Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Changes affecting the classical music projects

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Classical music project (10,400 articles) is now a non-assessing umbrella project, encouraging sub-projects to undertake quality control. Contemporary music is now such a sub-project. It's focused more sharply than before on recent music (instead of the whole of the 20th century!) and has dropped class-C (like this project). If there are no objections I suggest this project also takes Classical music project as a parent. Classical music project has a good series of guidelines that can be applied to articles under the scope of related projects, and there are other benefits to all of us working closely together. --Kleinzach 07:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully object. Not all composers are classical composers, and therefore should not be parented by the Classical music project exclusively. I copy from "Composer", The term "composer" is often used to refer to composers of instrumental music, such as those found in classical, jazz or other forms of art and traditional music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The general definition of the word 'composer' is not really relevant here, because Wikipedia projects each decide the scope of their own activities – which is our case obviously don't include jazz and folk music). --Kleinzach 01:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so why wouldn't the definition of "composer" be relevant to a "Composer" wikiproject. And the project page clearly states This scope of this WikiProject includes the life and work of art music composers of all eras and all styles. I do hope my contributions to nonclassical contemporary instrumental composer articles is not thought somehow minimal or irrelevant within this project for composers. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you possibly tell us what exactly is covered by 'nonclassical contemporary instrumental composer articles'. That may help everybody understand your viewpoint. --Kleinzach 02:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is stated in the Scope section that the project covers the life and work of art music composers. Art music is defined generally as Classical music. Perhaps the words of art music should be added to the lead just to reinforce the point? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, there must be a project for songwriters Few popular songwriters only compose the music (Elton John notwithstanding). --Jubilee♫clipman 02:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. --Kleinzach 02:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I guess [this] means Cricket02 has withdrawn his or her objection. --Kleinzach 05:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(No, I wanted time to regroup but I do not withdraw my objection). Key word "generally". Art music is "generally" defined as classical music, but it also says that the term may refer Modern and contemporary art music, including electronic art music, experimental (art) music and minimalist music, as well as other forms. Michael Nyman is one mere example listed in minimalist music and he is a film score composer, or Jean Michel Jarre is an electronic composer. Yanni's live orchestral music is a personal favorite. Look, I love instrumental music, I love to dissect the musical parts, I love the composers who write it, and I like to write about them. They are just "generally" not classical. There are other genres. I just don't understand why a project called "WikiProject:Composers" would not encompass all styles and genres in Category:Composers. So yes, I would object to this project being under one exclusive classical music umbrella. It is not called "Wikiproject:Classical Composers". ♫ Cricket02 (talk)

Cricket02: You have just deleted my message [1]. Kindly put it back. --Kleinzach 11:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC) done ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't care about the umbrella stuff, if this is better under WP:CM, so be it. But Cricket's viewpoint is, while sincere and important, also aggressively minoritarian. I think I speak for almost all of us when I note that when I joined the composer's project, I did so on the understanding that the term referred to writer's of classical music. The above debate is a side-issue. Eusebeus (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

...and when I joined the composer's project, I did so on the understanding that the term referred to all composers, all styles, all eras, all genres. Period. And I gained that understanding simply from the name of the project. Would I be just as surprised that Wikipedia:WikiProject Books is discriminatory to only one genre of books? Yes I would. I consider "composers" to be just as general a term of which child projects should be considered. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good to know, but I think most people are not confused so while your point is important, it still strikes me as aggressively minoritarian. Eusebeus (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, everything that Cricket put forward as "not classical" is classical in the wider sense. I don't think there is any clash here. But then I don't want to reopen the debate on What is classical? yet again. Let's just accept that the term is used in a very wide sense to include diverse genres and periods. Obviously pop and rock songwriters are going to be excluded (along with jazzmen, since jazz has its own extensive coverage at WP anyway). --Jubilee♫clipman 16:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Cricket02 has a good point though, and I mostly agree. I didn't want to say anything as I can't really put it into words fully. But sure there's a Jazz wikiproject (which has been pretty dead in the last year on its talk page at least), but by THAT argument, there's also the classical music WP. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I was actually wondering that Jubilee, about the wider sense. I am willing to admit that maybe I am getting something confused and I appreciate you not treating me condescendingly. I completely agree that the scope would not include songwriters, pop/rock/jazz. I came upon this project for some of the helpful guidelines contained within for {strictly} instrumental composers that I help contribute to, but more so for contemporary artists that do compose for orchestra and/or solo instrument, Yanni, John Tesh, Jim Brickman, Bradley Joseph, Jean Michel Jarre, John Williams, Alan Sylvestri, Michael Nyman (a minute few off the top of my head because I'm in a hurry.) So those are examples, and if their styles/genres fall within the wider sense of classical music and these types of instrumental composers won't be excluded in this project for composers later on down the road under the Wikiproject Classical Music umbrella, then I apologize for my ignorance and back away. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would define all of those people as classical composers. The only other point to be made is that film-music is probably covered by the various movie/film projects. Not that that is a reason to exclude them from this project, though, as there is bound to be cross over. Jazz, too, can get very close to classical as can some "art rock", in fact: there are blurred edges here that cannot be sharped and in fact are becoming blurrier all the time...! I don't think your work is unappreciated at all, much less being marginalised here. This does raise an important point though: the "Contemporary music" project is also vague in its name, though it is actually quite strict (now) in its coverage. Names per se do not necessarily fully describe the project. Perhaps they should? (More for Klein and I to consider over at WP: WikiProject Contemporary music, I guess...) --Jubilee♫clipman 00:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫: Hm, I see what you mean: by definition composers can work in any genre and style so a composers project should strictly cover all composers of all styles. Stating that the other projects should cover "their" people doesn't help unless they have dedicated subprojects or taskforces to cover these people. However, I think the Composers project actually developed from the CM project and has always de facto covered only "classical" composers, even if this hasn't always been made clear. Also, the other projects do indeed have dedicated subprojects to deal with songwriters etc eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs as Klein pointed out. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't say that I think of JMJ as classical. I'm interested in the change of scope having just created Peter Brewis, about a very versatile composer who I slapped under this project rather than try and work out what genres to include. I would not classify his best known work (I've Never Met a Nice South African) as classical but I don't know anyone better to hold his bio.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, what better project to hold his bio than a composers project. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're dealing with an area where there are no clear, bright lines, and speaking as a composer, that's a damn good thing. Anytime someone tries to jam me into a bin, my first impulse is to reach for a hammer and smash it.

