Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Richard Wagner/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Richard Wagner. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Slimmed down navbox, see Template:Wagner operas

I have attempted to slim down what was an unusually 'fat' opera navigation box. Please say if you it's too 'slim' or whatever. Another possibility would be to make the text 'small'. Thanks. --Klein zach 23:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. My only suggestions would be - would it look better left justified? Also, it's difficult to make out that Rh, Wal, Sieg and Gott are all parts of Der Ring, which here almost looks like a separate work. Not quite sure how this could be done - italics?--Dogbertd (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Operas by composer templates are all centred. The problem is that if you justify left the picture moves over as well. I've boldened the Ring — is that better? --Klein zach 23:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is better; Thanks!--Dogbertd (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So what are the criteria for inclusion in the box? I'm thinking in particlar of how Die Hockzeit is in ann Männerlist grösser als Frauenlist is out.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'm inclined to think that neither should be in. --Klein zach 10:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I probably agree. The 13 completed operas in the nav box, all with artcles in the categories and the list containing ee hso that were just sketches. The articles on each ouside the 13 should all have a see also pointer to the list perhaps. --Peter cohen (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've removed Die Hochzeit from the list. --Klein zach 12:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

List of dramatic works by Richard Wagner

Would anyone care to comment on this? An alternative presenation might be two lists, separating the actual operas from the prose sketches and failed librettos. I have tried this approach, but thought an integated list might have some value in helping to chart the course of Wagner's career. All suggestions welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm basically in favour of an integrated list — for the reason you have given — as this is what we have done (or are intending to do) with other articles in Category:Lists of operas by composer. I'm familiar with Barry Millington et al's list in Grove which lists 13 plus 15 works. Presumably your list covers the same ground? Re. the title of the article, I'm wondering whether we could call it List of works for the stage by Wagner to bring it in line with other articles in Category:Lists of operas by composer? I'll have some other comments, but will make them on the article talk page. BTW it's an impressive, much needed piece of work. --Klein zach 09:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My main sources for the less known works were the books of Borchmeyer and Saffle, and Gutman's biography. I used Millington's Grove Online biography, but didn't see a list attached. This evidently has two more entries than mine—can you identify them? I omitted a couple of possibles which I thought were no more than the vaguest twinkle in Wagner's eye, and it would be interesting to know if Millington included them. In any event I think this list should be reconcilable with Millington's, even if it's not identical. On the name, whatever fits in best with the project; I've no objection to a move. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've renamed it but so far I've left the main text unchanged. I'll get back to you on the Grove list. --Klein zach 22:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The two extra works are Schäferoper and Luther. --Klein zach 01:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that Luthers Hochzeit escaped me, despite brief references in Gutman and the Harvard dictionary. I will insert this without delay. Does Millington give any information about Schaferoper? I had sort of assumed it to be another way of referring to Die Laune, as suggested by its WWV chronology. The other work which I decided not to include was Erec und Enide, decribed in Saffle as "Wagner's unwritten opera" based on a letter Wagner wrote to Mathilde Wesendonck expressing interest in von Aue's version of this play. I thought that was just a bit too slender to include. Brianboulton (talk)

12:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

NB: Maennerlist - the UK premiere is listed in the article, but I don't know that this was a world premiere - anyone have this info?--Smerus (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have hunted high and low for details of an earlier performance, and found none. But perhaps a footnote should explain that the fragments might have been performed earlier, thus leaving the question open. Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: Now when I or anyone feels up to it we should have a List of published works by RW.....--Smerus (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. The Grove list has about 200-300 items. Maybe you could hire a typist? --Klein zach 06:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

and that's not counting all the letters......Still a list of the longer works could be apppropriate.--Smerus (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Schäferoper

This is the information in the Grove Millington list where it is listed second after Leubald in 'Incomplete or projected stage works':

