User talk:Flamurai

Fragmented discussions are annoying, so feel free to reply to messages I post on your talk page on that page. I will watch your talk page until the discussion is resolved. If I don't reply in a timely fashion, I may have unwatched the page. In that case, drop a note here.

See my talk archive for older discussions

Contents

1 Classical music titles 2 Em dashes 3 Re: Graphs 4 Sigs 5 Erp. Sorry. 6 Super Categories 7 Conditionals in template 8 CSS instead of meta-templates 9 Cannabis rescheduling 10 Help with user 11 Selected Anniversaries 12 Mark for deletion 13 2+2 14 Thanks for fixing 15 Super Categories revisited 16 Miracle on Ice 17 Symphony article intro 18 Permission for use on Everything2 19 Moog Photos 20 Requesting your thoughts on Candide (operetta) 21 Conditionals in template (again) 22 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brian0918 23 Thank you 24 GRider 25 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 26 TV infobox 27 Timpani request 28 bug 1598 29 Re: DVD screen caps 30 Timpani edits 31 Template:Photo warning 32 Category:Wikipedian musicians 33 Category:Wikipedian musicians 34 MOS music

Classical music titles

Do you have an example of a single work which has a generic title, a true title, and a nickname? Otherwise, do you have a pair of popular classical works, one with a generic and true title, one with a nickname and true title? - Amgine 02:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if that exists (or at least it's highly uncommon). I doubt there's anything with a nickname and a true title. Usually, only works with generic titles are nicknamed. The generic and true title case happens any time there's something along the lines of, "Overture to La Forza del Destino". — flamuraiº 03:06, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... I must be miscommunicating. What I was looking for was an example which would be readily understood by non-musical authors. For example, Eine kleine Nachtmusik. Also known as KV 525. And I think its generic name is Serenade No. 13 for strings in G major. I don't think it has a nickname.

- Amgine 03:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In that case, "Eine kleine Nachtmusik" is a nickname. I probably need to reword that section. Any time something has a generic title like symphony, serenade, etc., any title given to as an alternative is really a nickname. The formal title would be: Serenade No. 13 for strings in G major, K. 525 ("Eine kleine Nachtmusik"). The easy way to think about it is any time a title is an alternative to a generic title, it's a nickname and not a true title. As a side note, if you look on Amazon's CD listings, in the "On this CD" section (not the condensed track list), they usually get the titles right... or at least close. This example... (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000058HT/qid=1103083855/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl15/103-7774973-9731813?v=glance&s=classical&n=507846) — flamuraiº 04:14, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Em dashes

Thanks for the tip on em dashes in Wikipedia. This is different from other style guides I have been used to, but I will be glad to change. Ksnow 09:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)Ksnow

No problem. Like I said, there's not really one consistent style. The idea is just stay consistent within the article. I actually flip-flop between the different styles myself... can't settle on one. — [[User:Flamurai|]] 10:54, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Graphs

Haha, I used a program that I wrote myself in .NET that has nice antialiasing, which is something missing from professional packages like Mathematica, and indeed, Maple. It's not very complete, but I'll let you know if I do any more work on it (I'm a little hesistant to release it publicly at this early stage). Cheers. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Enochlau 09:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sigs

The new version of MediaWiki has changed the way that signatures are rendered, so you need to go to your preferences to stop spurious characters appearing. You can do this by ticking 'Raw signatures' or by removing the [[User:Flamurai| from the beginning of your sig and the ]] from the end. Cheers, Noisy | Talk 20:24, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

It should already be fixed. – User:Flamurai/Signature 20:26, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Erp. Sorry.

Got at least carried away and overwrote your corrections to the Bernstein page. I know I hate that when it happens to me. I'll stay off when someone's doing needed editing work in future. Sorry 'bout that!! Schissel - bowl listen 05:08, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. The wiki software is on the fritz right now. Not everything is showing up in the page history. – User:Flamurai/Signature 05:12, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Super Categories

This category/supcategory thing needs some rethinking. As I see it, the general rule that "if something is in a subcategory, it shouldn't also be in the supercategory" often does not make sense. Sometimes the subcategories mark clear distinctions between things, but sometimes the subcategories are just unimportant attributes imposed on the category. I'll give you some examples that make sense:

Category:Musical theatre has two subcategories; Category:Operettas and Category:Musicals, both of which have all the articles about individual works of Musical theatre. This makes sense because:

• There is very little overlap between Operattas and Musicals, they are almost distinct categories
• Most people looking for a list of works would find this distinction helpful.
• The distinction that makes the subcategory is intrinsic to the category, not just a randomly chosen attribute. For instance, the works could be in subcategories that intead of using Operetta and Musicals could have used the year they were composed. This would not be very helpful for someone looking for a list of musicals.

