User talk:Aciram/Archives/2009/October

It's not personal![edit]

You might notice that using AWB I've recently made edits to quite a number of your articles. Really, I just needed a good list of articles to help, and your contribs seemed like that good sort of list. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I am not offended at all, and I know it's not personal. My articles obviously needed to be improoved, and I am only glad that they have been! Keep up the good work! --Aciram (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cathérine Charlotte De la Gardie[edit]

Hi! I've just done a bit of editing on Cathérine Charlotte De la Gardie, most of which you wrote. There's one phrase I need your help figuring out. You write that "thirteen women and five men were accused of child abduction to Satan." The phrase "child abduction to Satan" isn't idiomatic, and I'd rewrite it if I were sure what it meant. Does it mean they were "accused of abducting children and sacrificing them to Satan"? "accused of abducting children in Satan's name"? "accused of abducting children at Satan's behest"? "accused of abducting children at Satan's command"? "accused of abducting children and presenting them to Satan"? Or something else?? - Nunh-huh 18:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. In Swedish witch trials, the alleged witches were often accused not of magic, but rather of abducting children to the witches sabbath of Satan. I hope that was of any help. I am glad my article is appreciated. --Aciram (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I enjoyed the article and learned some rather interesting things from it. Please have a look to be sure I haven't ruined it :) - Nunh-huh 20:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were excellent! I always welcome editing of my articles, as I am aware of the fact that English is not my birth language. --Aciram (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish singers[edit]

Hi. I see you just edited Inga Åberg an article that you started in 2007. May I ask if you are Swedish? If so I am wondering if you could help with some articles about historic singers that have a few problems? Best regards. --Klein zach 09:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note on my talk page. I started the article of Inga Åberg - and others similar - when I was new in Wikipedia. Looking at them now, I know they do have their faults. My field is Women´s history, and I have written several articles of women in history from the Scandinavian countries. I am not an expert on the productions within opera, theatre and ballet, but I do have some knowledge about the history of these fields in Scandinavia. I do not have much time on my hands, but I you have anything in particular to ask regarding these articles, then feel free to do so, and I will anser to the best of my ability and time. Regards--Aciram (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with Inga Åberg, the problem is that we need to make clear which roles she undertook were straight theatre and which were opera. (There's a confusion about this in many of the articles.) We need to identify works with their original language names and link them to articles in Wikipedia. (In the case of opera there is a list of most articles on Wikipedia at The opera corpus.) Looking at the section 'Repertoire' we see:

'Among her other parts were "a spirit" in Armide by Gluck and Yngve in Frigga by Gustav III composed by Olof Åhlström (season 1786-87), Carl in Folke Birgersson till Ringstad (Folke Birgersson of Ringstad) by Kexel after a work by Monvel (1792-93), Carl Sjöcrona in Det farliga förtroendet (The dangerous trust) by Grétry (1793-94), Gustafva in De gamla friarna (The old/two suitors) by Dalayrac (1795-96), Agarenne in Panurge dans l'île des lanternes by Grétry (1799-1800), and Madame de Brillon in Monsieur Des Chalumeaux by Pierre Gaveaux (1807-08).

Unfortunately Swedish titles of French works don't mean anything to English readers. We need to give the original French titles - and wikify the original Swedish ones. There's a lot more but maybe we can start here? Thanks. --Klein zach 23:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Hi, those tags are to indicate where the corresponding article is featured in another language and has content that is worth translating or including. Since the scope of the project doesn't include non-featured articles, where the corresponding article is not featured I remove the tags. (Or occcasionally I replace it with something like {{Expand Swedish}} that doesn't assume the article is featured.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually now that I'm here and see you speak Swedish I can invite you to help! I'm basically going through all the articles tagged with {{FAOL}} and seeing if there is actually anything worth translating. These tags were applied indiscriminately to every foreign-language FA at one point in time (without regard to whether the foreign-language FA was actually better than our article) so many of the translation requests, especially for smaller languages, are basically worthless. I've been checking up on them and removing ones that are obviously not helpful and replacing good ones with {{Expand Swedish|articlename|fa=yes}} (fa=yes indicating that it's a featured article in case anyone cares about the distinction). This way eventually the FAOL tags will be merged into a larger translation request system. Since I don't speak Swedish (though machine translators can help) I generally just check out the length of the article and the quality of the referencing. I'm trying to avoid borderline cases for this reason. If you want to help going through them that would be great! The category is Category:Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (Swedish).

