User talk:Gerda Arendt/2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know ...

7 July 2011, a year later I dedicated my first GA to BarkingMoon (talk · contribs) who made the cantata a lead DYK and left, for lack of br'erly devotion.


Hello, Gerda Arendt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Graham Waterhouse, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted. ... --> Again, welcome! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archive of 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012

Flowers and sapphires[edit]

Go Gerda Girl[edit]

You do great work and I love it! Don't let Tony get to you. Ihre Arbeit ist grossartig. Weiter schreiben, eien lange Zeit. PS, I really liked the article about the church the communists blew up. BarkingMoon (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Sehr geehrte Gerda, I have a watch on your page since a few weeks ago. I approved and moved 167 to holding for June 24.BarkingMoon (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keine Problem. Koennen Sie ueberpruefen DYK Noel F. Parrish? Danke. BarkingMoon (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Later, yes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my talk page. Thanks so much! BarkingMoon (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On 30 December 2011 the article became a GA, thanks to Ched, PumpkinSky and MathewTownsend, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wonderful comment
For your wonderful comment, cutting right to the heart of the matter! cmadler (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For a true gem of a person ...[edit]

words of reason and trust
To quote you: Thank you for speaking up with decency and fairness, treating editors as living people, — Ched :  ?  15:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You asked for an English translation of "uneinsichtig, unbelehrbar und beratungsresistent". Without consulting a dictionary, I translate those words as "uninsightful, unteachable, and resistant to advice", but there may be a more nuanced or idiomatic meaning that I am missing. The single English word that comes to mind to describe that set of characteristics is "pig-headed" (that is probably not an English word you know, but I think it is a word you will enjoy). I also think of the Wikipedia item WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Your English is much better than my Deutsch, so I am happy when I can help you expand your knowledge. I didn't respond on the page where you asked the question because I think it is a bad idea to continue the argument ("bickering") there. Also, I think it is best to avoid making accusations against people, because that often makes people angry, while failing to help them see the problem. (See Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks.) --Orlady (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I certainly enjoyed the new word and your sensible way of handling the case. I just asked words, didn't I? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah, but "pig-headed" has more negative connotations than "hard-headed" or "stubborn". I will not choose a term to apply to this situation, per one of the above cited policies. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Learning, thank you! (Just approved your Aku hook), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"impervious" rings a bell: "impervious to pain, up to a certain point" (The Fountainhead), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Orlady, einsicht is indeed insight or understanding, but in this context uneinsichtig is nearer to "unreasonable". I suggest "unreasonable, incorrigible, and impervious to advice". Pig-headed is good. Moonraker (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for more insight, on top of your brilliant idiomatic translation of the 1715 text about the (equal) skills of females to study, see above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Standing Strong[edit]

When the Ill Winds Blow No Good
I saw this image and thought of you and all you've done to help PS and Khazar. You are a bastion of refuge when the storm clouds come in, and I for one would like to thank you. Don't worry about people talking behind your back - as they say, "sticks and stones". Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

uh, a tree for you[edit]

Tree award? These have to be "awards"?
Hi, Gerda. I was editing Desivojca, and it has this nice tree photo from the "Komani neighborhood", so I figured it should be seen more. Enjoy. Alarbus (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do, I love trees! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar
For believing in the goodness of people above all. For having faith and being willing to work on a cause that seemed hopeless. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AMEN to that! Gerda is one of the kindest, most decent people I've ever met. In this case, wiki-met, not met in person, though I'd love to do that one day.PumpkinSky talk 11:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, yes, please, all of it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Structure not wanted?"[edit]

Not by everyone... I'd removed the paragraph break, he readded it, and I wasn't going to fight with him about it, so I just left it. Thanks for tidying up the blurb at Phallus indusiatus and sorry if you felt you were getting caught in the crossfire. This related discussion might also interest you... or you might want to steer clear, your choice! Regards and very best wishes, BencherliteTalk 23:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, I saw it and kind of answered in the other thread. I don't feel caught, don't worry. I would still like to find a way not to see a German king associated with "gross", but it's 1:12 where I live, no more ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You were reverted as well, btw. BencherliteTalk 23:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hopefully Dabomb will deal with it before it goes on the MP. --Rschen7754 23:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure he will, if he selects it - but that just makes more work for him, which is unfair. Alternatively, he'll ignore the nomination which might be unfair on the article. Either way, who wins from what's happening at TFAR at the moment? BencherliteTalk 23:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that Raul is taking a wikibreak, and some users don't respect his authority anyway and are taking advantage. FAC and FAR are still running quite fine since there's multiple delegates who can deal with disruption, but at TFA it's only Dabomb against everyone else, and he's busy IRL too. (But thankfully he came back when I alerted him by email, or we would have had complete anarchy when we ran out of scheduled TFAs). --Rschen7754 00:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not a problem; the wiki runs fine wo. Wiki's are not about “authoritah” they are about collaborations and merit. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, I don't believe in authority for the sake of authority, or structure for the sake of structure. However, in this case structure is needed, or we'll get people scheduling their own FAs as TFAs, or scheduling a whole bunch of similar articles in a consecutive row, or scheduling articles that are clearly not ready, etc. That is why there is a FA director and delegate here, to make sure that these concerns are addressed.
If you think that the TFA system should be trashed and redone from the ground up, then I would suggest starting a RFC and going about it the proper way, because after all, the community chose to have the current system. Either that, or stick with what we have. So in other words, either put up with it, or form a consensus to get things changed. But this "middle-ground" passive-aggressive behavior I see from multiple parties of making snide remarks against Raul, changing the TFA rules without consensus, sneakily scheduling TFAs in the hopes that Raul/Dabomb won't notice, etc. is disruptive. It needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. Raul hasn't been perfect, either, but that doesn't excuse the other side. I will not hesitate to bring further action/attention to this matter if necessary. --Rschen7754 08:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These tweaks to formats are no big deal unless you choose to make them so, which is unhelpful. I've quit a lot of experience with web formatting and page design; example. And the blurbs can be re-tweak post scheduling. I've no real issue with Dabomb; he selects some interesting articles. I'm not “against” him. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
waking up to an interesting thread: we lived in anarchy for a month now, the result is the archive of September, I like what Dabomb scheduled, Lynching and Lettuce, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Situation for the last several weeks strikes me as an example of where consensus is demonstrated to work and proof no one is indispensable. If one person is getting overwhelmed, the answer is to have other talented people share the work. The wrong answer is to try and make it a small domain where one person after another gets burned out because they are trying to keep too much control of everything. TFA requires many eyes and many hands on deck. Montanabw(talk) 17:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Mandarax Barnstar of Excellence[edit]