Category:Musicals has the subcategory Category:Musical films. This is a trickier situation. Some of the articles in Musicals are in both categories. For some titles there are seperate articles for both the movies and the theatre productions. This makes sense because:

• If Wikipedia were complete there would be seperate articles for both
• The films almost always come after the theatre productions

An argument could be made for making Musical Films a subcategory of Musical Theatre instead of Musicals but it doesn't really matter.

Some categories do not work so neatly. An example which is really bothersome is Category:Film directors which has the subcategory Category:Film directors by nationality which has 28 subcategories. It does not make sense to have each director only listed in a subcategory by nationality. The nationality of the director is interesting, but not all that important. Some directors start in one country and move to another. I have no problem with there being categories for directors by nationality, but I think ALL of them should also be in the directors category. The reason for this is:

• Having them in both categories makes it easier to find a director if you know his nationality, and MUCH easier if you don't know his nationality.

Which brings me to bridges. Whether a bridge has a toll or not is not all that important, and the attribute does not instruct the reader to notice something important about bridges. If you want to see the articles about the bridges in New York City, why should you have to look in two places?

The notion that articles should not be listed in categories and subcategories strikes me as an artifact left over from libraries. The beauty of hypertext is that things can be linked many ways, not just organized on shelves. Why can't things be in multiple categories? I'd like to see ALL the bridges in New York State listed in Category:Bridges in New York. This makes it easy to see a list of all the bridges in a geographical region, and also the subregion.

I'd like to open up this discussion to more people. If you noticed, I just made the change for bridges in New York City. I'd like to do it for bridges the rest of the world, film directors and some other categories, but I know I need the consensus of everyone else. Where do you suggest I post this? Thanks, Samuel Wantman

I would suggest Wikipedia talk:Categorization. – User:Flamurai/Signature 01:22, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you should propose this as a software enhancement rather than having editors add things to their supercategories. There should be a way on a category page to list everything in that category and all its subcategories. That would avoid this issue altogether. – User:Flamurai/Signature 01:26, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

That wouldn't work. Sometimes it makes sense to have things listed only in subcategories (The theatre example above). Sometimes it doesn't (Toll bridges in New York City) Samuel Wantman 01:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Conditionals in template

I answered your request on WP:VP. _R_ 12:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CSS instead of meta-templates

I like your idea. To this affect, I think you should add a section to Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful#Alternatives which highlights your idea. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 07:37, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Cannabis rescheduling

• A topical comment: The sidebar is huge. I would suggest either restyling it so it's less obtrustive (I can do that if you want me to) or making it a separate article. I haven't found any other major issues with the article on my first read. – flamurai (t) 07:36, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you please help me with the sidebar on cannabis rescheduling? Thanks, Thc420 07:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Dude, those sidebars look awesome! Thanks! 69.243.41.28 08:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • My pleasure. – flamurai (t) 08:28, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Help with user

I noticed you have done a few reverts on Duran Duran in the past; could I solicit your help again? I have a persistent anon who keeps reinstating a link to his/her small fan discussion forum for the band. I don't want it to turn into a one-on-one edit war; if you could lend a hand, and chime in with your opinion on Talk:Duran Duran, I'd greatly appreciate it. There's a list of diffs for the inserted link at User:CatherineMunro/CJB -- eleven of the fourteen are insertions, the others are moving the link up near the top of the External links list. Thanks! — Catherine\^talk 12:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I'll keep an eye on it. – flamurai (t) 20:04, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

He seems a little annoyed to discover that his sites have been added to the spam blacklist (apparently it wasn't just en: he was irritating), so he's been continuing his petty vandalizing, including reverting every attempt I ever made to talk to him. (Sigh.) I hope he'll get tired of the game soon; just wanted to say thank you for your watchful eye. — Catherine\^talk 01:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No problem. These people think vandalizing actually means something or gets us angry or something like that. It's kind of cute, actually. – flamurai (t) 07:35, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Selected Anniversaries

I want to add something to February 22 selected anniversaries. However, no one has replied to say how to do so on that talk page. Since you seem to be the only guy doing something about it, do you know what I should do? – flamurai (t) 15:17, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 22. I'll reprotect it next Monday. Shall I unprotect any other upcoming anniversaries? dbenbenn | talk 15:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have anything specific to add to any other dates. – flamurai (t) 15:28, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Mark for deletion

Sorry, will do in future.

