Please do not add infoboxes to existing articles without prior discussion on the article Talk page. Not all articles need infoboxes. Here are some reasons why an article might not need an infobox. WP:DISINFOBOX. Let me know if you want to discuss this further. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you know I'm a newbie here so I'll follow the guide-lines that are used on the en-wiki. No more infoboxes from now on; Thanks for the message, LouisAlain (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. Note that this is not a guideline, only an essay. The guideline, WP:INFOBOXUSE, says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." So, I think the best procedure is to begin a discussion on an article's Talk page if you feel strongly that an IB needs to be added or deleted from an existing article. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Louis, I'm disgusted that you've been given such disinformation by Ssilvers. Infoboxes are very much part of the English Wikipedia and the majority of articles, especially high quality ones, have an infobox. I'm going to encourage you to carry on adding infoboxes to any articles that you feel would be improved by having one. You don't need anybody's approval, nor do you need prior consensus to make any edit that improves an article. That is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, people disagree on this issue, but RexxS is absolutely wrong: many of the highest quality articles on Wikipedia do not have infoboxes. See, for example English National Opera. I do agree that editors do not *need* prior consensus to make edits (unless they are under an arbitration restriction), but on a contentious issue like this, where there was a major Arbitration battle, it is a good idea. I should point out that in that arbitration battle, Gerda Arendt was admonished and restricted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, SSilvers is completely wrong. One example is called an 'anecdote', not data. Over 75% of all Featured Articles have an infobox, as anyone who takes a sample from that page can verify. In addition, I have always been a leading defender of the right of any editor to add an infobox when they believe it to be an improvement. The onus is on the opponents of that edit to give good reasons why it is not - and "you didn't ask first" is not a good reason. The Arbitration Committee only has a remit to comment on behaviour, not content, and they had no criticism whatsoever of my conduct.
In almost all areas of the encyclopedia, the issue is completely uncontentious, but in one or two topics a small, self-selected group have chosen to remove infoboxes for no other reason than that they don't like the look of them. You may wish to steer clear of adding infoboxes to existing articles on classical composers and biographies of entertainers, if you wish to avoid conflict. Anywhere else, you'll have no problems at all. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, you don't have to introduce me to Alain who translated all Bach cantata articles to French. Yes, I was restricted, but there was no battle. Other absurd things happen on Wikipedia, ask, Alain. Nobody is restricted in infobox matters, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! Didn't know there was a worm can on this issue. I already noticed there were no infoboxes on music articles (although the model exists, I've picked a copy of it somewhere). HiRexxS and yes I "wish to avoid conflict" at all cost Hi Gerda, here's one per la donna (I mean you!) LouisAlain (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
There are many infoboxes on music articles, all Bach cantatas, all Wagner operas, etc, many orchestras and choirs (no problem for those for some reason), many composers (Beethoven for example, where it was installed by community consensus. - There would be community consensus on the others as well if only someone would fight for it. I have no time for that). - Give an ibox to articles you create, - for some reason that is always free, the one kind of ownership I like ;) - You sort of win the right to decide on an infobox by elevating article quality, - guess how many Bach cantatas I improved to GA last year? (It's a kind of ownership I don't like, but at least it has two directions.) Watch BWV 194 over the next few days, the last of an annual cycle ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from where you know I come from, little did I imagine this infobox thing could be contentious here. It really goes to show how cultural confrontations are an oh so easy trap to fall into with a potential for serious consequences attached. LouisAlain (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be afraid, the number of editors who will still revert infoboxes is small, the number of editors who will revert infoboxes in articles for which they are not principal contributors even smaller. I could give you names, but you will find out yourself. Ssilvers has not reverted, only put massive "reasons to oppose" in discussions where they should have been avoided, according to the arbs in the above-mentioned case (which we better simply forget): Editors reminded: "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general." - There was only one infobox discussion in 2016, Pierre Boulez, the scene is quite peaceful, actually. If you are unafraid, you can formally join the cabal of the outcasts ;) - You are a precious member anyway, - by what you do! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you won't think we're as committed to warfare as Swift's characters were. In fact I often find myself collaborating happily on all sorts of topics with folks who have diametrically opposed views to me on the single topic of infoboxes. Ssilvers, for example, produces beautiful work on musical theatre topics and would be the first person I'd go to if I had a question about Gilbert and Sullivan. Similarly, I'd like to think he'd ask me for help if he had problems with accessibility in tables, for example. None of the disputants want anything other than to improve the encyclopedia as they see it; it would be a dull world indeed, if we all agreed on everything! --RexxS (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you rest assured I'm not in that state of mind. RexxS, I see we were born on the same year and I'm of the opinion of one of your (numerous) British geniuses:
Amazing, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung! There will be a DYK on very short life on 11 May, a good translation of "Der Mensch lebt und bestehet nur eine kleine Zeit" welcome. My take: (Wo)Man lives and exists only a small time. - Love that poetic "kleine Zeit", not "kurze Zeit (short time). Better word for bestehen very welcome, "bestehen" is ambiguous, for example『eine Prüfung bestehen』- pass an exam, but it's more than passing. The composer lived for 43 years, dying 11 May, with that piece next to him. Translation to French welcome ;) - Thank you for the others, Louis, - I'm a bit preoccupied, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a few years ago that I discovered the synchronicity concept by Carl Young and am fascinated to observe how many times it applies every now and then in life. I notice that you created Der Mensch lebt und bestehet just 8 days after I started working here. It will soon be 5 years that we "know" each other (well I was interested in the Bach cantatas in the first place and you first intervened on the fr.wiki from my very early translations), and just when I arrive here, some sort of "coincidence" makes our respective trajectory meet again. Ain't that bizarre?