The Mandarax Barnstar of Excellence
I am pleased to award this MBE to you in recognition of your outstanding work on Wikipedia. Your numerous DYKs have achieved the noble goal of highlighting culture on the Main Page. Your work with other users is exemplary, and you're one of the nicest Wikipedians, always supporting and encouraging other users. Thanks for all of your superb contributions! MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 19:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! - I was tempted to say "Blushing", but every time I say so the user is gone a week later, I don't want to miss you also ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ps: I would like to share this award with my br'er Rabbit, the incarnation of selfless service to this project ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your not saying it seems to have worked – it's been a week and I'm still here! I just finished my latest article (my first in a long time). It's about an artist who was born and raised in Germany and was very interested in music. For some reason, that made me think of you.... MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 22:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't say it, as much as I was tempted! - Thanks for staying with me, and for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nice edit notice ;)[edit]

A Halloween present from Wikipediocracy on my eighth anniversary. Best wishes. Mads Lange (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nice comment, peace maker - I pass free treats today, Reformation, even the Bach cantata got a pumpkin + I like sharing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mentioned this article on my talk page earlier. The reason I did a bit of work on it was partly because it was pretty poor, but more selfishly I wanted to start an article on the topic of concealed shoes, and I didn't it want it to be immediately tagged as an orphan; I hate those tags. I've emailed Northampton Museum asking if someone from there could take a look at the article, and it would be good if you and/or your talk-page stalkers could have a quick look through as well, to see if there's anything that could do with a bit more explanation. I'm not asking for any kind kind of formal review, just a quick eyeball to see if there's anything obviously missing, or that doesn't make sense.

Cheers! (Yes, I've had a couple of glasses of wine, and perhaps you'll join me. I find it helps the creative juices to flow. ;-) ) George Ponderevo (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, will look but not soon, want to get Fauré's Requiem to presentable until the composer appears as TFA on 4 November, translate a Bach cantata to German until Saturday and Der Handschuh asap, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you like me to take a look as well? Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, all of them ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, later. Have to warn you though that I'm not really a Wikipedian, have never been a Wikipedian, and I scare away women, children and new editors. Allegedly. But I'll try and be gentle. Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
matching my Category:Wikipedians who are not part of The Community --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Tritt auf die Glaubensbahn, BWV 152[edit]

(X! · talk)  · @954  ·  12:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gerda[edit]

A question: apart from Pagliacci, are there any other operas featuring clowns? Am struggling a bit with a quiz and this possibly falls within your area of expertise! Hope you are well and enjoying the festivities. pablo 18:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No other clown comes to my mind, jester Rigoletto is different, perhaps ask Project:Opera? - Our fine Christmas music is on my user, look for "ban complaining" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I think Rigoletto is right (what with the filicide and all). It's section 3 of this if you fancy having a look. pablo 21:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
preceding Falstaff and Forza del destino, - the latter could also be a redirect to AN, like Great Dismal Swamp ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah - I had Falstaff, but thanks for the other one. I also have Trovatore, Otello, Macbeth(?) and Traviata but my opera knowledge is weak! pablo 22:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4 Simone Boccanegra, 5 Trovatore, 6 Nabucco, 7 Otello, 8 Un ballo in maschera, 9 Ernani 10 Traviata (I used WP for one) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

← Awesome, thanks! The annoying thing about this quiz is the wording, so many things ring a bell, but hunting them down is tricky. pablo 23:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, this was fun! - Did you know that I make up a daily opera DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gerda,[edit]

I'm really enjoying all the great music for the holiday season - thank you for all your work in such a beautiful topic. I hope you and all your family have a wonderful time over this season. Hugs to all. — Ched :  ?  17:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Ched, feels good! Same to you, thinking "Joy to the world" - we sang that on Christmas Eve, in English, in Germany, - peace, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and have a good one[edit]

Hi Gerda, or indeed Aye Oop, Lass. (I'm in Yorkshire Mode, but do not know why. Please feel free to reply in Bavarian ...)

Just a note to wish you the very best for 2013 and to thank you for all your kindness and wisdom. I've had a busy Winter Seasonal Period (it gets a bit frantic for, ahem, Players Of A Certain Instrument, as you know) but I now have a bit of a break though there's a nice BWV243 coming up in January. (Not, thank goodness, 243a for which I would prefer to be in the audience!)

I am sure a certain Prussian Professorin would still love you to pop in and say hello sometime ... but she can keep, there's no hurry :)

Have a great Year Beginning Celebration Module (or, like, whatever ...)

with my very best, DBaK (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lovely, thank you! Same to you, like! Did you see the instruments mentioned on top of this page, all the time? And viola d'amore was pictured on the Main page yesterday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yes! Lovely! :) DBaK (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have a great 2013 Your Gerdaress!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, same! It started nicely, hiking uphill and looking down on our village's fireworks. You both, please look at BWV 41, mentioned on top, it's for today, it's with the straight instruments, and it has a red link ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Googled it, couldn't find anything on him..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the usual suspect --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BWV 41 - oh yes, nice!! So, I am currently listening to Suzuki/BCJ performing it - wonderful stuff, thank you for the heads-up. I don't think I have ever played it but I need anyway to brush up on the, er, Extreme Tools and Techniques as I have a Magnificat coming up, so I will have a look at this too, Yummy! :) DBaK (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for improvements there! Magnificent disillusion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deutscher Musikpreis.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ps: Echo is a different one, can you fix that? ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK nomination of Christophe Coin[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Christophe Coin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Gerda I've asked once before that TFAR discussions not be kept and recycled. Just so you know, I've brought it up with Bencherlite. [1]. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This one was related to the original nomination, people started to say the same things again, otherwise I would not have brought it back, - feel free to edit what you don't like. - I wonder anyway why nobody else nominated this as it was planned, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I wonder anyway why nobody else nominated this"? Perhaps because you nominated it in October and you added it to the "pending" list - why would anyone else feel obliged to renominate for you? And it isn't / wasn't "planned" to appear on 28th January, as the previous discussion shows. As for your email, I'm not rescheduling the article for 6th January - it's too short notice, and a fair degree of work is involved in unscheduling and rescheduling, which I don't feel in the mood to do just to avoid a points penalty for an Austen-related article. In other news, happy new year! BencherliteTalk 11:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy new year to you as well, and thanks for scheduling! (Sorry, I wrote the above in a rush, not thinking too carefully about wording, "planning" wasn't the right term, hoping would be better.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gerda,[edit]

It's probably better that I don't go into detail ... but thank you very much for your support. I added a person to "missed" because someone asked me to. Like you, I only ran across the MT account. I won't say more, but I very much appreciate your backup. — Ched :  ?  09:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Did you know that of the four people in the second entry above, only one is not missing, YOU? I still have a dream, not only for TFA, of civility and team spirit. I just did a good exercise: check for the word peace on my talk archive, you will like it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brains Work Better Barnstar[edit]