The new tags place things in the category Category:Articles needing translation from Swedish Wikipedia and the subcategory Category:Featured articles needing translation from Swedish Wikipedia. If you're ever looking for new articles to translate, good requests can be found in those two categories. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually now I have a question for you! I see that you originally placed the FAOL template (and that it was not placed--like many others--as a part of the huge FAOL-template-placing project years ago). Why did you put it there? To indicate that a sv.wiki article existed? To do that, an interwiki link is better (which I see you also applied). If you were doing it to indicate that you translated from the sv.wiki article, the best practice is probably to apply the template {{Translated}} (see the template page for instructions). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Ingesdotter of Sweden[edit]

In the Christina Ingesdotter of Sweden wiki article you claimed that she was a Russian princess when in fact she was a princess of Kievan Rus'. Kievan Rus' is something else then Russia, just like the Roman Empire is not Italy. I hope you will be more careful in the future. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! I am a little embarrassed about that mistake, actually, and can only blame it on simple carelessness. I am glad you corrected it! I have also corrected it even more: as she died before her spouse became Grand Prince of Kiev, it seems that she was in fact princess consort of Novgorod, Rostov and other cities, if I have understoond it correctly. Please feel free to correct whenever you have more information! --Aciram (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hee I didn't know she was a princess of Veliky Novgorod, Rostov and Belgorod instead of Kievan Rus' ;) — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Hans the Werewolf[edit]

I have nominated Hans the Werewolf, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans the Werewolf (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DreamGuy (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of The Fisherwife of Palermo[edit]

I have nominated The Fisherwife of Palermo, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fisherwife of Palermo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thank You[edit]

You're very welcome. You make good contributions, and I'd hate to see them removed. Dreamguy seemed to be concerned that the Fisherwife and Hans the Werewolf were tortured to make them confess, it might satisfy his concerns if you clarified that in the articles. If there is nothing in your sources to indicate that torture was used, you may want to mention that on the AFD discussions. I'll go over the articles and fix any problems I see regarding the English language. I know how cruel English can be to a non-native speaker, and I'm always impressed when people learn it, even when they don't speak it perfectly. Asarelah (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Its mainly just some grammar and phrasing issues. I understand it fine, but apparently Dreamguy is much more nit-picky. Asarelah (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also added some hidden comments on the Fisherwife article that can only be seen when the edit tab is clicked. Its mostly requests for clarification that would improve the article greatly. I'll come back and work on it some more and also check over the Werewolf article and add more hidden comments in areas that need to be clarified. Asarelah (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hans the Werewolf deletion discussion[edit]

Hello Aciram, I noticed that you mentioned reservations about commenting on an AfD discussion for an article you created. I wanted to assure you that such reservations are completely unnecessary; on the contrary, your input is probably the most valuable in such discussions. On the AfD guideline page, it is strongly recommended that the person who nominates an article for deletion put notifications on the page of the article creator and significant contributors to give them a chance to provide their input. This is partially because they should have a chance to justify the work they have done, and also because they may have an insight into the subject that other editors may not. In addition, if a change to the article is suggested they would likely take part since they've already been editing the article. So please don't hesitate to do so in the future, your presence in those discussions is very much appropriate. Thanks! -- Atama ^chat 23:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that if the problems are unresolved that the discussion can conclude with a deletion. However, the article itself doesn't have to be "fixed", there just needs to be a consensus that the article can and will be fixed. That counts as "resolved". I can't tell the future but I suspect that unless more people come into the discussions with firm objections to the articles that they would pass as "keep". Thanks! -- Atama ^chat 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czech theatre[edit]

Hello Aciram, fan of theatre! The oldest Czech professional theatre was apparently the Estates Theatre in Prague, which is also the oldest theatre building in Prague. It was opened with the play Emilia Galotti by Lessing. I have in my hands two excellent books on old Czech theatre:

Starší divadlo v českých zemích - osobnosti a díla (Older Czech Theatre - Personalities and Works) ISBN 978-80-7008-201-0
Stavovské divadlo (Estate Theatre) ISBN 80-902183-7-7

Unfortunately I can't find the names of the first actors... Initially the theatre was German, it is known as the place of premiere of Mozart works. The first Czech performance (play "Odběhlec z lásky synovské" by Gottlieb Stephanie) took place in 1785 with František Jindřich Bulla (1754, Prague - 1819, Lemberg) as Holbek's son, František Jindřich Höpfler (1753, Prague - after 1804) as Holbek father, and Antonín Zappe (1744, Prague - 1824, Prague) as Petr. I can provide more biographical informations, if you want, but I'm not sure, if they were really the first actors there. Btw, I'm currently working on this :) Have a good day, colleague. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian theatre[edit]

Hello Aciram. That is great subject that you investigating, i would love to participate! Share with me your findings!