WWV6, Schäferoper, after Goethe 'Die Laune des Verliebten', early 1830, Leipzig - entitled Schäferoper in Red-Pocket-Book, Schäferspiel in Mein Leben, lost --Klein zach 04:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As I thought. So, we now have 14 incomplete/lost works, but Millington has 15, you say, so he's still one ahead. Assuming he hasn't got Erec und Enide, I can only imagine he has listed Romeo und Julie, referred to as a project in the Harvard biography but not mentioned by Gutman or any other source, and omitted by me for that reason. Brianboulton (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Erec und Enide is not listed, nor is Romeo und Julie, also note that he has Luther not Luthers Hochzeit. What he does include is an untitled 'Lustspiel in one act' WWV100, a scenario (only) dating from 1868. --Klein zach 06:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

List of compositions by Richard Wagner

This list is still missing information in the 'Form or genre' column. Does anyone have reference works that might explain what some of these items are? Thanks. --Klein zach 00:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Opera portal at Featured portal candidates

Portal:Opera is being considered for featured quality status, at the Featured portal candidates process. Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Opera. Cirt (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bryan Magee

WP:WPO have just removed their banner from this article. Is he an important enough Wagnerian for people to feel we should banner him as a prompt for increasing coverage of his Wagner writings. I suspect not, but said I would mention it.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A thousand years ago, I created Category:Wagnerians to include Magee, GB Shaw, etc. etc. I also created Category:Anti-Wagnerians (and placed Nietzsche in both). For no particular reason that I could discern someone seized against this after a few months and staged an (ultimately) successful war to delete both categories. But that is the sort of profile, I suggest, that Magee might merit vis-a-vis the Master on WP. Otherwise we will be bannering Shaw, Scruton, etc. etc.--Smerus (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It was "ites" not "ians". I was the sole keep vote - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 19#We love Wagner! We hate Wagner!. Wer would need to consider the criticisms and also User:Johnbod's suggestion for chronologically limiting the pro- anti- categories. Among lateer writers I notice that Newman is categorised under Category:Wagner studies. Presumably we could do this with Magee, GBS, Nietzsche etc.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well remembered, and thanks for your support. I think the Wagner studies could be good for Magee, GBS, Scruton - Newman I think is a special case because of his monumental biography which is still I find indispensible.--Smerus (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take part in the Cfd, however I would probably have been pro-deletion of Category:Wagnerites as I prefer unambiguous cats, and the use of lists when these are problematic. (Category:Wagner studies is not really satisfactory either for that matter — listing people as 'studies' etc.)

Re the scope of this project, we've limited it, up to now, to articles which are fully relevant rather than tangential to Wagner. I think means no Wagner banner for Magee. (This is not just a matter of classifications, because enlarging the project means someone spending their time to maintain the expansion of articles involved - updating the project pages, banners, assessments etc.) --Klein zach 02:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Die Laune des Verliebten

Any comments? See Talk:Die Laune des Verliebten. --Klein zach 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have commented as requested. Meanwhile, see below. Brianboulton (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I make this a redirect to List of works for the stage by Wagner, putting all the (scant) information in that article? --Klein zach 04:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

This project may be interested in this conversation: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Wagner stub spree.Singingdaisies (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The link is now here. (BTW Singingdaisies was a sock). --Klein zach 22:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wagner-Werke-Verzeichnis

This is a renamed page. It originally was WWV (Wagner). I've asked about the two hyphens, see Talk:Wagner-Werke-Verzeichnis. --Klein zach 22:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ring Template

I notice that this has recently been removed from articles as superfluous. The question arises what shoudl be done with the template if it is superfluous? The two answers I can think of are either to delete it, or to improve it by adding the composition articles, discographies, and character articles. (and if we ever get orund to a leitmotifs list that could go there too. Which way do people want to go?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've deleted it as redundant (to the Wagner opera navbox), but if you want to give it a new purpose that'll be fine by me. --Klein zach 01:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Article assessments

I can't see anywhere where one goes to request an article assessment. I've recently done some work on Minna Planer and would like the team's input and suggestions for improvement. Where I can I request this?--Dogbertd (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made an assessment request box (see above). --Klein zach 02:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wagner Wikipedia book