The 'Brains Work Better in A Community' Award
You and I walk on the same side of the street. Thank you for all your efforts to befriend and assist your fellow Wikipedian Editors (WE). Bottom line: WE are all living breathing people that desire love. Your efforts have a cascading effect throughout WP. What's so bad about Peace, Love and Understanding? ```Buster Seven Talk 01:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, blushing again. (See above, not afraid that you will leave within a week ;) Thanks to Elen for the colour.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ps: click on peace under the pumpkin sky --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Icelandic Phallological Museum TFA nomination[edit]

In the comments on my nomination of Icelandic Phallological Museum for TFA, another editor has suggested Feb 13th as an alternative date. Would you support the nomination if it was switched to that date? Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about February 14th? More romantic.... Ahem. Be sure to picture the Blue whale penis on the front page! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should have looked before you posted this ;) that's where it was, but met reservation, including my own, - you didn't speak up on WP:TFAR, use your voice there! (The rules for nominations look super-complicated, but you can freely support and oppose.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got a link to the proposal?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given above. Scroll over the enormous rules, you get to the summary chart, there's the link, was 14 February when I looked last, but may change now to 13. Take courage, it's like a fortress, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd support on any day except the 14th. Montanabw(talk) 22:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Christophe Coin[edit]

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Hi Gerda,

Thank you for your kind note on my talk page! What a nice surprise! I'm glad that you enjoyed reading Psittacosaurus, but in point of fact, I had less to do with the improvement of this article than several other editors. user:Sheep81 deserves most of the credit for the original version of the article, and a half-dozen editors kept it well-maintained. I feel like I don't deserve the jewel... but I'm adding it to my page anyway! ;) Regardless, thank you for your kind gesture. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the recommendation, please name the others to be considered, I go at no more than one a day, spreading if more one editor was contributing, and a few are on my personal waiting list ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The short list is user:Albertonykus, user:FunkMonk, user:J. Spencer, user:Dinoguy2, and user:Mgiganteus1. All wonderful editors who added good content to the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, will keep in mind! FunkMonk has Precious already, check the list, and don't say again "undeserved" about yourself, it's not for single article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All these were awarded, nice to meet them! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing articles[edit]

Created all article requests at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera. Feel free to help expand. Best if they were removed and a new set of requests added..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you fo creating. Voceditenore is the one to address for the project. I am busy with BWV 32, probably not able to expand 5*, would you find a red link there, for Sunday 13, both 1726 and 2013! Once I am done, I want to pursue my first GA om in German, BWV 40, then opera ;)
Decided on Rachel Nicholls for the cantata --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I know this is an incredibly off the wall idea and maybe not even a good one, but have you ever considered running for adminship, just on the odd chance that you might need to use the tools someday? I imagine you will not be interested, but every good editor should have the idea suggested to them once in a while, just as a reminder that they are a good editor. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 17:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, speaking of your trust! No, not me, because(!) I want to edit ;) - I know excellent admins to ask in case of need, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I figured you wouldn't want to. It's probably for the best though, you are far too nice a person to put through that headache. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 18:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Headache is a rather harmless word for the process my favourite collaborator did not "survive", - thank you for signing "peace" (above)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. The RfA process is a mess, but I'm concerned that we won't be able to get consensus on either determining the problems or finding solutions. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 18:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Asking Gerda to become an admin would be like asking a princess to become a janitor!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) − In general, agreed. (@Automatic Strikeout) Specifically, if an RfA has to be termed an attack page, but nothing gets done about that, it's not "the process", it's the people, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't agree with Dr. Blofeld ? I agree with your response, but getting the people to fix themselves is probably not going to happen. It's a shame, but it's the reality of the situation. Re Dr Blofeld: Should we open up an RfC to name Gerda the official "Princess of Wikipedia"? AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 18:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LIKE! Montanabw(talk) 22:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I typically agree with my most astounding red-link-filler, but am too involved in this case to agree. - I have been termed "that Gerda person", and have called myself the cleaning lady of TFA, so please: no such nomination, - your support is much better than a title, I mean both of you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As someone who hasn't worked with you that often, I have to say that I regret that you would not even consider the possibility of adminship, although, honestly, I have to say that I can understand why. We don't have enough as is, and I think you would probably be one of the better candidates. Probably better than me, anyway. Having said that, I note someone I asked to run for ArbCom, The Blade of the Northern Lights, has recently "taken some time off" because of the sometimes bizarre conduct at AE and elsewhere, so I can't fault someone not wanting to voluntary lock the door of the asylum after entering, which is kinda what it must feel like for him and others who are more actively involved in adminship functions. But, if you ever change your mind, let me know. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry John but what exactly does Gerda have to gain by becoming an admin? What did I ever have to gain by becoming an admin? How does it help content? There of course some fine content contributord who are admins and barely use their tools. but it is something of a distraction, not to mention the nasty grilling process that is RFA and having to go out of your way to seem perfect to people. Gerda would of course make perfect admin material, but you have to look at why she would want it, as if she's unable to cope without admin tools at present.. Its sad that so many people here stress so much on becoming an admin.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ditto, adminship is sort of the booby prize for being a good editor! No good deed goes unpunished there! Montanabw(talk) 22:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My mind: I am a member of Editor retention, and I have a hard time to retain myself. Please follow the link to "need" above, then to "attack page" - still talking about the same need more than a year later, then look at my user page, "ban complaining", - and perhaps sign "peace" above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amen to that Doc - especially when some of them get away with acting like this. - SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Get away? - Up to us, no? I said my mantra in the middle of there as well, followed by talk of "losing horses" when referring to people and the case of need mentioned above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite right Gerda - and what you added needed to be said. Sadly others get away with a lot, and the dysfunctional behaviour they are supposed to safeguard against is fully in evidence in their own approach to editing sometimes. This is dispicable behaviour from a number of people, but one admin in particular, and his underhand obfuscation and evasion to try and avoid criticism over edit warring, censorship and threats involving the use of his admin status do absolutely nothing except further bring the name of admins into disrepute. He has acted like the very worst form of politician. Just like you I know of a number of very, very good admins who I will trust (including a couple who have acted against me in the past) but I come across some from time to time who constantly reinforce my generally very low opinon, especially when their hypocritical behavious falls short of the required standards for any editor, let alone those who should know better. - SchroCat (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An invitation for you![edit]

Hello, Gerda Arendt. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 02:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A good project, thank you for the invitation, - but I need to concentrate, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

: /[edit]

