added a table of roles, added recordings to her discography, created a section on her voice and critical reception, and wrote a section on her work as an educator. I know I need to work on reformating the references. I wasn't sure about the ordering of the subsections towards the end of the article and would appriciate some suggestions there. Nrswanson ( talk) 19:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I created Category:National operas primarily because I saw nothing on this subject in the Category:National institutions. I had not thought much about whether it should contain companies or houses. It could contain both under this or some other category name. Whatever you experts want. Hmains ( talk) 04:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Nathan, I and tech guru Alanbly have finished working on a new version of the banner based on the Philadelphia template which which allows for three options (no rating/rating no comments/rating and comments) of small print text at the foot of the page. An example of a rating no comments type (i.e. a nominal assessment) is posted at Talk:Arianna Zukerman, An example of rating and comments type is posted at Talk:Amanda Forsythe. (I'm not putting the banners here to avoid giving this page lots of categories.)
It's implicit in the new design that we are allowing individual written assessments of articles (any future project-based work still has to be decided). Is this acceptable to everybody? Can we install the new banner? -- Klein zach 00:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you! I've moved the new version to User talk:Nrswanson/sandbox so we can see the results on the article talk pages. Unfortunately there is still a problem because the text below the line is hidden in both versions (not just the rating and comments type Talk:Amanda Forsythe). The rating no comments type ( Talk:Arianna Zukerman) was fine as it was - now it's a bit misleading. Can we possibly reset this to how it was before (i.e. Philadelphia style)? Regards -- Klein zach 14:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted to the previous Alanbly version on User talk:Nrswanson/sandbox - as it's nearer to what we want - so we can work on that one. -- Klein zach 23:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, excellent. Unless there are any objections, i suggest we go ahead and install it to see how it is in full operation. -- Klein zach 04:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Had a quick question for you guys. Would anyone be opposed to adding List-Class to the grading scheme? It's a part of WP 1.0 and since you already use Featured-List the step below would be List. I wanted to check here first before making any changes to the template. Thanks! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I added the new grading scheme template to the assessment page that is now being used across wikipedia. It explains C-class rating. We will need to adapt our point system accordingly to match this new structure. Our current scale shows the following:
I would like to suggest the following scale:
Nrswanson ( talk) 07:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to start with Class B Opera (title) articles - I think there are 5 of them - to which you have not been contributors. I'd leave anomalies like lost-score operas alone until you have a system to handle the regular items. -- Klein zach 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this article sufficiently encyclopedic? It's apparently based on a magazine article (though the link to 'Country Life' doesn't work. We have articles on particular English country opera houses like Glyndebourne etc., but do we need an article on the genre in general? Any opinions? -- Klein zach 11:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how many of you do this, but I try to check User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult everyday. Many times they need cats, stub tags, etc. and sometimes they need to be seriously cleaned up ({{ cleanup}}) and/or wikified ({{ wikify}}), tagged for {{ notability}}, {{ Unreferenced}}, etc. Also many of them need to have {{ WikiProject Opera}} added to the talk page if the article is under the project's scope to keep it on our radar. In the case of articles about living people, {{ Blp}} should be added too. I also check for any signs of blatant copyvio and/or advertising. But.... I can't always do this. I'm often travelling, particularly over the summer. I'll be away later this month for 10 days and likewise for virtually all of August. It would be really helpful if some other project members could undertake to check the bot results every day or so and deal with any necessary tagging etc. which the new articles might need. Many hands make light work and all that.;-) Best Voceditenore ( talk) 10:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This cfd will close soon. So far no Opera Project editors have expressed an opinion. As things stand now, it's likely the category will be renamed 'National opera companies'. Are 'national' categories desirable? See here. -- Klein zach 03:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
I have recently put a bunch of work into this article and would appriciate some feedback. I wrote a brand new lead, a photo, greatly expanded the information about her early life and education, expanded information about her career, added a table of roles, added recordings to her discography, created a section on her voice and critical reception, and wrote a section on her work as an educator. I know I need to work on reformating the references. I wasn't sure about the ordering of the subsections towards the end of the article and would appriciate some suggestions there. Nrswanson ( talk) 19:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I created Category:National operas primarily because I saw nothing on this subject in the Category:National institutions. I had not thought much about whether it should contain companies or houses. It could contain both under this or some other category name. Whatever you experts want. Hmains ( talk) 04:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Nathan, I and tech guru Alanbly have finished working on a new version of the banner based on the Philadelphia template which which allows for three options (no rating/rating no comments/rating and comments) of small print text at the foot of the page. An example of a rating no comments type (i.e. a nominal assessment) is posted at Talk:Arianna Zukerman, An example of rating and comments type is posted at Talk:Amanda Forsythe. (I'm not putting the banners here to avoid giving this page lots of categories.)
It's implicit in the new design that we are allowing individual written assessments of articles (any future project-based work still has to be decided). Is this acceptable to everybody? Can we install the new banner? -- Klein zach 00:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you! I've moved the new version to User talk:Nrswanson/sandbox so we can see the results on the article talk pages. Unfortunately there is still a problem because the text below the line is hidden in both versions (not just the rating and comments type Talk:Amanda Forsythe). The rating no comments type ( Talk:Arianna Zukerman) was fine as it was - now it's a bit misleading. Can we possibly reset this to how it was before (i.e. Philadelphia style)? Regards -- Klein zach 14:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted to the previous Alanbly version on User talk:Nrswanson/sandbox - as it's nearer to what we want - so we can work on that one. -- Klein zach 23:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, excellent. Unless there are any objections, i suggest we go ahead and install it to see how it is in full operation. -- Klein zach 04:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Had a quick question for you guys. Would anyone be opposed to adding List-Class to the grading scheme? It's a part of WP 1.0 and since you already use Featured-List the step below would be List. I wanted to check here first before making any changes to the template. Thanks! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I added the new grading scheme template to the assessment page that is now being used across wikipedia. It explains C-class rating. We will need to adapt our point system accordingly to match this new structure. Our current scale shows the following:
I would like to suggest the following scale:
Nrswanson ( talk) 07:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to start with Class B Opera (title) articles - I think there are 5 of them - to which you have not been contributors. I'd leave anomalies like lost-score operas alone until you have a system to handle the regular items. -- Klein zach 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this article sufficiently encyclopedic? It's apparently based on a magazine article (though the link to 'Country Life' doesn't work. We have articles on particular English country opera houses like Glyndebourne etc., but do we need an article on the genre in general? Any opinions? -- Klein zach 11:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how many of you do this, but I try to check User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult everyday. Many times they need cats, stub tags, etc. and sometimes they need to be seriously cleaned up ({{ cleanup}}) and/or wikified ({{ wikify}}), tagged for {{ notability}}, {{ Unreferenced}}, etc. Also many of them need to have {{ WikiProject Opera}} added to the talk page if the article is under the project's scope to keep it on our radar. In the case of articles about living people, {{ Blp}} should be added too. I also check for any signs of blatant copyvio and/or advertising. But.... I can't always do this. I'm often travelling, particularly over the summer. I'll be away later this month for 10 days and likewise for virtually all of August. It would be really helpful if some other project members could undertake to check the bot results every day or so and deal with any necessary tagging etc. which the new articles might need. Many hands make light work and all that.;-) Best Voceditenore ( talk) 10:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This cfd will close soon. So far no Opera Project editors have expressed an opinion. As things stand now, it's likely the category will be renamed 'National opera companies'. Are 'national' categories desirable? See here. -- Klein zach 03:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)