I have created the Wikipedia:Books/Richard Wagner. Any comments? The contents are provisional (taken from the project page) and can be edited. I think we have the resources to make this a model book on WP. --Klein zach 00:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know books existed. You're missing the uncompleted operas in Category:Operas by Richard Wagner. Also the composition of the music article for the Ring. Who to include under related bios is interesting. You've just gone for the wives, but do we want to include some of the descendants? Wagner authors? Wagner mistresses?... I don't think we would have an article on Mathilde Wesendonck, if it weren't for RW.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added Mathilde Wesendonck. The incomplete operas should also go in and the composition article. Anything else left out? I excluded the extended clan as being of less interest here - there could be a separate book on the Wagner Family as such. --Klein zach 11:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, what a fantastic thing. Wikipedia never ceases to amaze me. Thanks for doing this. I almost feel like a real author now...--Dogbertd (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There were some technical issues (navboxes and interwiki links appearing, and table lines disappearing etc.) but I think we've got them straightened out. Please say if you see anything strange. --Klein zach 10:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking further into the possibilities of how to use this tool: see here and here, using Chopin as an example.) --Klein zach 02:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the text

An odd title? Do people compose text? Can we rename the article? Der Ring des Nibelungen: writing of the text? The text of Der Ring des Nibelungen ? The libretto of Der Ring des Nibelungen ? Der Ring des Nibelungen: the libretto ? What do people think? --Klein zach 04:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends. Wagner always thought of his libretto as poems - and they were sometimes read as such before the operas were composed. Perhaps the title should be "Composition of the poem".--Dogbertd (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe "Composition of the poem". What do other people think? --Klein zach 02:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Done Now moved to Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the poem. --Klein zach 01:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted move of Bayreuth Festspielhaus

I've just undid a series of edits by someone who moved this article and translated the Festspielhaus's name throughout the article. Can other people keep an eye on this in case the person attempts to revert it through an ignorant misunderstanding of policy and standard usage.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Rienzi

I obviously have nothing better to do over Xmas, so I have tried to start knocking Rienzi into shape. All help welcomed.--Smerus (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

With the help of Peter cohen I have now I think stopped fiddllng with this article, so if anyone wants to take a look at upgrading it, I hope it has at least transcended the Start category.--Smerus (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange edits to Parsifal etc./SingingZombie

Some rather strange edits have been made by SingingZombie, for example this section entitled 'Parsifal in medical science' here. There are other edits to the Ring articles. --Klein zach 09:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be trivia rather vandalism. You're in discussion with him/her and I don't see the need for the rest of us to pile in.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. Didn't seem to be a discussion . . . I'd appreciate help checking the edits. I'm not sure what to make of some of them. --Klein zach 08:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

SZ editor has now been blooked for unrelated matters.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Bayreuth firsts. Want exact dates not just years.

Anyone have a source that gives the exact dates of the first Bayreuth performances of the five operas that Cosima introduced to the canon? I'm trying to polish Bayreuth canon so I can make it a candidate for Featured List status. At present I only have the years of first and most recent Bayreuth performances. I can get the most recent performance dates from the Bayreuth site, but they seem only to have entered individual dates of New Bayreuth performances onwards and have only information on the number of performances a year of wartime and earlier festivals. Obviously I'm only up the level of detail if I can do it for all 20 relevant dates.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been able to access the Times archives through my local public library. I now have a definite date for Lohengrin, probable ones for Tannhauser and Tristan - Liszt attended the latter against doctor's orders and then died soon after. I have the festival dates for Mastersingers and still have only the year for Dutchman.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now located the information thanks to someone on an old Wagner recordings Google group.

