User talk:Michael Bednarek/Archive 1

Hello Michael, can you explain to me the method for using the NMA template to link to particular volumes of the Neue Mozart Ausgabe? I'm having trouble linking to the correct volumes at Mozart and dance (current links are incorrect). Thanks very much, Opus33 (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The basic instructions are at {{NMA}}. In this case, I obtained the volume and page numbers for the scores and the critical reports by a) expanding the list for "Serie IV Orchesterwerke" at NMA; b) opening the scores and critical reports for numbers 62 & 63 (Tänze · Band 1 & 2); c) navigating to their respective title page: the page number is then shown in the browser's address box. Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated -- both the article change and the hints. Opus33 (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If we move the PM's non-fiction Literary Award into the fiction table then we have to do the same for all the state based awards in order to make the page consistent. I thought of that approach when I first created these pages and decided it would just make the lists too unweildy - better to have the fiction awards and the non-fiction awards together in their separate tables. I'll be putting the PM non-fiction award back in the non-fiction table.

The order of the awards was alphabetical and it was just co-incidence that all non-state based awards were listed first. However, I can see having the PM's award listed between two states might be confusing and am willing to list it before the states in both tables. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just seen your improvements to this, however I am wondering if the basic template is still too large - functioning more as a picture frame than a navbox. What do you think? I tried to modify it myself before but couldn't work the technicalities. --Kleinzach 08:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the image (in a preview) and the overall size of an uncollapsed "Operas" section is still quite overwhelming —there are just too many of them — so I didn't proceed. I don't know what can be done about it.

Generally, I'm not too keen on having images in these opera navigation boxes, but others seem to like them and most templates now have them. Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I can ask your advice about another intractable technical problem — the Classical composers timeline — discussed from time to time here? Can you think of any way we can make this work visually? --Kleinzach 23:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

First let me say that I admire the development of a tool like <timeline>; I dip me hat to Erik Zachte (talk · contribs).

Second, reading Talk:Classical music, it seems to me it's much less of a technical problem than a content dispute: who's on it and who's not. I find myself much in agreement with many contributors there regarding the obscurity of some on that list, and some of the suggestions for names to be added seem even more obscure to me.

Third, it seems to be much ado about nothing: this template is used exactly once (Classical music), albeit in a central article.

This graph will always be controversial because it seems to assume some kind of canon, which will, in my opinion, always be better when presented with authority instead of by consensus. Of course, there is no such thing as authority in Wikipedia, and a "democratic" list is much less convincing.

As to the graph's typography: I suspect it may be improved by tweaking parameters described at mw:Extension:EasyTimeline and mw:Extension:EasyTimeline/syntax, but the fundamental question of who's on it and who's not needs to be resolved first. Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the long answer. As with some other formatting issues in the past, I'm wondering whether we are seeing the same thing. On Safari or Firefox (Mac) I'm looking at a graphic that's considerably wider than the page with small broken text that's hard and sometimes impossible to read, on top of blocks of unusually (for WP) dark colour. The timelines of the individual composers are extremely compressed etc etc. So, my question is: are you seeing something much more coherent?

Incidentally should we move this to Talk:Classical music?--Kleinzach 07:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am seeing something seemingly more coherent, both at Classical music and Template:Classical composers timeline. I've used the facilities at http://browsershots.org/ and http://www.browsrcamp.com/ and they both show both pages very closely to what I see. You might want to try those sites —especially the second if you're using a Mac— and compare to your local rendering. If those websites don't work for you, you could try to find others by the Google search I used: test web page in multiple browsers and related:browsershots.org/.

I'm not sure I get this. Aren't the sites above for displaying Mac-type pages on Windows? What could I use to see the diagram as you see it? --Kleinzach 12:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought those web sites allow you to specify a browser/operating system of your choice, and they then take an image of a target web page and present that image to you. That way, a Safari/Mac user can see what a page would look like when seen by IE7/Win-XP. Anyway, I saved the Wikipedia PNG representation of the template, took a screen shot of my browser and produced a PDF file of the article; all are on their way to your e-mail inbox (the German city which rhymes with "Kleinzach"). Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave the decision whether to move this discussion to you. Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's leave it here for now . . . .--Kleinzach 21:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This film is LGBT-related because it is about a monarch whom we know was a homosexual. There is a scene where Greta Garbo kisses another female character. Greta Garbo was herself bisexual.