2+2

nice work, i went ahead and did a redirect. Wolfman 03:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing

I tried to put Tardism on vote for deletion, only new so didn't do it properly. Thanks for replacing the speedy. 196.3.56.100 04:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No problem. It's tough to decide when to put something on speedy or vfd. It's usually safer to go with vfd if you're not sure. – flamurai (t) 04:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Super Categories revisited

OK, so I started the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. It helped me crystallize my own thoughts about this, but I don't think there was any consensus, and the level of dialogue was mediocre. It seems to me that the people that feel really strongly about articles not being in both the super and sub category are inflexible in their opinions. So I'm thinking of taking another tact, and I'm wondering if you can give me your opinion because I want to ask you a favor.

I'd like to try an experiment with Category:Bridges in New York and Category:Toll bridges in New York and all the subcategories underneath these categories. I want to try presenting a slightly different way of using categories, that may make them more useful and easier to understand.

Here's what I want to do:

At the top of each category, I want to put a box that maps out the hierarchy that reaches the category. For example, in Category:Bridges in New York City right at the top it would have:

The idea is that all categories would show their PRIMARY hierarchy. This would:

1. Make it very easy to jump to the top of the hierarchy. Notice I did not include Science, Applied science, engineering, etc... I think there is a natural starting and stopping point for each hierarchy.
2. Make it clear what categories are RELATED categories and which are part of the hierarchy. Toll bridges are related. They have their own hierarchy.
3. Make it possible for hierarchies to be populated with different rules. I would first propose that the 'no duplication of articles being entered in both super and sub category' rule be amended to say "... in the same hierarchy." I suspect this will still be controversial, but the reality is that this rule is constantly broken, and for good reason.

So as part of this experiment, I will duplicate the toll bridge entries so they are also in the bridge hierarchy.

I don't want to do all this work, just to have you revert it! I want to make the change in a small category so people can see what it looks like, and then propose it. -- Samuel Wantman 09:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert it now that you explained yourself... don't worry. I like the idea. The only reason I reverted in the first place is that is the de facto standard on Wikipedia. – flamurai (t) 16:01, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Miracle on Ice

Hello, Flamurai. Thank you for posting Miracle on Ice at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 22. Good call !  :-) I hope the lockout will end soon, and give us another "Miracle on Ice". Cheers ! -- PFHLai 06:31, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

No problem. Don't know where you're from, but the game is going to be on ESPN Classic on Monday. Gotta get the hockey fix somehow! – flamurai (t) 06:34, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Symphony article intro

Hi Flamurai,

Thanks for improving the Symphony article intro, which I had extended earlier! I much appreciated your improvements, just these thoughts/remarks/suggestions:

• Sonata form is about what happens in a single movement, not about the overall structure of a 4-movement symphony. I think the Sonata form article, as well as the article about the "history" of the sonata form could use some de-confusing in this sense. When speaking about the "sonata form" as the over-all form of a work with four movements that could refer as well to the slow/quick/slow/quick format of a sonata, used by e.g. Bach, and still in use when Haydn started to add a fourth movement to the "sinfonia"/"Symphony". The older format made no reference to a menuet or the like (such dance movements were only appropriate in suites, and experimentally as fourth/final movement in Brandenburg concerto one), while it was exactly the menuet that was inserted by Haydn as third movement in the quick/slow/quick sinfonia to create the symphony. In short: even if "sonata form" can be used as term for the over-all structure of a multi-movement composition, it is not that form that applies to the classical symphony. Note that the slow/quick/slow/quick form of a late baroque sonata might have had some influence in defining the "sonata form" as musical form for a single movement (but not for the over-all structure of a multi-movement symphony). Note also that in the last decades of the 18th century sonatas were usually not in 4 movements (Mozart did not compose a single 4-movement sonata), so that kind of "sonata form" is also not applicable to the late 18th century symphony, if speaking about the over-all form.
• Example of other-than-four-movement symphonies: Beethoven's 6th was already in 5 movements (the last three joined "attacca"). I had been thinking about the more extreme examples of e.g. Mahler with his symphonies in "sections" (Abteilungen), subdivided in subsections/movements: e.g. 3rd symphony: 2 parts totalling 6 movements.
• Organ symphonies: I had already elaborated that in the last pargraph of the section about the symphony in the 19th century. Believe me, Widor's organ symphonies are symphonies. But OK not to mention that any more in the opening paragraphs of the article (of course, a short definition of a symphony implying a symphony is "always" played by an orchestra is not correct).
• Programmatic music: a more extreme example is Berlioz' Roméo et Juliette: scholars still don't know where to put that dramatic symphony: it's nearly an opera.