Of course I will translate into French your new born baby just, you may remember what happened to the Rhapsodie Macabre and its author just one month ago. The messages I left on your German talk page was linked by a Swiss sysop (his name appears on a message above re. my IP being blocked here last year) to the French administrators board and I still don't know what the point was to show that I was in contact with you? So my talk page was under surveillance and may still be (as well as yours). Another English user has asked for a translation in French of one of his recent articles. That part is done but I don't give the title since it would be too easy for another fr. sysop to spot and delate (read sabotage) if from the fr.Wikipedia. One of these weeks I will post from another IP. The fr. WK really is in need of a serious, deep and thorough piece of audit.
The DYK part doesn't exist (or at least under that form) where I come from so I'll have to spend some time to understand what it's all about. Is it the reason why you are preoccupied? Charles-Frédéric Kreubé was a minor 19th-century French composer... LouisAlain (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the connection with me is dangerous, BECAUSE I am the notorious wikiboxen criminal? (I archived the whole thing end of 2015, but some will never forget it.) I am preoccupied with Reger, singing in the Reger-Chor from the beginning, so expanded the composer, made his list of works sortable, and wrote about one or the other composition. There is much more about the man and his works, but I need to stay focused. You probably know his most famous line, quoted at the end of this ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Petite messe solennelle (1)
After an annual Bach cantata cycle, I'd like to expand Petite messe solennelle, hopefully to GA status, and would like your help. It comes with a tag about translation from French, could you please check what could be interesting from there? - I believe it needs a composition history section and a better lead. At present we learn about some piano pieces before anything substantial about the work. - The German Wikipedia has that the Christe eleison is not by Rossini, - could check that also? Going to rehease it today, for a concert on 12 June ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a little part (== Musicians==) which calls for your proof-reading and I'm in the process of translating the French article about count fr:Alexis Pillet-Will. I'm not sure how you deal with the {{quote}} template on en.wiki. Also, I haven't found any indication that the Christe eleison could not be by Rossini. LouisAlain (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and translated history from de where I found it a bit more chronological, merging the parts from fr. Please check. Could you go over the musical analysis, because I changed things and would like to know if I missed things. I made all footnotes efn, and would like to change the refs to harv. Tired of too much detail in places, and then some movements not covered at all (Credo, Agnus Dei). We'll need more refs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting my mistakes, I should have been more cautious (bass instead of basse of course). Just, for what I understand, there has never been a "Théâtre-Italien" as such but the name refers to a genre rather than a specific venue. In its current form, the article writes Théâtre-Italien like it was a precise location and one time in italic. Some coherence is needed here. The title of the French article is indeed misleading. You know better than me so I leave it to you. LouisAlain (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian Theatre seems to refer to a company which performed at different locations in history ("From 1801 to 1878, Théâtre-Italien was used for a succession of Parisian opera companies performing Italian opera in Italian"), - can you find out which at the time? (I don't find it in the English). I made "Musicians" "Scoring" if that is what you mean by title. - I still feel the detail of measure numbers and keys is way too much but don't know where to start pruning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found a good source, Hurwitz 2010. It knows about the Christe not by Rossini. It knows nothing about a second performance the day after the first. Is there any? If not we better drop that. I doesn't mention private chapel. Same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The second performance is supported by others, - the chapel by some, but not others. Niedermeyer as composer of Christe seems sure. Please keep watching, we made some progress, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're working hard as hell on this Petite messe solennelle. The reason why I am no longer as involved in Wiki as you comes from my termination at fr.wiki after all the work I produced over there (ranked 8th in terms of articles created). Your Der Mensch lebt und bestehet ("appropriately") lebte und letze sehr kurz auf fr.wiki. Etwa 4 Stunden. The one responsible for the deletion follows this page (User:Thibaut120094 over there). Now the situation has turned amazingly absurd: the sysops act like vandals and delete good pages out of personal vendetta against my person. French amateurism and mediocrity at its best. Like I could still be affected by these hooligans. That's what happens when no mature grown-ups are around to act reasonably. I carry on the good work here (well, in the range of my possibilities) but I'm past the time to do deep and