The

monarch's homosexuality is speculative. The plot summary in the article doesn't mention any lesbian leanings, quite the opposite. The one scene where Christina kisses the lady-in-waiting is a rather weak point on which to hang the categorisation of the whole film. Finally, the sexuality of the lead actress, which is also somewhat speculative, has nothing to do with the categorisation of the film. Michael Bednarek (talk

) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Michael Bednarek. You have new messages at Tempodivalse's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

tempodivalse [☎] 02:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I made some rather large changes to the article (nominated it for a GA), and I find it easier to make several small changes than one large one, which is why I made so many edits. Although I agree that I should be using the preview button more often. Cheers, tempodivalse [☎] 02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There was mostly a one person venture to have the consensus driven change undone, but after a lot of discussion, that editor agreed. The next point that was brought up by someone was having a bot remove all of the content from the awards box, which seemed to be not just a little excessive. One of the most salient points in the discussion was that in the higher profile articles, anyway, most of the awards that were included in the infobox are also covered in more than one place within the article already, from the filmography to the endless lists of succession boxes, to templates, to the main body of the articles. In most cases in the articles I've dealt with, which come from the top priority and high priority lists from the assessment from

I suppose I need to remove that note - I've begun responding on the other person's talk page. One of the points that was made, and I believe was an alternate proposal, was to remove the Golden Raspberry Awards and the awards listed under "Other awards" in the infobox. I don't think it was an objection to them per se, but more because they overwhelmed article style on articles with a lot of them. It wasn't so much that the minor awards (critics, film festivals, etc.) weren't important as such, but they were certainly less so than an Academy Award, BAFTA Award and the like. I don't have the sense that multiple lists of awards is endorsed, but as I said, I'd be glad to transfer them to the filmography. I know that some editors have worked on adding them there already. Thanks. LaVidaLoca (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see

Michael, I'm working on a new list. It's complex and I'd be grateful for your general reaction. I'm doing citations in the way Brian did with the Wagner list, but I have many identical Oxford refs. Do you know how to avoid the repetitions? See here. Thanks. --Kleinzach 02:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

References can be named and they can then be used multiple times. One way of doing that is to

1. define the name once: fact<ref name=nnn>the reference</ref> which renders as "fact^[1]";
2. use that name again: another fact<ref name=nnn /> which renders as "another fact^[1]".

The subsequent use of <references /> (or {{Reflist}}) will renders as:

Note that the definition of a reference's name does not have to precede its use. For the gory details see

Wikipedia:Footnotes

.

I've produced a version of your list using these principles at User talk:Kleinzach/Genres. Let me know if that is not what you were looking for. Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's terrific. Thanks. I've moved it over to my main page. Any other thoughts? My intention is to link all the lists to this one when it is complete and up as an article. --Kleinzach 23:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No other major thoughts here; placing the template {{Opera genres}} at the foot of the page seems a natural addition, as might a "See also" section referring to Category:Opera genres. As a category for the page itself, Category:Opera terminology seems appropriate. Come to think of it, the Category:Opera genres should also have Category:Opera terminology as a category so that the former appears as a member of the latter (and the latter could then be removed from those 29 articles which currently have both categories). Then again, it is probably more prudent to stick to the matter at hand. Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The genres/terminology thing is a bit tricky. It's a potential problem, but not one that has actually surfaced yet. I think I'd prefer to leave it for the time being and concentrate on the table itself. --Kleinzach 12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Michael Bednarek. You have new messages at Anomie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for this. Looks good but can we make all the columns range left? Having one ranging right makes me feel a little seasick . . . Also I see you are tight-coding but removing all the letter spaces around entries. Is there any special advantage in this? The reason I use them is simply so I can see the text easier. I find tight coding everything makes in much more difficult to locate text when it needs needs correcting. Does it affect the layout in some way I haven't noticed? Thanks. --Kleinzach 08:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Left-align for date column: I wasn't so sure about this myself; I noticed that a lot of tables elsewhere use this for date columns, so I thought I try it, but I'm happy to take that out again.