Hey, Gerda! I saw your reply to my post on ANI; I think you've got me all wrong! I know it doesn't sound like it, but "badass" is actually a compliment. It's slang, but it's actually a pretty high compliment (in my mind, at least). I've always been really impressed with Graham87, and not just because he's a blind man working so well in an entirely visual environment that you never would have guessed. I was really impressed by him before I knew he was blind, even. Writ Keeper 15:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok, got it now, English is not my first language ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries! I kinda figured; the word doesn't sound particularly complimentary, I know. :) Anyway, the expression about "losing horses" is, as Hand that Feeds says, derived from horse racing. I've usually seen it used as "backing the wrong horse" or "backing a losing horse". Basically, what it means is that you're wasting your time and effort on a "lost cause", a goal that has no chance of being successful or productive. (It's hard to explain idioms without using other idioms...) It comes from placing a bet ("backing") a slow (or otherwise bad) horse in a horse race. The horse is almost certainly going to lose the race, so betting money on it will almost certainly be a waste of money. In the context of the conversation, I think Doc was telling Ched to stop yelling at Sandy about Rlevse/PumpkinSky and Jack Merridew/Br'er Rabbit, since they're already gone; people aren't going to change their minds, and even if they did, it won't bring them back, so it's pointless. Does that make more sense? Writ Keeper 15:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no. firstly, have you ever seen Ched yelling? secondly, if PumpkinSky changed his mind he could be back, but would he? being spoken about as we see here and places? thirdly, to reduce profit to money is narrow, no? fourthly, to compare people to losing horses, however idiomatic, is nothing that wins my heart ;) - I responded there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I didn't say that Doc was right about what he was saying; I just think that's what he said, that's all. (And of course that's only my interpretation!) I think I've explained myself poorly; perhaps it would've been better had I not tried... Writ Keeper 16:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) You explained well, it's not your fault that your interpretation makes the line look worse than my own, because I didn't get that yelling part. Do you see what I see: that Ched is one of the calmest people around and it takes A LOT to make him speak up? - Did you have a chance to read the thread above that starts with Adminship? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I guess I didn't mean "yelling" literally. Certainly, Ched isn't actually yelling. [redacted at request] The point is that Ched is derailing the subject of the thread so that he can be hostile to Sandy about editors that aren't around here any more. Doc is saying that, instead of focusing on the past, where what is done is done, he should instead focus on the present, where useful things can be still be said and done. Writ Keeper 16:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting. I may have another language problem, "hostile" seems even worse than "yelling". Look again: who is not getting over the past? "Ched is being hostile towards Sandy, which is definitely true" is definitely untrue and not going to stay on my talk, please modify. Look again who was derailing the subject of the thread which was a conflict between Schro and Gimme (if I may use abbreviations). Look again what in the thread refers to that original dispute and what not. Saying again: it takes A LOT to make Ched speak up, and he ended: "Tell me how we get to a point of understanding."--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I don't want to offend anyone. But he's calling Sandy "toxic" and "detrimental to the project". How would you describe the language in this diff? I don't have any other words for it. Putting something nice at the very end of the post does not make the rest of the post nice as well. If that were so, I could write the most scathing insults on someone's character and end it with "but they sure have nice hair!", and then if someone accuses me of making horrible insults, I say, "But I wasn't insulting! Look, I complimented their hair!" I'm deliberately avoiding the usual loaded Wikipedia terms of "civility" and "personal attacks", because the last thing I want to do is imply judgement on this situation. I don't know the full story here; Ched could be perfectly right about Sandy, but that doesn't change the tone of what he said.
Look, I'm not defending Sandy here. I'm not prosecuting Ched, either. I'm not saying either of them were right or wrong. (Sometimes hostility is justified, and sometimes it's necessary. I have no idea whether or not it was either of those things in this case. but even if it is, it's still hostility.) But that's what I see. Writ Keeper 17:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the problem is that Sandy IS hostile herself with her cracks that indirectly do refer to Psky and B'rer, which are in fact contributing to a toxic atmosphere and detrimental to the project. Ched's just basically pointing that out; we have one of those situations where one person (Sandy) is being quite a bully, but then when called on it claims innocence, and is shocked and outraged, claiming to be the victim. While it would be nice to stay in the present, that can only happen when EVERYONE cooperates, and when an editor doesn't try to skirt it by inserting veiled comments that keep poking at old wounds. Ched only spoke the truth, you see. Montanabw(talk) 18:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And sometimes the truth is hostile, which is why I'm trying very hard to emphasize that I'm not saying Ched was wrong or uncivil or attacking or whatever. This is not the Inquisition, and the last thing I want to be is an inquisitor of civility. I was just trying to explain my interpretation of what another user meant. I honestly can't think of any other word to describe what Ched said; my mental thesaurus is failing me. I'll withdraw it (and indeed already have), but I don't understand why offense is being taken at it. Perhaps there's a cultural divide here, which not-so-coincidentally is one of the reasons why I never want to become an inquisitor of civility. Writ Keeper 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cultural divide[edit]

Trying to understand more about a cultural divide:

  • Ched said "toxic" TO the addressee, not about her, that makes a big difference. - We should follow that example. Writ Keeper, you might want to notify SandyGeorgia of this discussion, we others are not welcome on her talk, and she likes to be notified.
  • I noticed the description "toxic place" elsewhere, not by Ched. (Note: a place, not a person)
  • I noticed that other users also show disappointment about a change in the tone of SandyGeorgia's contributions, see here and here.
  • Did you know that I started a discussion on civility and team spirit? (you need to scroll up there) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ched's exact words in the diff I linked above were: "I will continue to point out how toxic and detrimental you have become to our project." (emphasis mine) Not "how toxic the project is because of you", but "how toxic you are." Ched was directly calling Sandy toxic and a detriment; he wasn't talking about the project or anything else becoming toxic. Once again, I don't want to get drawn into an argument about Sandy, and whether the toxic and detrimental labels are accurate. They may or may not be, I don't know. I just really don't want to leave this conversation with a misunderstanding between us about what I meant. :( Writ Keeper 07:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No misunderstanding here: yes, he said so, but he said so TO her, not about her where she would not see it. I admire him for doing so. - I asked "define toxic" where toxic place was mentioned, and I asked for a better word/description below before I saw your reply. I like this beginning of better understanding! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lacking words[edit]

Thinking further: I admire the artistic way Sandy Georgia uses words. Let's look at the thread, and let's (simplified, sure) assume that SandyGeorgia has a negative history with two people, Ched has a positive history with the same.