thorough research for Wiki when too many uneducated Meanies spoil the party. LouisAlain (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's GA now, and had two good performances (I was one of three altos). We have one red link left (ill to fr), could you take care of that, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't see your message this morning. Congrats for the GA label! You really worked hard on that page. The Trois coups should be available here before the end of the day. LouisAlain (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sad to hear that, - but I think you very welcome to get things from French to here! - The count in whose house the piece was first performed is a great addition, two singers were already added by another friend, - that's collaboration I like! - I'm not working hard, only yesterday because it was a friend's birthday and I wanted to nominate for GA, - not without sources ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently working on French playrights, theatre managers, chansonniers etc. since an administrator (Enrevseluj) on fr. Wiki keeps on doing a hell of a good job on that topic (more than 1000 pages!). Every now and then I spot a French musician and there's a version in English. If you think of any article you'd find worth this wiki, please do not hesitate. Re. Der Mensch lebt und bestehet it is for you that I am disappointed, I wanted to make it a surprise. LouisAlain (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That article is long enough and sourced enough to go to DYK, did you know? Please improve the referencing, - no "bare" urls, but title - publisher - date - accessdate. Look out for remnants from French ;) - Please write a little summary in the socalled lead about why we should read about him. - You have a week, then I will nominate, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for proofreading, I didn't dare the "who crowned him with golden crown of oak", because of the repetition of the word crown. I've added 2 external links and gave titles to the inner links and will add one or two lines in the intro (which indeed is very short) tomorrow. I'll also translate Adelphe Chasles just so that the link won't stay red. LouisAlain (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lead reads good but should be a summary of what's in the article body. (Sigh.) So please have those facts (sourced) in the article, or shorten, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the list of works, a link promises an article about the play, not its hero, - please word differentially, perhaps Rosa, a drama about Rosa. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for wondering who Salvator Rosa was, it adds a link. The same goes for Mathurin Régnier. I'll translate Eugène Ruel tomorrow. "We don't know yet about the character of his plays": the first line answers that question: "comic and dramatic plays". As pertains who performed his plays, maybe, just maybe, a thorough research through Gallica may give some indication but is it really that imporant if one or two names appear of actors completely forgotten, even more than Dugué himself? LouisAlain (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Perhaps not the forgotten actors, but a place or company? - Many authors wrote comedies and dramas ; - The moment I added the sentence in the lead, that showed up in google's search, - amazing! - Can we say: including dramas about historic personalities such as ... (link)? Anything else a bit more specific? I'll go and nom now anyway ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The line "drama in 5 acts and 8 tableaux" indeed wasn't part of the titles of the plays but probably was printed as such on the publicity posters of the time. Anyway, I've made the changes and created Eugène Renduel. As for "tableau" I usually linked to tableau vivant but now I realize I was wrong from the beginning! Some 500 articles are afflicted by this error. Maybe could a bot reverse tableaux to simply "scenes"? LouisAlain (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of vaudeville is that it is a specific play whereas Comédie en vaudeville is a genre, hence more global (like, say, Boulevard theatre (aesthetic) doesn't refer to a particular play). From the vaudeville article it appears indeed that the meaning of both seem to be opposite in English. In order to avoid any further confusion, I won't link any of the 2 from now on and will "delink" those I will have wrongly linked before. I'll remember about common words too (act, play and their likes). Maybe you can help me here: Earlier today I created Georges Duval but incorrectly linked it in the "languages" column (it should have been fr:Georges Duval (dramaturge). I just don't know how to undo the mistake. LouisAlain (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ifyou couldn't fix it yourself, how could I have possibly done the repair? I've tried several times on fr.wiki with no more success. Thanks for asking Wikidata, I wouldn't even know where to ask. That's why I go to patient RexxS when I'm in trouble: he knows the kludges. Yes, archiving becomes an urgent thing to do on this page but then again I feel so unconfortable with the process. Thanks for creating that address, I very soon will transfer a great deal of content into it. LouisAlain (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata: you just go to their Main page (via "edit links" under languages, for example) and look for something promising help, - I used "project chat", there's "help" also.