Thanks. --Kleinzach 10:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Tight-coding: I admit the editing of such a page can be a bit challenging, but the coding without any spaces makes my tools, especially WTDtHs (which inserts the date sort tags) and the macros I use in my text editor to create sort tags for titles and librettists work much more reliably. If your text editor can do macros you might consider creating one which replaces every || with Δ||Δ (where Δ represents a space) before you edit the code. Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I understand. I'm using global search and replace routines on my (Nisus) word processor to construct the tables, which seems quite fast without using macros which I'd find challenging. --Kleinzach 10:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Michael, Thanks for fixing that. The new user who created the articles on Koukias' operas had pasted it in each article individually rather than making a template.[2] When I made it into a template, I assumed she had copied all the parameters and mark-up correctly. I'll check more closely next time . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Michael—I noticed your edit summary that mentioned WP:OVERLINKING. Can I say that the collection of WP's ABC articles do need monitoring for overlinking. Let me know if you need assistance! Tony (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that an edit of

ABC3 (which until then I didn't know existed). ABC3 in that article was previously linked to a section within that article (#Other). So I changed those intra-article links to normal wikilinks to ABC3. At that point I knew that there were several such links in the article, but as this was done shortly after midnight, I didn't feel like evaluating it for overlinking (how many links exactly? how far are they apart?), so I flagged possible overlinking in the edit summary. Michael Bednarek (talk

) 07:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The List of opera genres is now up. Please let me know if you have any general comments. I've been wondering about how to link to items in the list. Do you know how to do this? For example, there is a 'Zauberoper' called 'Die Wunderlampe' listed in Wenzel Müller. How can I link 'Zauberoper' in that article to 'Zauberoper' in the List of opera genres? Any ideas? Many of the genres are not substantial enough to justify individual articles, but it would be good to link them to the list. --Kleinzach 04:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The answer is {{

Zauberoper

as a REDIRECT to that target.

This mechanism is used in

Ex Africa semper aliquid novi (you might find that the target of this REDIRECT appears just off the top of your browser window and you have to scroll up by a small amount; I suspect this can be fixed by a more judicious placement of the "Section" template, which is placed after the text in the Latin list — that's why I suggested above to place it before the term.) Let me know if this explanation is unclear. -- Michael Bednarek (talk

) 07:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Very helpful. I get your point about using redirects, which seem to have various advantages over the more complicated direct coding. I have put {{Section}} tags on all the non-article entries in the List of opera genres. (Please let me know if I have done anything wrong.) --Kleinzach 03:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your List of opera genres has increased Wikipedia's operatic vocabulary immensely; just look at Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_opera_genres. Congratulations!

Sometime soon I might have a go at adding sorting tags for the dates, as suggested, and clean up some links to disambiguation pages and table code infelicities. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this may prove to be the most significant article I've done on opera. (Genre (and genre cats) have been a problem since I started here.) I'm surprised there are already so many links to the list. Nevertheless I'm a bit apprehensive about it being hacked . . . I really hope no-one recommends it for GA/FA!

The two disambiguation pages are Burla and Posse. I'm not sure what to do about them. 'Posse' is much the commoner. So how should we link 'Posse' in a 'List of operas by XYZ' to the entry in List of opera genres? --Kleinzach 23:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I was rather thinking about the

Robert le diable (opera). "Oscar Straus" is a straightforward change to Oscar Straus (composer). "Classical mythology" is a problem; maybe it should be left as a disambiguation target. "Tasso" should be changed to Torquato Tasso. I might give these a go tomorrow. And while I'm at it, I might also avoid some REDIRECTs for some names, like "Kurt Weil" which redirects to "Kurt Weill

" and similar cases.:-)

I don't know what I meant by "table code infelicities" — it must have been in another table.

There's nothing you can do about Burla and Posse; you have to use the syntax [[List of opera genres#Burla]] to avoid them. Bedtime now.