  • Roughly estimate how much room is given in that thread to the negative, how much to the positive. Please tell me a better word than "toxic".
  • Compare the room given to talking about these two people to the room given to the initial conflict between two other people. Please give me a better word than "derailing".
  • See how she mentions the phrase "Gimmetrow-- a productive admin in good standing --" as if "a productive admin in good standing" was a matter of fact and not the very issue questioned by SchoCat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Toxic" was Ched's word, not mine. If my mean my use of "hostile", well, I still can't really think of any other way to describe it. "Antagonistic", maybe? There are certainly negative connotations with the word "hostile", but that's not really the spirit of what I meant. I did not mean it in the sense of "spiteful" or "malicious". I meant it more along the lines of "opposed", but stronger than that. It's hard to explain.
  • The second point is fair: "derailing" was an overstatement. "Sidetracked" or "off-topic" probably would've been better; it's still not what was supposed to be being discussed, but it had been brought up before, so "Derailing" was too strong a word to use. My mistake for that. :)
  • I'm going to decline to address the third point, as it's not really something I want to get into, and not something addressed by my original comment. Writ Keeper 16:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts, very helpful. - I would like a better word instead of toxic for my own use, do you know one? I would like to describe what seems like sticking to the negative of a past (probably summarized as "detrimental") vs. positive ideas for a future, - As for the thread, the original dispute, although two attempts to return from all the "side-tracking" to it were made, is still not resolved, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor of the Week[edit]

Gerda, we've been doing all this work on proposing the editor of the week idea, and you've helped us a good deal, but it occurs to me (well, let's be honest, it occurred to someone else at WT:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards and I thought they were right) that we should check with you before creating a structured system for giving out an editor of the week since you give out editor of the day. Do you have any objections, concerns, etc.? Thanks for everything you do here on the project... you ought to be one of our editors of the week. Go Phightins! 20:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Within two days, I was offered the t-shirt, adminship, princess, and now this niceness: PLEASE find editors who have not otherwise been awarded, so not me ;) - I will look, but keep in mind that my PumpkinSky Prize is absolutely not structured and my very personal thing, following a great example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about Colin. You are, of course, welcome to participate. I've actually noticed your name around, as I coded a lot of the WikiProject Opera backend - composer of the month and such, so I do see edits to it. =) Haven't really done mcuh in opera for a bit; should poke around my collection and see what comes out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, really, I am used to it ;) Colin is of course absolutely right that I support/recognize the quality contributions of banned editors. - Look above, we are striving for a politer expression for "toxic place" - and the desire to overcome it. - Music helps, go for it! Did you see "ban complaining" on my user page? ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ps: now I have to insert the ref for the sad news that another musician whose biography I wrote, died, Franz Lehrndorfer, teacher of our cantor, RIP, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As promised:

Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lovely and fitting, thank you ;) - Did you read civility and team spirit, my windmills? - Verbannet die Klage, "ban complaining", not "ban mourning", see? That was well before the last banning posse ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh. I could tell you some interesting stories about uncivil arbritrators, but think I shall refrain, as it was some time ago. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Refrain, - a good refrain. The arbitrators were ok last time, it's Teh Community I am ashamed to be part of ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Congratulations! For helping me format my Pony Prize, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw(talk) 20:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Respect! Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Icelandic Phallological Museum[edit]

Thanks for your prodding on this topic - I've decided to go along with SandyGeorgia's suggestion of nominating it for a non-specific date. Hopefully it will get a better reception than the last nomination... Prioryman (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have my support ;) The mushroom of a similar name should then wait until a month later ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Hello, Gerda;

Thank you for the unexpected sapphire! J. Spencer (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Rachel Nicholls[edit]

Harrias talk 15:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC) 08:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Oh wow, thank you for the lovely gemstone. Hope I can live up to it! mgiganteus1 (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year Gerda[edit]

Dear Gerda, I am too busy thinking about all sorts of silly things and forgot to send you a greeting for the New Year, if such things amuse you. At any rate I'm glad to see you are still here and have not been distracted by the Wikifollies (!) I saw The Hobbit (film) on IMAX 3-d the other day and thought it was awesome. Snow is settling on Ipswich tonight so it all looks very pretty by streetlight, if cold underfoot. I hope you have yet another brilliant year in WP and of course (far more important) a brilliant year in the Reality (whatever you construe that to be) which is The Great Outside... If there is such a thing as a Jahresentwicklung I hope that yours will be frohlich. - Season's greetings, (Steven) Eebahgum (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Steven, I appreciate your personal thoughts and wish you no less than the same! - I didn't send "individual" greetings but had Christmas music on my user, - a remnant is still there now like a motto: "ban complaining". It's not the same as "ban mourning", - look above and for sing praises ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grand Teton National Park[edit]

Hi Gerda! Well, it still needs a littl eplay on wording, but I managaged to trim 100kbs out of the leadin to the Grand Teton NP article and still add what (in my biased opinion of course) was a detail or two of can be seen here...I'll see if I can tweak the wording better tomorrow.--MONGO 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great! I never went to the park, but remember the impression of the mountain range when travelling south from Yellowstone. You can nominate NOW, I can't - the rulez, you know, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good topic! Montanabw(talk) 17:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dudley Clarke and hurricanes[edit]

(from User talk:ErrantX)

can't be a hurricane, too similar to 16 December. - Do I get my points? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
H:-) Actually, I've played around with some figures at User:Bencherlite/TFA notepad - if we scheduled TFAs solely in proportion to the number of FAs still waiting their turn, we'd have 4 or 5 weather articles on the front page every quarter (18 or 19 in a year). I've scheduled Typhoon Rusa for 22nd January. As it is, I doubt we manage even three weather articles a quarter, meaning the backlog in that area increases. Similarly, I doubt we run 7–8 TV, film and media articles, 10–11 sports articles, 12–13 animal and plant articles, or 16–17 warfare (throughout history) articles per quarter either. I suspect if I look back at the first six months of 2013, I will find that we've "overepresented" art/architecture, literature, law, history and politics, and geography (again, based purely on the numbers in each category at Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page). Balancing the main page over time becomes even more fun when the need to consider fairness for different types of FA writer comes into the equation (something Raul touches upon in his FA thoughts. Regards, BencherliteTalk 11:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your balanced thoughts and the helpful notepad, appreciated ;) - with Messiah in mind (23 March), think about the postponed Tchaikovsky soon or much later, - there's also a mushroom prepared in WP:QAI/TFA - unless that little Phallus is another 1 April option. 28 January: the article is not Jane Austen, but reception history, I liked the former picture of the reading lady much better, to illustrate "reception" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wondered about Messiah for Easter Sunday, in fact, rather than mark its London premiere (and third performance) almost a year after its premiere. OK, so 270 years is a round number, but not a particularly special round number. We'll see what people think in due course. I'm tempted to leave the contents of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/emergency alone, but I suspect that there will be another mushroom along soon, probably a classical music article of some description before too long (although going by the numbers again we're only "due" to have 1 classical music article per quarter or 5 per year, since the section is dominated by modern music). I think the photo of Jane Austen's face rather than her back (which could be anybody doing anything, not necessarily reading) is more appropriate in fact. But it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things - it's a luxury to have a choice of possible images! BencherliteTalk 12:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Messiah would be good on Good Friday, not Easter Sunday. Messiah had a Lenten premiere, the Passion the longest section, He was despised the longest movement, the resurrection just a brief recitative on an Old Testament Bible quote, - I said so last year, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thinking about Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych for Good Friday... plenty of time to sort everything out! BencherliteTalk 12:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, as long as you don't pursue Easter Sunday for Messiah ;) - Brianboulton was for the London premiere, because it gets an extra point as a multiple of 5 anniversary - another pointless point. (I fixed the link above, perhaps you are interested in the history.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