Plan is to go to WP:FLC on Monday when I'm back from a weekend away. If anyone wants to make any suggestions first, then feel free.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mein Leben

New article. Hojotoha to all for a Wagnerian 2010 --Smerus (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Good article! I wonder if it should go in Category:Essays by Richard Wagner, perhaps renamed as 'Books and essays by . . .' or Writings by . . ' or whatever. --Klein zach 01:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. ~Perhaps the category should be 'Prose Works of....' (as in Millington's 'Wagner Compendium')--Smerus (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Cfd: Proposal to rename Category:Essays by Richard Wagner as Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner

OK I have proposed the renaming: see here.--Smerus (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's struck me that this would include his prose sketches for operas. (Is this the state that Die Sieger and Jesus von Nazareth etc were in?) Do we want instead to have a non-fiction category? (I'm ignoring the evidence that Wagner's biographical writing is at times tantamount to fiction.)--Peter cohen (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Millington's definition of 'prose works' in the Wagner Compendium (p. 326) is as follows '[...] Wagner's writings, reviews, speeches, open letters [....] ; occasional poems and dedications as well as prose drafts and the texts of stage works [...] are excluded'. I propose we use this formulation as the header text for the renamed category.--Smerus (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, someone has now upped the ante by creating Category:Works by Richard Wagner. They might I suppose have asked here first. In the circumstances I propose creating Category: Prose works by Richard Wagner and leaving Category:Essays and Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner as subcategories of it.--Smerus (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the discussion here? This decision to start this category was taken there by BrownHairedGirl. This specialist category editor gave a considerable amount of advice to the Opera Project in 2007 (see Archive 19, 20, 21). I've always thought that categories were for the use of projects, but evidently that is wrong. --Klein zach 15:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So your advice is? --Smerus (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See my comment at CFD. The creation of that category by Smerus pre-empts the outcome of the CFD, and unless there is consensus for the proposal at CFD, it should be speedily deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

BrownHairedGirl: Why did you create Category:Works by Richard Wagner without consulting the project? An attempt to pre-empt the consensus of the Wagner Project? --Klein zach 09:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This project does not WP:OWN the articles. I see no need to consult a wikiproject about uncontroversial changes, and had no reason to believe that the creation of a standard "Works by foo" category would be controversial, since it conforms with the convention of Category:Works by author. It seems that you do object to the category's existence. Can you explain why? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

CFD editors do not WP:OWN the categories. These categories are used by the project, so participants here are able to have informed opinions about their usefulness or otherwise. As to what is, or isn't, 'controversial', project participants are also entitled to their own view. --Klein zach 14:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, everybody's entitled to their view. Categories are used by many editors, regardless of whether or not they are members of any particular wikiproject, so lots of people may have views ... but per WP:BOLD, editors have to make a judgement and assess whether edits are likely to be controversial, without being reckless.
Anyway, rather than just discussing process, I'll try for a second time to discuss the substantive issue with you, and ask again: It seems that you do object to the category's existence. Can you explain why?
Or do you just share Smerus's assumption of bad faith that the creation of a standard container category was a ploy to "up the ante"? (whatever the ante is supposed to be in this case). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Er- isn't accusing me out of the blue of WP:ABF an example of WP:ABF? I'd be grateful for an apology, please - and as I don't ABF, I'm sure I'll get one. :-} --Smerus (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, but let's start with an explanation of what you meant by "upping the ante" if you were not alleging bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, I suppose it was too much to hope for......--Smerus (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl has a history of repeating the same arguments ad nauseum (see Opera Archives 19 to 26). She edits categories of subjects she doesn't understand, refuses to admit mistakes, and declines to clean up. After one such incident I wrote on 8 June 2007, " BrownHairedGirl can you please help us re-constitute Category:Operas? I believe there are still a few hundred articles that are missing. . ." (see here). No response. --Klein zach 02:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Kleinzach, I do hope you and Smerus are enjoying making personal attacks, but this started because you objected to my creation of Category:Works by Richard Wagner. I have now asked you twice whether you have a substantive objection to that category, so I'll try a third time. Unless you do actually have a substantive objection, then your rant about "mistakes" etc is just hot air. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way , the Mein Leben article will be in tomorrow's DYK.--Smerus (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading the article. --Klein zach 06:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The December 24 Cfd was closed by Jafeluv on 7 January. This was the result:

The result of the discussion was: Keep Category:Essays by Richard Wagner; delete Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner, created in mid-CfD; and merge Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner into Category:Works by Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographies. The creation of Category:Works by Richard Wagner was justified as part of an established categorization scheme under Category:Works by artist. Jafeluv (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See my comment at Category talk:Essays by Richard Wagner. --Klein zach 02:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC) P.S. I have also written to Jafeluv who closed the Cfd, see User talk:Jafeluv. --Klein zach 02:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be better off not expending emotional energy on this. I'm a fine one to talk, I know, given what's going on on the talk page of Jewish Internet Defense Force, but I don't think you're going to be able to change this.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a bigger picture here. Wagner is now the only composer to have compositions categorized under non-musical works - on the precedent of Madonna and Prince! Category:Works by artist is just a mess. --Klein zach 15:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "works" a catch all, neither musical nor non-musical udner which all spheres of activities by an individual can hang. Most composers are single minded, but polymaths such as Hildegard and Hoffmann would certainly benefit from it.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

'Works' is not the operative word, Peter. That isn't the issue. . . . --Klein zach 15:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually all works by composers are within Category:Works by artist because Category:Compositions by composer is a subcategory of it. The only time a category moves up a level to being a direct subcategory is when there is one called "Works by..." that contains musical works or other aristic works (such as paintings, sculpture, architecture, films, dances, etc.). I essentially agree with what Peter cohen has said about this: "Works by" categories usually act as catch-all categories that contain the various types of works created by one person, whether they be literary, artistic, or whatever. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The deletion review just completed discredited the Cdf during which Category:Works by Richard Wagner was created. Editors by a margin or two to one asked for the Cfd to be overturned. I am surprised that immediately the review finished Good Ol’factory should change the categorization here. In the circumstances this is provocative.--Klein zach 04:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the category's parent categories had much to do with the DRV. I was waiting to make edits to the category to see if the category would be put up for formal CFD discussion by the DRV closer, which it was not. Since it wasn't, I felt it was OK to go ahead and make edits. I didn't intend to provoke anyone. If you feel provoked, you can relax. From the DRV closer's statement, the category can now be nominated for discussion at any time. If it's not nominated for renaming or deletion in the next few days, I'm going to nominate it myself to resolve the parent category issue. I'm waiting on this because I'm figuring it's a more minor issue than a potential proposal to rename or delete it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see (and contribute to) Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Category:Prose_works_by_Richard_Wagner on this (I think) very important issue.--Smerus (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review result

This was the result:

Works by Richard Wagner – There is no consensus to overturn this CfD because there is no consensus as to what that would mean (which is why there are several "partial overturn, partial endorse" comments in the discussion). Normally overturning the close of a deletion discussion means restoring the previous status quo, but in this case the categories were in flux during the CfD. (After all, ordinarily at CfD no consensus defaults to no renaming, but in this case, overturning to no consensus would mean, bizarrely, enforcing the very rename that the nominator was unable to gather consensus for.) In reading comments on what to do about this, I see two strains (ignoring the ad hominem sniping): one is that unneeded bureaucratic process should be avoided, and the other is that consensus for the current status quo has never been determined. The two are essentially compatible: the categories created during the CfD were created out of process, so it hardly makes sense to restore them out of fidelity to process. On the other hand, there is still considerable doubt about how best to organize Wagner's non-musical work, as well as about the parent category. So I will leave the status quo for now, but I suggest (sorry) a new CfD that will use the present situation as a starting point. That CfD can be started by those editors who are unhappy with the status quo, who will better express their desired result than I can (but it will presumably consider all of the following: Cat:Essays by RW, Cat:Books by RW, Cat:Prose works by RW, Cat:Autobiographical works by RW, and Cat: Works by RW, meaning it will have to come to a consensus about everything that is or has been in any of those categories). And this time, please, no creating additional categories during the CfD—discussing the need for such categories is what the CfD is for. – Chick Bowen 00:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

--Klein zach 02:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is now archived here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 12. --Klein zach 03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)