User talk:RobertG/Archive-07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Template:Infobox classical composer

This was recreated and I've put this up for deletion (and blocking) see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Infobox_classical_composer. Thanks --Kleinzach (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations: FC versus F.C.

Hi, Sorry, spur of the moment thing, but have a look at the Manual of Style and see what you think.

"Acronyms and initialisms are generally not separated by full stops (periods) or blank spaces (GNP, NORAD, OBE, GmbH); many periods and spaces that were traditionally required have now dropped out of usage (PhD is preferred over Ph.D. and Ph. D.)."

It'll take some time, but not a huge amount of effort to re-direct all the 92 English League clubs. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've seen FA Cup within many of these these articles without full stops! Just one of many inconsistencies within an article. Surely an article is still "Featured" if moved? Content over style and all that? I'm no expert, I've only contributed a Featured List here and not any articles! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
UEFA, and FIFA are also consistently in there without full stops! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I essentially repeated the note above on Talk:Arsenal FC. (Look ma, no full stops LOL!) best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Also mentioned just now on Talk:Arsenal FC, but FWIW, here's the Club template at WikiProject_Football. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Composer names dabs

Dear Robert,
I see you are putting in Christian names for lots of composers. Is this a general decision, or just applying to certain guys with ambiguous surnames? Please advise, then I can get it right first time and save you more trouble. Warmest greetings, Eebahgum (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll try not to be so lazy in future! Incidentally, I note that the busy old Opera Project has gone round turning most of the singer voice-range categories (e.g SATB etc) into 'Category:Operatic tenor' etc. Kleinzach kindly kept me informed. I think they have managed to avoid non-operatic types like Harry Plunket Greene, Elena Gerhardt or Gervase Elwes, but of course there are many singers - in fact most - who do other things as well as opera, and this change (which I have no objection to) does leave many distinguished Lieder singers or oratorio types uncategorized as such. In fact their change has slightly hijacked the Category system, because they have made definitions that had wider significance serve the opera project specifically. I know that oodles of virtual ink have been poured out in discussion of the point: but Kleinzach also suggests that the Music project should have its own categories, such as 'Lieder singer' or 'oratorio singer'. But where would one stop? Do you have any thoughts about this situation, i.e. with regard to the UN-categorized residue? Is there now a preferred format for categorizing singers outside of the opera world? Best, Eebahgum (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's roughly how I feel about it too - one difference is that you are a sanguine eventualist, whereas I am a sort of ad hoc eventualist on the never-never, as I suppose wikipedia will never be finished, so the thing is to get on with whatever one thinks important and leave these problems to people who feel that they matter. Perhaps that is a sort of existential eventualism, regarding this Virtual Wikipedian Creation, perfect in its origins as idea, but imperfect in its visible manifestation because it is constantly in the process of Becoming rather than simply a thing which has Become. And who am I to interfere with a Cosmic Plan, let alone the Opera project...? If there isn't already a category for accompanists, however, we must have one. Yours (eventually), Eebahgum (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to reply to your nice note sooner... I think what I mean is that the incomplete version is perfect, because if everything that could be done to it had been done, there would be nothing left for other interactive editors to do, which would defeat what is one of its best qualities. So its imperfections of organization are part of its continuing organic evolution, which should NEVER be resolved. By remaining in a state of suspended incompleteness through editorial inertia or indifference, there are fewer mighty schemes to come into conflict with one another, a happily anarchic freedom in directions of growth remains open to all imaginations, and the dragon remains latent within the egg. My great concern with your comment is that you think it is "useful" - that seems to me recklessly optimistic... The better some parts are, the more dangerous it is, because the whole thing is online worldwide, and the good bits give an entirely unwarranted credibility (by reflection, as 'twere) to some of the diabolical propaganda and other crap which is being stuffed into the most recondite places. I think of myself as the Dutch boy who put his finger in the dyke, or at any rate one of a team so occupied. Hope you're enjoying this early summer, cordially, Eebahgum (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Undershaft, forsooth... Your edit to Major B explains. To trade city churches, we are 'where St Mary Woolnoth kept the hours/With a dead sound on the final stroke of nine.' But I am only equipped to perceive wikipedia as an idea, let alone the laptop, and for some unearthly reason it stirs an unaccustomed desire to interact with it. I think I am probably more depressed than you, because this idealism is within and from me, in a tradition from Bishop Berkeley and Schopenhauer, Emerson, & co. It's a kind of Marvin syndrome. You, on the other hand, are more like Democritus (who, if he were on earth, would be laughing). It's an honourable school. ;-) Best wishes Eebahgum (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Bradman

Welcome to the party! --Dweller (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Windsor Chair

please see above article. you will understand why. unfortunately, unlike 'mexican pewter' this article needs to be here, but not as is.your advice will be much appreciated.Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Name on cswiki

I made usurpation. Now it seems that there is a space for this account. Try it if is it working, if not, writte me. (But it is not possible rename account RobertG-cs to RobertG, so you are loosing some edits because it is writting me that this name has reservation in SUL (propably for you :). Have a nice day --Chmee2 (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)