St. Peter zu Syburg[edit]

Started St. Peter zu Syburg.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Moved and inserted to Dortmund, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gracias, did you go to San Fernando and Playa de Camposoto when you passed Cadiz? Near La Barrosa of course!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My first try at an essay/WikiProject -Tell me what you think[edit]

User:TheOriginalSoni/Rolling Ball.

Do leave your feedback on the talk page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

started, will watch, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is tardy but thanks for the ward you presented me with in my talk page a while ago. Much appreciated Kanatonian (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

St. Peter zu Syburg[edit]

Started St. Peter zu Syburg.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Moved and inserted to Dortmund, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gracias, did you go to San Fernando and Playa de Camposoto when you passed Cadiz? Near La Barrosa of course!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Late answer, no, - will you expand the church? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't it be St. Peter Church, Syburg ?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, see St. Martin, Idstein and many others ;) (Not even the German has "-kirche".) - Thanks for expanding history, I tried to merge. Gothic in 1688 sounds quite unlikely, but at least there's a ref! Too bad that the monument listing is lost, I tried to find it, but all I find is mirrors of Wikipedia ;) - see Liste der Baudenkmale, missing there as well - Ready for DYK, I would say, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Gerda. Glad to see our paths are crossing once again. Hope you don't mind my adding a redirect St. Peter's Church, Syburg. I really don't find St. Peter, Syburg very natural in English. It looks more like a place name than a church. Sorry about the edit conflict. I had actually been working quite some time on the article when I tried to update it at Dr. B's suggestion but ran into two edit conflicts. I think there is still a contradiction in the article about the date of construction of the choir (i.e. chancel). Do you intend to add anything on the furnishings and fittings -- Barbarafenster, Chorfenster, Petrus und seine Frau, the 1000-year-old font...? If not, I'll go ahead with that section when things have calmed down. And while I'm here, I would appreciate your advice on the score the music section of Danish Culture Canon. Which items do you think need to be developed into articles in English? --Ipigott (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
never heard "score music" before;) - I am sorry, I don't know any of the red link works, but think the anthology should be made an article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ps: if articles exist in Danish they could be linked by {{ill|da|xyz}}, for example Elverskud. Especially for red links, the English reader may want a translation of the titles, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please go ahead, redirect and details. Busy elsewhere ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ps: The redirect would be a good translation of Peterskirche. But now there is no Genitiv in the German official name, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nor in the well known St. Peter (München) which is widely known as St. Peter's. I imagine in 799 the Pope called Syburg "Ecclesia Sancti Petri". Probably by accident the geniitive has been dropped in German. I'll get back to the article soon. Thanks for all you efforts. Quid Danish Canon? --Ipigott (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are many called with the genitive colloquially, Martinskirche, but our concert posters say St. Martin, and the poster for BWV 40 on 9 December said St. Peter ;) - I will expand the music section, but that is indepedent, no ec, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Syburg, created dab. can you translate the few sentences?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added some sources. Can you proof 5vor12?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's there is good! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your review, Gerda, and could you possibly look at it again? Best wishes, Moonraker (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again. He's a difficult subject, and I should not wish to form any judgement! Moonraker (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wise indeed. Did you see that I reviewed another one also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's something like serendipity, as earlier this afternoon I fought off the temptation to ask you to look at Dudum siquidem! DYK seems to be moving slowly lately, I don't know why. Have some of the activists sailed away into the sunset? Moonraker (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
one active supporter dropped out to the sunrise, look above for peace, click on it, to at least say that we miss him, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Es kehret alles wieder. Moonraker (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't believe that for the two mentioned in the box on top of this page, - a loss for knowledge, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I sometimes struggle with such things, but with little success. Und was geschehen soll, ist schon vollendet. Moonraker (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds wise. Define struggle. I sing praises, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try this, pursued without a reply. The decision processes of the English Wikipedia have an air of voodoo magic about them, subjectivity run out of control. For now, that seems to be in the nature of the place. Don't get too fond of it. Moonraker (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fond? not serious ;) - look for "not serious" on my user, and you will see how I survive, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
or look for pride and prejudice on my user, today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is the German Wikipedia much the same? No one here would think of you as a refugee! Moonraker (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The German Wikipedia is different. I started here, because the name of a friend was a red link, then found out that I can offer to more readers writing in English. I work in German also. Should we take one of your articles there? My latest in that direction: Little Moreton Hall, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Less prickly than the English, I hope. My German is so much worse than my English that I don't try to do much there. Schuster, bleib bei deinen Leisten! Moonraker (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could try an outline of hall house, which has been developed impressively from where I left it. It's a good subject which the German Wikipedia seems to be lacking, but I am not at all sure what the correct German page-name would be! Moonraker (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joel Brand[edit]

I'd check with user:Slim Virgin before this gets nominated; I pulled it from the queue to allow SV a chance to get the relevant books from the library to check the article over (it's nearly six years since it was promoted) and there might not be much point in suggesting it before SV has a chance to do that. By all means tell SV that you think it might be good for Brand's birthday, to give an extra incentive to do the work, although as 25th April is also Anzac Day we won't be short of possible choices... BencherliteTalk 15:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will, saw that, - no problem removing a pending note if it doesn't work out, it's just a reminder ;) - no nomination process needed, right? - Thanks for scheduling! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominations are good, though pendings are useful too - just wasn't sure if you'd seen why it was rescheduled. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 15:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Gerda, I'd appreciate if you'd remove the article from the pending queue. I need to order the books and check the text against them. I'll let Bencherlite and you know when that's done. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Classical Good Articles[edit]