Well, oldest Serbian theatre is Knjaževsko-srpski teatar in Kragujevac, from 1835.
First regular theatre in Belgrade is from 1841, "Theatre on Ćumruk", or "Ćumrukana" in Belgrade, Serbia.

You can see some photo here and here. This is one of the last pictures before Nazis destroyed it in WWII.

And the Serbian National Theatre from 1861 is the oldest continuously running Serbian professional theatre.

And regarding Actors, well, Čiča Ilija Stanojević was one of the first, directors and actors, and Dimitrije Ružić, Milka Grgurova, Draginja Ružić, Laza Telečki, Miša Dimitrijević, Dimitrije Spasić, Draga Spasić... One of the best Serbian actors ever was from that period, Pera Dobrinović. I am play writer, so ask me if you need something else, and share with me your search.

All best, Tadija (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right! I will start! They deserve it! :)

Tadija (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian theatre[edit]

Hello, the Plovdiv Dramatic Theatre seems to have been founded in 1881 as the Luxeumbourg International Theatre.[1] The Ivan Vazov National Theatre established in 1904 traces its history back to several companies, the oldest of which was founded in 1888.[2] The first organized theatrical performance in Bulgaria was the premiere of Mihal the Mouse-Easter, the first Bulgarian drama play, in Shumen in 1856 by Sava Dobroplodni.[3] Hope that was of some use, if you have any more questions, feel free to ask at my talk page or WPBG :) Todor →Bozhinov 08:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian theater and actors[edit]

In response to your questions at WP:RD/H, "What was the first theatre in Hungary with professional actors of both genders? Who is counted as the first professional actor and actress respectively", I posted a question at the Hungarian reference desk. In response, I was told "Answer: National Theatre of Miskolc; Róza Laborfalvi; and maybe Latabár Endre." Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richeza's[edit]

Good work today Aciram on two of our Queens by the name of Richeza in English and Rikissa in Swedish! But let's be totally consistent and rename the last one you did Richeza of Denmark, Queen of Sweden so she matches the others perfectly. Thx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The queenly title is neccessary only when more than one princess of a certain country bore the same name. There were three Polish princesses named Richeza, so the titles had to be Richeza of Poland, Queen of Sweden, Richeza of Poland, Queen of Castile and Richeza of Poland, Queen of Hungary. Since this Richeza was the only Richeza of Denmark, the current title is just fine. We should avoid long, clumsy titles; eg. Catherine of Aragon is much better than Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England. Surtsicna (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're pasting similar entries around, let me do so, too (from my talk page)!

I think consistency is much more important between these namesake queens and that the addition of "Queen of..." always is a good idea: a necessary clarification of who these women are and not at all clumsy. Thus, I do not agree re: Catherine either. Only some British people might know that there has only been one Catherine of Aragon in history and that she, thus named, must be that Queen of England we may have heard of. I don't think en.WP is supposed to cater mainly to what Brits might know. There is no British WP (that I know of - perhaps there should be?).

Seems adamant users could be content in using the consorts' nationalities/names before marriage (which I think is an awful idea, but have conceded), and that they then might not want to confuse things even more, in my opinion, by refraining - on rather flimsy grounds (to me, sorry!) - from having their most important position in the article titles. If in one title, let's have it in all, so a majority of readers will have any chance at all to figure out what we are up to! I am a great lover of the strictest possible consistency because I have seen it triumph unquestionably over contrived inconsistency thousands of times in creating much more clarity and much smoother usage. Please forgive me!

I also believe just as much in a global perspective for all WP projects as I do in using the best possible English to reflect it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your appreciation, SergeWoodzing. I think I must agree with Surtsicna in this issue, however. I used the queen title for Richeza of Sweden, because the dates for her births and death is unknown, but I think that should be avoided if it is possible to do so, as it is a little long for a title. --Aciram (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I wrote to you about this. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to appologize. We all have different oppinions, and that's fine with me. I'm glad the titles were changed from the original ones, if those were badly suited. --Aciram (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the new "My opinions..." texts on my user page which covers most of what I have to say on this and related issues. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalen's entrance to en.WP[edit]

Nice job Aciram! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lindqvist as a source[edit]

Dear Aciram: Re: recent expansions. In all the excellent work you do, please be very careful in using too much of Herman Lindqvist as a source. He is not reliable and mixes fact with fiction in a very dangerous way (for an encyclopedia). Especially his 2006 book on the Queens of Sweden is terribly inaccurate and full of material that would belong in a novel, not in factual writing. I have a whole list. Too much of this stuff in our articles here will lead to an almost insurmountable task if we have to try to clean it up and make it reliable. Best regards, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]