P.S.: To find links to disambiguation pages and REDIRECTs, I recommend User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css and User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js by User:Anomie; see my monobook.js (last two lines) on how to incorporate them into your "Wikipedia browsing experience". It has done immeasurable wonders to my Wikipedia editing habits, to the point where fixing links to disambiguation pages interferes with improving the content of articles.:-( Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed Robert le diable, Oscar Straus, Weill and Tasso, and left Classical mythology. The Anomie stuff looks challenging. Not sure where to start with it. Maybe I'll pass. --Kleinzach 23:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your edit of Exeunt: wouldn't the plural of exeat be exeant? And isn't exit the she singular of exeunt -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that my 40-year-old memories of High School Latin are not perfect, but I can still "see" the image of the Latin master flourishing his gown (in a similar manner to the way Dracula and his cape are often portayed) and exhorting that the boarders (plural) were actually going on Exeunt, not Exeat(!) Perhaps it was his Welsh accent and he was actually saying Exeant? Perhaps my memory of his gestures are better than my memory of his pronunciation? Perhaps I need to dig out my "real" Latin dictionary? (My Collins Latin Gem dictionary (first published 1957, printed in Great Britain) is surprisingly un-helpful on the matter.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As the Roman senator said: I! (go!) — Or look at this web page. Also: singular exeat -> plural exeant makes intuitively more sense than exeunt — it's not that irregular. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not as "irregular" as my Latin master was, or as my memory is! I have more confidence in your confidence than I have in my memory. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you check out Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Weird_behavior_when_editing for my latest suggestion ? I would really care to solve this problem. It's annoying me beyond belief. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question. I believe we have always sorted on titles: Mr, Signor, M etc. Grove, Oxford etc do this so I think there's no problem. I've taken the sort tag off Don Quichotte. --Kleinzach 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to put two pictures in one box? I've added two illustrations, but I've had some problems with them. Ideally I'd like to combine both pictures in one box with one caption. Any ideas? Maybe you can think of a better solution? Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

One below the other, or side-by-side? If the former: the two images have a caption each now; above, you ask for one caption — which?

For appropriateness, style and content, you might want to skim

Wikipedia:Captions. I think the information in the caption might be better presented in the article Théâtre de la foire. -- Michael Bednarek (talk

) 08:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

One below the other. What I meant was that I thought it would be better to have the extended caption referring equally to both pics in a single box. Maybe difficult? (It would be easy in a print publication.) I had a look at some of the relevant (or not so relevant) WP docs but couldn't find anything about grouping pictures to a single caption. The Théâtre de la foire, like many others, lacks information (which does exist on the French page) but i don't really want to get distracted from the main article. There are lots of other minimal articles on theatres. . . . --Kleinzach 09:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The simplest way is as shown here. The first image is shown without the parameters |thumb and any caption but with the parameter |right; that makes it appear without a frame. Only the caption of the second image is then used. Does that help? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder if people will notice the missing frame? I do, but maybe the average reader won't? I'll put it on the article and see if I get any reactions. Perhaps it will get attacked by a style bot? (I've just had this situation with Albert Vanloo.) --Kleinzach 13:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no style rule against non-framed images. Some accessibility guideline somewhere specifies that images should have an "alt"-text, but we can worry about that later. The matter of section headers not in sequence at

WP:HEAD

). I can see why it's done that way in this case, but you could get around the style police by using a different emphasising mechanism, the semicolon which will simply bold that entry; as side effect is that that entry will not find its way into the table of contents, which in this case might be a good thing. Here's an example:

For Jacques Offenbach

• a title

Hope this helps. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've used 'triple apostrophe' bold but your method is probable more elegant. I'll remember it. (Did you see my talk page? The whole thing seems to be spurious as the MoS doesn't apparently rule on the omission of level 3 (or any other) headings anyway.) --Kleinzach 14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I edit an article for more substantial reasons, I usually replace the triple apostrophe style with the semicolon — one of my nerdish habits. As to section header sequence: I remember a very long and heated discussion about it on the German Wikipedia (and I'm not going to look it up this time), where the formalist argument won. I suspect a similar discussion might have occurred here as well, and I also suspect the same result. The bots' argument: "but a bot just looks at the formal aspects and fixes them" blows my mind every time. I had to fight them several time about interwiki links; there are a number of articles which need two of those because a term in one language has two related meanings in another, eg de:Alt (Stimmlage) needs links to Alto and Contralto. "But that will confuse the bots" I heard. My response "and that's why bots are unsuitable for removing interwiki links" met with pure incomprehension. 'Nough ranting, bed time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Amen to all that. The 'formalist' position here amounts to a complete denial of typography - it'll just produce ugly pages. --Kleinzach 00:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the category for now. It did look messy. Perhaps the category should be moved to simply Category:The Fly in order to include all things related to The Fly? The τ symbol is generally used as the sort key for templates, see Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort order (toward the bottom of the "Typical sort keys" subsection). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've found I can put two thumbnail pictures in one box using {{Quote box2}}, see

Is this (top right) what you had in mind? Maybe I've overdone the colour bit, but you should get the idea. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That's great. I've used it. I might tone down the blanched almond slightly but we're very close to a solution. Thanks. --Kleinzach 07:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

You might recall the discussion at

You just need to look at the AMC site to understand that expression ("R" rather than "r" indicates its a meta-term. see this AMC site page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yergnaws (talk • contribs) 23:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

a) Please respond to my questions where I asked them. b) Please sign your messages; the instructions are just above the edit box.

I quoted your addition to the article verbatim, so I don't know what your remark —("R" rather than "r" indicates its^[sic] a meta-term.— what happened to the closing parenthesis? is aiming at, nor do I understand "meta-term" in this context. Here's what I wrote on your talk page:

c) The URL you provided (http://http://www.australianmusiccentre.com.au/artists is wrong. d) The term is "Represented Artist". When you had all that information, why didn't you just add the proper reference to the article as I suggested? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you've been looking at this one. Do you have any ideas about how to table Op. numbers that have multiple items (such as songs)? We haven't had one like this before. --Kleinzach 07:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking at that list for quite some time and I couldn't figure out a way of representing it as a table until now, and it turns out to be surprisingly simple. At this point, I'm not sure whether to allow sorting of the "Work" column, whether to place the opus numbers at the top of their cells when there are multiple items as demonstrated below for op. 10, and whether to right-align the opus numbers as demonstrated for opp. 1–11 below; the latter requires the most amount of wiki code.

Third draft

Op.	Year	Genre	Work
1	1876	orchestral	Festmarsch in E-flat major for large orchestra
2		chamber music	String Quartet in A major
3		piano solo	Five Piano Pieces
4		chamber music	Suite in B-flat major for 13 wind instruments
5		piano solo	Sonata in B minor for piano
6		chamber music	Sonata in F major for cello and piano
7		chamber music	Serenade in E-flat major for wind ensemble
8	1882	concerto	Violin concerto in D minor
9		piano solo	Stimmungsbilder for piano
10		Lieder	Eight Poems for high voice and piano Zueignung (Ja, du weißt es, teure Seele) Nichts (Nennen soll ich) Die Nacht (Aus dem Walde tritt die Nacht) Die Georgine (Warum so spät erst, Georgine?) Geduld (Geduld, sagst du und zeigst mit weißem Finger) Die Verschwiegenen (Ich habe wohl) Die Zeitlose (Auf frischgemähtem Weideplatz) Allerseelen (Stell auf den Tisch die duftenden Reseden)
11		concerto	Concerto in E-flat major for horn and orchestra (or piano)
12		orchestral	Symphony in F minor
13		chamber music	Piano Quartet in C minor
14		orchestral and choir	Wandrers Sturmlied for six-part choir and orchestra
15		Lieder	Five Songs for middle and high voice and piano Madrigal (Ins Joch beug' ich den Nacken) Winternacht (Mit Regen und Sturmgebrause) Lob des Leidens (Oh schmäht des Lebens Leiden nicht!) Aus den Liedern der Trauer (Dem Herzen ähnlich) Heimkehr (Leiser schwanken die Äste)
16	1887	orchestral	Aus Italien, Symphonic Fantasy for orchestra
17		Lieder	Six Songs for high voice and piano Seitdem dein Aug' in meines schaute Ständchen (Mach' auf) Das Geheimnis (Du fragst mich, Mädchen) Aus den Liedern der Trauer (Von dunklem Schleier umsponnen) Nur Mut! (Laß das Zagen) Barkarole (Um der fallenden Ruder Spitzen)
18		chamber music	Sonata in E-flat major for violin and piano
19		Lieder	Six Songs for voice and piano
…	…	…	…