Hi Gerda. Following your comment at WT:GAN I made a split at Wikipedia:Good articles/Music and separated out "classical compositions". Don't really know enough about the subject matter to be confident that I moved everything that should be in this new category. Not even sure if that is the best title. Feel free to change, move or fix anything there. AIRcorn (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for getting it started! What do you you think of moving "classical compositions" from "Albums" to "Other ...". "Doctor Who Prom (2008)" is a concert, probably not classical, - fine sorting otherwise. Once we are at it, the performers could possibly also be split in classical and others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine by me. It is not really a subject area I spend much time in so was more hoping to get the ball rolling so others can work out the finer details. Did the songs previously so had a bit of a system anyway. Not sure about splitting classical any further. My general thinking is to keep the number of articles in categories between the 50 to 150 range. Like chairs categories are not much use if they are too big or too small. AIRcorn (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The classical composers and performers are in a general section of 314. I could look them up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QAI question[edit]

Gerda, I am ready to submit William Robinson Brown for FAC. I would like the article added to WP:QAI, I think, as I'd value the support of QAI participants. I am not sure how to place it on the page properly, however. Could you do it for me? It is already GA and has completed two peer reviews, all I need to do now, I think, is check licensing on one image (which I may just toss) and submit. Montanabw(talk) 18:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Place it in projects in progress, everyone watching can react ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've really enjoyed reading your articles on Bach's cantatas. It's an amazing achievement, and a truly historic one. Thank you. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. The achievement is the composer's, of course, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aw thankyou!! I always think of you everytime I listen to this, I think its probably a similar setting to when you heard Paco, a few miles further to the northwest though at St. Goarshausen.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought you liked Paco?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 00:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did, unforgettable and beyond words, that's what music can do
ps for others: all Bach cantatas are now blue, thanks to you, but look at BWV 18 today and tomorrow --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you seen this?Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, thank you! - Do you think we can expand Ulf Schirmer (not much on de) 5* for a 13 Feb premiere of Die Feen in Leipzig, that will go to Bayreuth? (Link in Wagner, Early works)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Knut Schoch[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious #2[edit]

Gerda, Thanks so much. Especially as this comes from you, and you are a great wikipedian, I really appreciate it. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for St. Peter, Syburg[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey there Gerda. Knowing that you are a lover of music, I am wondering if you could help me out. While not a Bach cantata, yodeling is, IMO, no less important. Recently an editor suggested that "my" yodeling article is not global enough. When you have time (if you have the interest) could you read the article and the talk page and offer feedback? Or perhaps suggest another editor that may be willing to give feedback? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not familiar with more than what the lead says, but you could translate what the German article has about "Verbreitung" (where), especially "Alpenländisch" (Alpine), put it in a sandbox and I will look when you ping me. Use "Hodaro", "Iohodraeho", "Holadaittijo", "Almschrei" (Almschroa) or "Juchzer" (Juchetzer, Jugitzer, Juschroa), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Students at Kreuzschule[edit]

Hi Gerda, if you are adding famous students, do tag their WP articles with Category:People educated at the Kreuzschule - Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

half-way in the process ;) #2 needs a translation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Text of Weinachtsoratorium[edit]

Hi Gerda-- I'm cataloging several copies of the Weinachtsoratorium - Helmuth Rilling, on Hänssler; Nikolaus Harnoncourt, on Teldec; Philip Ledger, on EMI; and Karl Münchinger, on London; possibly others. I have two questions about the text:

  • No. 51: Ach! wann wird die Zeit erscheinen? - Ledger and Münchinger give wann, but Rilling and Harnoncourt both give wenn. Is there a subtle distinction? Google Translate wasn't very helpful.
  • No. 56: Du Falscher, suchet nur den Herrn zu fällen - all four of these give suche.

I already did change kehren to kehrten in No. 34. Thanks for your help. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also made some corrections to the BWV 209 stub. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"wenn" (original) und "suche" (grammar) - have to deal with the "copyvio" (which wasn't) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I fixed "suchet", but figured "wann" might as well stay since it's used in some CD booklets. Also added a note to BWV 200. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lovely, keep going, my next is BWV 18 for Sunday, needs expansion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Kreuzschule[edit]

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gerda, I rarely go to DYK but was there because I submitted a DYK myself yesterday, and today when I looked to see that I'd transcluded it correctly, I had a look at the newest entries and noticed Kreuzschule which looked interesting to me. When it went on the main page I read it. The sentence about the first school building erected in on the south of the church in the 14th century, didn't make sense since the school apparently existed for a century or more before that, so I looked at the source. I found that much of the material in the first two paragraphs of the "History" section were almost verbatim from the school's history described in the sidebar (textbox) in this pdf. I've rewritten and noted on the talkpage. Thought you should know. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you know that this is so because the pdf copied from the German Wikipedia which we translated? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is all sorted now, and I'd only left a message to alert you as to why I was editing the page. No, I didn't know about the taking from the German WP. For whatever it's worth, I think it's a very interesting article and there's room there for more fleshing out. I read it because of recently researching Gothic churches for another article, and also because I had Musical angels on my mind. The Schreiner source is quite good and I think more can be gleaned from that. Also, a background section could be added about medieval church choirs. Anyway, good luck with it, and thank you for reviewing Dean & Son. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi again Gerda-- Now I was looking at Easter Oratorio, and noticed the three recordings listed there. Whenever I see a few recordings listed on a music page, I always wonder, how were these chosen? Did someone particularly like them, or did they get the best reviews, or are they historically important, or do they simply represent what someone happens to have in their collection? Is there anything to distinguish the different interpretations, or the forces used, etc?

And then looking at the History tab, I see they were all added by you, a couple of years ago. So I suppose I should ask you these questions: why these three, of the - well, Amazon returns 125 "results", but I didn't look through them.

I don't know if there's any guideline for how or what to list, or how many. There was a discussion here a while back, but this had to do with whether or not specific recordings should have their own separate articles, not whether they ought to be listed as examples of a composition.