RexxS would be the one to ask also for automatic archiving (he installed it for others), while I prefer to do my selection myself, - some things I want to see archived the minute I receive them ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, please read the link. Vaudeville (in English Wikipedia) refers to an American genre of variety folk entertainment from about 1880 until the late 1920s, consisting of tap and soft-shoe dancing, singing of American folk melodies and comedy skits, that were played on the orpheum circuit and other American theatrical chains. The totally different, and much earlier, French genre thrived in the 18th century and was a stylized format that eventually evolved into opera buffa. Every time that you refer to a "vaudeville" written by a French author, I think you mean Comédie en vaudeville. You need to link the French genre so that English-speaking readers don't think you mean American vaudeville. If you like, you could link it like this to mean an individual show: [[Comédie en vaudeville|vaudeville]] -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, eventually the whole business sems to be another case of faux-ami. Thanks for taking the time to explain, all the more since I'm a slow learner. Today, fr:François-Pierre-Auguste Léger and some of the same are on my work list. I'll keep in mind your advice.
Yet, when I come accross『comédie en vaudeville』in a French text (where such article doesn't exist), does it call for comédie en vaudeville, [[Comédie en vaudeville|vaudeville]] or vaudeville? And after all, since those words are common in English where the readers can instantly tell the difference, can't they be treated like Act (theatre) and Play (theatre), that is with no links? LouisAlain (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you translate articles from French Wikipedia that do not have adequate references, please add references, at least to the English version. Our key policies include a requirement that all articles be adequately referenced. Unreferenced articles may be deleted. See WP:V. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like here for example? The Authority control provides many links and I've done the research for a specific source with the ISBN.
I'm not sure what you are saying. The article on Alexandre Beaumont is almost entirely unreferenced. You need to give a reference that verifies each FACT that you assert. A link to Amazon is not helpful. You have not even established that the article is notable! See WP:NOTE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've ceased linking to "theatre play" and "act" following your recommandation. Now, if you open the link French playwright you'll observe that the link doesn't lead to "France" nor to "playwright" but to something which I think is worth a look for English speakers (or any language speakers for that matter). The same goes for French poet for example and other similar cases. *Contrary to what I notice is common practice on the en. Wiki, I never link to countries, cities (capitales at least, unless we're talkin' Ulaanbaatar) and other Moon, Sun, Atlantic Ocean etc. Just, when I didn't, someone came and blue-linked Paris and France... I can't remember the million times I have seen that name linked to when I was in the process of translating from English to French. It has to be the most linked to article in the en. Wiki. I always write 1935 but one month ago or so someone came and deleted all the links with no explanation. I also write 1893... * Thanks a lot for following my production and taking the time to send useful remarks. Now, if you could tell me which mistakes I make in your language so that I don't keep on reproducing them, that would also be great. Next to nobody does (and I understand it can be tiring and boring) except Gerda ArendtonFerdinand Dugué which I appallingly translated in the first place. I try to remember the lessons. LouisAlain (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to help if I can. Links: No! Please do not use this link. Yes, it will send our readers to the article on the theatre of France. They did not open an article on a particular playwright to be sent to a much broader article about French theatre. That is not only overlinking, but simply a bad link, what some call a submarine link. Also, please do not link French poet. Everyone knows what a French poet is. If they wanted to read the main article about French poetry, they can go there directly, but it is *misleading* and counterproductive to suggest to a reader, with a bluelink, that there is something unusual about the term French poet or French playwright. We don't want to lead our readers on a chase around the encyclopedia. Trust that they will go to the articles that interest them. Finally, please do not link dates unless the article is *about* the date. See WP:MOSUNLINKDATES. Please read WP:OVERLINK carefully, and you will learn much. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and also, it is absolutely mandatory on the fr. Wiki to use the portal thingie (not one article is devoid of at leat one of them) whereas apparently nobody cares about said portals here. I've started to put them in place some days ago waiting for a possible remark, to no avail so far. What's the position of en.Wiki regarding portals? Useful? Useless? LouisAlain (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that much about portals. You should ask someone else about them. Personally I don't find them very useful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Watching, pinged: I don't link countries and capital (and major) cities, nor composer. I link "year in music" if the piece is mentioned there (and I don't forget), for example 1915. If I link to a piece of music, I do not also link to the composer, because people who don't know him or her can be sure to find the link in the composition. Enough for now. - Portals: I don't mention them in articles, but I feed the DYK section of Portal:Germany, resulting in a nice archive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to learn: if the piece is mentioned in the year article (not date article), how is it not "germane"? (Confessing that I usually forget, - didn't link even in a FA, but think I could.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The year article does not add anything useful to the article you are writing. It just distracts the reader and sends them pointlessly to a tangential article. If a reader is interested in The Marriage of Figaro, it is vanishingly unlikely that they want to interrupt reading about it to find out what other things were composed that year, and I don't think that you want them to click away from your article to read such a tangential article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but have seen it done, and thought it tells the readers that the piece they are reading about is important enough to be mentioned there. - Will keep it unlinked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Paul Auguste Gombault, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Paul_Auguste_Gombault. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
. In the meantime, here's a little new one. Have a nice day Gerda, LouisAlain (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