• Overview of Works at Richard Strauss online (Verlag Dr. Richard Strauss)

-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Visually that's good. The only problem is sorting the works info. What about adding a simple genre column (piano, Lieder, orchestral etc.) in between the other two, making that sortable, and then making the Works column itself unsortable? --Kleinzach 11:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Second draft with attempt at genres above. Any suggestions about the top- and right-alignments? I think the opus numbers have to be top-aligned, but I'm undecided on their right-alignment. Also: what to do about the "Other works" and "Arrangements"? At the moment I tend towards leaving them as they are. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Good. Re horizontal alignment, I really think it's better to have all the columns aligned right. I'm less sure about the verticals. Maybe top alignment like Op 10 is better, as you say. Not sure I understand your question about "Other works" and "Arrangements"? Why are they a problem? P.S. Lots of bad karma around now. Shoemaker quit WP (again). ArbCom are being attacked on multiple issues. Composers are having a scrap with Biog project etc. --Kleinzach 13:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Re horizontal alignment, I really think it's better to have all the columns aligned right." — "all the columns aligned right"?

No, no, left, all left. (I don't know my left from my right) . . . --Kleinzach 14:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Other works" and "Arrangements" as shown at the bottom of List of compositions by Richard Strauss. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Yes. I think you are right. Best left where they are, especially as they probably need checking against a good list (perhaps the Boosey and Hawkes). --Kleinzach 14:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Having stared at this table for some time now, I think it ought to have a column "Year"; I can fill in the obvious ones and the rest can be done later. What do you think? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. That will also make it easier to include "Other works" and "Arrangements" later. But is it composition or performance year? --Kleinzach 07:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the usual practice to use the year of 1st performance, at least unless that year is much later than the year of composition? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That works fine with operas and probably big symphonic works, but piano music and Lieder? Does the information exist? --Kleinzach 08:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I took preliminary years from this site, except for those with Wikipedia articles. I might check some against this site which has quite detailed information, although unfortunately only in a by-search-result fashion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I guess it's better than no dates at all, but at some point we'll need to say what exactly these dates mean. Anyway List of compositions by Richard Strauss is a big improvement. --Kleinzach 09:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW I've just realized there are some major items in 'Other works' — like the Four Last Songs and Metamorphosen. Do you have any idea why they don't have numbers? --Kleinzach 10:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I've just found this [3] with other opus numbers prefixed 'o.op.', also composition dates . . . --Kleinzach 10:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've referred this here. --Kleinzach 02:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now researched the matter of opus numbers and other catalogues for the works of Richard Strauss, and I wish I had done this at the outset instead of blindly converting the existing list of opus numbers to a table. I now believe the Franz Trenner Verzeichnis (TrV) is the most complete list, and I should have aimed for a concordance list between opus numbers, another numbering system by von Asow, the Asow verzeichnis (AV), and the TrV. In the meantime, I have converted the remaining compositions to a table with AV and TrV numbers. The order of the original list was alphabetical, and so is now that table. There are also currently some questions marks where I couldn't identify a title. In the medium term, I intend to redo the whole thing as indicated above, presented by TrV number in its natural order. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite a job! Well done. --Kleinzach 02:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved it to Twelve Variations on "Ah vous dirai-je, Maman", as you've probably noticed. :-) The new title seems to get quite a few Google results. Graham87 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, not interested. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Michael, it's good to hear from you. I replied on my talk page. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thnx. Previewed it like that, but didn't work as supposed ... must've missed something.