--Francis Schonken 17:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I was too lazy to dig out some of my books. These articles need some sources cited, anyway. Maybe I'll get around to that this week. – flamurai (t) 17:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Permission for use on Everything2

Hi there, I'd like to incorporate your changes to Candide (operetta) into the original article (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1694104) that the entry was based on. I realize I am entitled to do it without your explicit permission under the GFDL but would like to confirm your willingness for your text to be used. Please leave a note here or at Talk:Candide (operetta). Thanks, --Paradoxian 06:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No problem... go ahead. – flamurai (t) 07:17, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Moog Photos

Flamurai, did I edit the photo descriptions I uploaded correctly? moog. I'm still new at this so thanks for all the help.

Requesting your thoughts on Candide (operetta)

I'd like a 3rd party view of Candide (operetta). I think the "See also" list is not wikipedia worthy, and in some cases just wrong, but I haven't been able to convince User:Paradoxian of that in the talk page. Could you chime in? Thanks, --Samuel Wantman 08:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Conditionals in template (again)

I implemented conditionals in the template Template:Peru region table, you can compare Amazonas region and Ancash region. Does it answer your request on the VP from a while back? _R_ 18:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I forgot to save that and lost it when it fell off the VP archives. It should be good to solve a problem with Template:Tl. – flamurai (t) 00:45, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I checked and it works fine. Don't be afraid by the garbage on the Template page, it's harmless. However, you must give a (blank) value for tagline in all pages calling the Template:Tl, otherwise you'll get the same garbage in the articles. I.e. insert '|tagline=' at the end of all template calls, like I did in A Clockwork Orange. Note that this doesn't affect at all the way the current template functions. _R_ 01:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks... it just didn't seem to be working in previews. I didn't actually save any pages. It's a clever trick, btw. I finally figured out what you're doing (didn't figure it out when you posted on VP). – flamurai (t) 02:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brian0918

I feel that Brian may make a good admin in the future, but I don't think his recent behavior shows that he understands WP policy/procedure. Even if the VIP thing was bad wording, it shows he doesn't understand the basic procedures for dealing with vandalism. VIP clearly states at the top: "Please only use this page for repeated malicious vandalism, not for one-off edits, or newbie tests." He even said when he posted that it was a one-off edit. I believe admins should understand the basic procedure for dealing with vandalism, and it's pretty clear that Brian isn't yet familiar with it. – flamurai (t) 08:25, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• My bad. I'm reading up on it now and, if given admin powers, will not start using them until I've gone through the policies and feel more comfortable with using them. --User:Brian0918/sig 14:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Also, thanks for fixing the Superherobox. --User:Brian0918/sig 15:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reformatting my VfD templates. My own skills in this area are very lacking and your version is far superior to my original. I have gone through and switched the other templates to your format. - SimonP 15:13, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. There's this annoying bug that inserts excess whitespace above templates that contain wikitables. That really bothers me, which is why I edited them in the first place. – flamurai (t) 15:15, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Is there any way to force the templates to stack vertically on top of each other, rather than overlap on short nominations? Also I think having all the templates the same width makes it look better when they are in a column on the VfD page. - SimonP 15:23, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a way to force them to stack. The only way I can think of would be to put <br clear="both"> at the beginning/end of each VfD entry, but I don't know if that would work well. I agree... the only reason I did that is because I didn't realize there were going to be multiple templates. – flamurai (t) 15:30, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