I'm not familiar with any of these three that you listed, but obviously Koopman is going to sound very different from Gönnenwein - they come from entirely different interpretive traditions. So how do you personally choose what recordings are useful to list? Milkunderwood (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Penguin Guide is 20 years old; it lists only the Münchinger, but gives it their highest rating. The only copy I'm familiar with is Rilling, which is acceptable. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good question! Look at BWV 82, more than 100 are listed on bach-cantatas (link in Sources), someone chose a few, a added a few with links to people. Easter Oratorio is listed here, I know the Gönnenwein, not the others of at least 28, probably didn't have much time then, probably again looked for names I know. Feel free to add more. I have several pre-formatted in my Bach sandbox, help yourself! - I was tempted to tell how happy I was to see your name on my watchlist again, - and here you come yourself!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I love Gönnenwein's cantatas - they're so old-fashioned and unstylish. I was brought up on Münchinger, but mostly Scherchen; and I just can't get with the program of putting up with all those verdammte squeaks and honks that people like to rave about nowadays - in SACD, no less. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure how useful these random lists of recordings are. The opera people organize theirs very well, making them clearly readable, and they try to pick up virtally everything; so those are not random at all. As far as I can recall I've added only the 1930s Casals gamba suites on cello, because of their historical significance. I worry that these lists give the impression of WP's imprimatur. Milkunderwood (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They were not my idea, I found them in all older Bach cantatas, example. Readers who are not interested can simply stop reading there. I actually came to the Bach cantatas, because one of "our" singers, Klaus Mertens, recorded them all, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, Gerda, my thoughts were cluttered and ill-formed. I certainly understand that lists of recordings long predate both our WP activities. It's just that more and more I worry that somehow they give the impression to naive readers that the ones listed are somehow specially recommended, which isn't true at all, other than one or another individual editor being enthusiastic about (or simply owning) some specific recording. And when there are a lot, it's just clutter, unless it's all properly organized in table form as the opera people do it. I suppose this issue really ought to be discussed by the project.
By the way, I entirely agree with you about original languages - I'm not aware of any recording or production of something called "The Flying Dutchman" - would it be sung in English? - but then the whole concept of COMMONNAME is entirely nonsensical to me. That's what redirects are for, to send readers from a "common" name to the correct and encyclopedic name. It's stupid, it makes Wikipedia seem flaky and ignorant; but it is official policy, and it almost becomes not worthwhile arguing about. (Just about the only "Flying Dutchman" brought up at Amazon is a nickname for André Rieu who made several albums of - get this - Strauss waltzes.) Milkunderwood (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wagner: please say so on the project talk and/or in the move discussion, it IS worthwhile arguing, same as Moonlight in a way. To speak of "Flying Dutchman" before the opera was translated is impossible, if you ask me, and to say it's in the way of Richard Wagner becoming a Featured article is underestimating the delegates. Bach: the recordings are much more history than recommendations, I like to see who recorded something in the 1940s and 1950s already. - You are welcome, of course, to make nice tables! Start with my GAs, BWV 76, 36, 40 ;) - ps: it's not an easy day today, I miss him, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Gerda, please do not risk starting an edit war on this topic while the page is up for FA review. As it happens I agree the name should be changed, but as is also clear to you from recent discussions most others do not. If you want to change the main Wikipedia name for this opera, please make your arguments on the talk page of The Flying Dutchman (opera), Wikiproject Opera or other suitable locations. But don't provoke argument by doing this single-handed on the Richard Wagner page. Thank you.--Smerus (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not in for an edit war. I only continued what Michael Bednarek started: Wagner didn't think of an English title. This has nothing to do with the name of that article. Repeating: in the FA Franz Kafka, ALL titles are German, with a piped link to the English article. Kafka wrote Das Schloss, not The Castle. Wagner wrote Der fliegende Holländer, not The Flying Dutchman. Both delegates studied Kafka, because one got so involved that he left it for the other to pass. Don't be afraid ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you say "the use of English titles in certain parts of Wagner's biography is decidedly odd", so what? It is standard practice to use English names where they are most common in English per WP:NAME. That's the "we". Paul B (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

p.s. As far as I am concerned the rule concerning titles should be followed with links in articles. Your opinion that he "really" wrote Der fliegende Holländer is irrelevant. There are many reasons for this policy, but the most important one is to avoid nationalistic squabbling. And by the way, La Traviata is perfectly correct in English and IMO that's how the page should be capitalised. Paul B (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do me a favour: read before you comment. It was not me, but Michael Bednarek who said "the use of English titles in certain parts of Wagner's biography is decidedly odd". It is not my opinion that Wagner wrote in German, but fact. - Sorry, I don't know what squabbling means, but perhaps I don't want to know. - Project opera is responsible for La traviata, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do me a favour. Look up the word "squabbling" if you don't know what it means. Sorry if I misread the author of the edit summary. It's easy to do. Your "argument" is just a repetition of your non-point. We use the most common names. Stravinsky wrote Les Noces in Russian, and yet the title's there in French (and I use that capitalisation because I think that's proper for English usage whatever Project opera may think). It's the common title as used in English. Paul B (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I look up words I want to know. - I know what nationalistic means, it's the first time that's applied to me, and hard to take. I vote to use the original name when speaking about a composer's intentions in any language, last time Le Sacre du printemps, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paul, I think you need to WP:AGF with Gerda here and not make rash overgeneralzations. Labeling someone "nationalistic" is generally rude, and in this case, VERY rude. This is a discussion about bringing a move discussion on one article into another one that is up for FA, nothing more. Montanabw(talk) 01:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Paul Barlow: your opinion regarding the use of capital letters in titles of operas and works of classical music is clearly in contradiction to the guidelines of the relevant Wikipedia projects. The guidelines do explicitly not follow the most common names but those which are used in reputable publications and/or which follow an established naming scheme. Wikipedia's Manual of Style in general is like that: it doesn't follow the most wide-spread style details but picks some through consensus and then applies them consistently. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Awesome Wikipedian[edit]

Thanks for naming me an Awesome Wikipedian! You've made my day- that's a nice thing to wake up to. --PresN 16:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I remember the feeling, - that's one reason to do it, and I responded almost the same way ;) - It's a year today that I started calling it Precious, P for PumpkinSky, the photographer of the sapphire, sadly misssed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defender of the Integrity of Wikipedia[edit]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Dear Gerda, it's always a struggle trying to defend the integrity of Wikipedia as a real encyclopedia, against the COMMONNAME philistines who keep wanting to dumb it down instead of redirecting to correct article titles. I'm awed by your efforts. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, - will nominate the cantata for DYK now, a highly unusual one! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Ich hab in Gottes Herz und Sinn, BWV 92[edit]

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Gerda, I was just now looking at your note on Wagner's Männerlist at the Opera Project talkpage. I had been under the naive impression that in modern German, ss is considered an acceptable substitute for ß - is this wrong? I always keep finding CD liner notes, printed in Germany, that substitute the double-s for an Eszett. Of course I understand that Wagner's original title uses the Eszett, but (without having any idea of WP's guideline on its use, one way or the other), I worry that readers not familiar with German will have no idea what it represents. This seems to me an entirely different situation from any sort of diacritic (à, é, ô, ø, ü, ñ, ç, ł, š) where even if the reader doesn't understand the pronunciation, at least the underlying Roman character can be recognized. I haven't looked around for whatever rules WP might have for non-Roman characters such as þ (thorn) or ð (eth). Personally I would advise against using ß in article titles, but maybe that's just me. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course ß is a true ligature of Roman letters, like æ or œ, but it differs in not being recognizable as such. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To answer the first question: the impression is wrong. ß is used after long vowels, such as Straße, opposed to short ones like Tasse. Replacing it by ss give