GRider

Regarding GRider's 'Socratic' VfD nominations and the ensuing reactions by voters, please read and comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider2. Thanks. Radiant_* 10:29, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

• I've taken your remarks under the header of 'users certifying the basis of the dispute' and moved them to the 'discussion' section. Am I correct to interpret that this does indeed mean that you certify the basis of the dispute? If not please edit the RfC page accordingly. Radiant_* 12:14, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

My latest featured article candidate is up for a vote here. Please feel free to offer your feedback. Thanks, Rad Racer | Talk 20:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TV infobox

I probably will eventually, but it's quite a time consuming process. In the mean time we should've have them both wrong just for consistency, two wrongs don't make a right and all that... ed g2s • talk 22:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Timpani request

You uploaded Image:Holst - The Planets - Jupiter, The Bringer of Jollity (clip).ogg as a fair-use clip from a copyrighted version of the song to use in Timpani. I uploaded a full public domain copy of the song here. Rather than using a fair use clip, can you take it from my public domain version? →Raul654 10:40, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

It's tough to hear the timpani on that recording. – flamurai (t) 19:09, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

bug 1598

Please check back at bug 1598 (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1598) to confirm that I really solved the issue you were having, judging from the looks of that testpage I did. —User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig 03:21, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Looks like it... nice job. – flamurai (t) 04:04, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Re: DVD screen caps

Hey there. I use DVD Decryptor to decrypt/copy the DVD's, then import the VOB files into a modified version of VirtualDub (http://fcchandler.home.comcast.net/stable/), and choose the "copy source frame to clipboard", paste into Paint, and done. Hope this helps. --Mrmiscellanious 19:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Timpani edits

Good work on fine-tuning the article (groan). I wonder if there's enough material now in the talk page to add to "timpani in the orchestra" about the evolution all the way to to thematic uses of the drums, or is that too much of a technical curiosity? David Brooks 20:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. What I was trying to avoid is listing everything possible. I just wanted to pick one example for each relevant effect. But it might be worth it to expand the history section. It'd be interesting to see how long a real encyclopedia's article on timpani is. – flamurai (t) 21:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Encarta: 164 words. EB: 412 words. WP: 4734 words. We win :-) David Brooks 22:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) p.s. the "t" for your talk isn't rendered as a link - strange.

It does that because it bolds a link to the current page. So: User talk:Flamurai. – flamurai (t) 22:47, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Photo warning

From your edit sum: "unilateral policy changes = bad. abu ghraib (no pictures) survived vfd, and this template is a component of that"

I am a bit confused: I read the Abu Ghraib decision and it was clear to me that it would receive the link directly, not via a template. The template that it was using was TfDed, and everything was fine. Then the template was recreated under a new name, and reapplied to Abu Ghraib against consensus, as well as to Oral Sex. Now the Abu Ghraib decision, which was explicitly not precedent-setting, is being used to justify blocking modifications to the template... after it was decided that it wouldn't use a template. As the template stands at the moment, it is useless on any page except Abu Ghraib, and you will not permit me to make it more general. In its current state it is exactly the same as Morbid Warning which was deleted, so if you insist on protecting it, it should be speedy deleted since it has already gone through the process. I was not trying to make a unilateral policy change, but rather make an improvement, and it appears that I've uncovered an effort to work against what was decided. It clear in the votes that in the general case wikipedians are strongly against making (no pictures) forks or semi-forks. That it was permitted for a single article doesn't justify making a template an encouraging its use elseware. --Gmaxwell 03:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Morbid warning was deleted because of the POV language of "morbid". This template was created as an neutrally-worded alternative to that. If you believe the template shouldn't exist, put it on TFD. Don't keep making it useless. – flamurai (t) 06:44, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian musicians

You've added yourself under a lower case 'F' in the category. I don't know whether this was intentional, but it puts you at the end and therefore is alphabetically wrong. Hedley 17:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian musicians

You've added yourself under a lower case 'F' in the category. I don't know whether this was intentional, but it puts you at the end and therefore is alphabetically wrong. Hedley 17:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

MOS music

Are you still interested in developing the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)? I'd like to turn it into an official Supplementary Manual of Style, but it has a ways to go yet. I've put some time into Wikipedia:WikiProject Music terminology. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, if other people are interested. It's the kind of thing that's not worth doing unless other people care about it. – flamurai (t) 22:20, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)