Maybe I'm missing something -- wouldn't be the first time -- but why can't we broaden the composers project? People knowledgeable about Yanni or Bradley Joseph (I know the former but not the latter) can assess their work, and those who don't know their music can pass them by and edit and assess elsewhere. (As it should be. Drives me crazy when people "assess" content on topics they know nothing about.) I don't see gray areas as a huge problem, though you'll probably see some back-and-forth edits with category addition and removal from time to time. I'd tend to keep "songwriters" of pop and rock and rap and so forth out of the composers project, but composers of instrumental music -- be it New Age or film or "easy listening" -- fine with me to widen our umbrella. Just my opinion. Antandrus (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with all of that. As I said above all "boundaries" are becoming increasingly more and more blurred. Furthermore, I have a wider definiton of classical than most other people I know and tend to forget that! I feel that this project is actually best under WP:WPMU, ie where it is now. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

'Easy listening'

There is an unidentified issue here: 'easy listening' music. Modernist, minimalist, experimental composers are of course regarded as bona fide writers of mainstream/'classical'/'art' music within the scope of WP:CM and WP:CONTEMPM. We all know that. However there are also some composers of popular, commercial music, normally called 'easy listening', to consider, like Yanni and Bradley Joseph. (Listen to the sound clips on their pages if you are unfamiliar with their music.) These composers do not write art music and I don't think they belong here. --Kleinzach 00:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Then again, both Yanni and Joseph are tagged with the WP:CONTEMPM banner and cats... JMJ isn't, though, and rightly: he is best defined as a composer of pop-instrumental music alongside Mike Oldfield and others (including Yanni and Joseph). There is a problem here: these people are not technically songwriters, so where do they go? This debate has identified a crucial factor that needs clarification: what exactly does this project cover? The lead does not state this and, as Cricket and Melodia have pointed out above, the Scope does not fully clarify it either. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Sketchee, Antandrus and Mindspillage to comment. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand Klein's statement. Easy listening is more a radio format and not a genre, and anyway why would even 'easy listening' composers of instrumental music not belong in WP:CONTEMPM, especially if they write for orchestra, chamber, and solo instrument (time period 1975 forward) which the above examples do? Aren't some older classical compositions considered easy listening? And the rationale at WP:CONTEMPM says there will be a reasonable overlap at the Composers project. I'm just trying to understand. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

See my reply to Klein, below. --Jubilee♫clipman 14:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The parent thing

I'm a regular member of the Music project – the only such member from the Classical music/Composer projects. My views about the Music Project are on record: I was interviewed by the Signpost, see here. I'd welcome more participation from here in the Music project, however the reality is that the Music Project is currently dominated by popular music editors and their issues. It's remote from ours.

In contrast, there is a close relationship relationship between the Composers and Classical music projects. The Composers Project edit biographies that refer to musical works, while the Classical Music projects edit musical works pages that refer to biographies. Moreover, the editors on Composers are largely the same people as the editors on Classical Music! Does it make sense that the projects share guidelines and styles to maintain quality and editorial consistency? I think so, but if others don't accept that logic that's fine by me. I'm really surprised this has become so controversial . . .--Kleinzach 11:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this all stems from the wider question What is Classical music? Some people (certainly me) have a very wide understanding of what that term covers. The easy listening "classics" (to use the longer name to distinguish from easy listening "jazz" etc) are classical, IMO. Cricket is right: J Strauss II, Offenbach, Suppé, etc are often called easy listening but are still defined as classical. We have also written into our contemp project that it works in collaboration with similar wikiprojects where subjects overlap. There is no reason not to apply the same logic to this project. Therefore, I feel the composers project could easily be under the wing of WP:CM if necessary. You are also right that pop and rock dominate the music project . Wrongly, IMO, since the rationale there does not exclude any genre, period, or style unlike all of its daughters (including this one). The only reason I suggested leaving the project under Music was the plain fact that there is disagreement about what exactly classical is: under Music the question does not arise...

Klein is also right to suggest that this project should share guidelines with similar projects, in particular Classical. The bare fact that the Composers project is actually dominated by those same people who are members of CM will define this project's activities de facto. Given this fact, should we not change the name of this project? Classical Composers Project not only describes what we actually do it also clearly excludes pop, rock, jazz and folk. The reasonable overlap rationale can be applied to address issues of "elitism". Indeed, as Antandrus pointed out, composers are continually calling into question our very understanding of the boundaries so we have to allow as much into this project as possible.

Therefore my idea is simple: if you want to make this a child of WP:CM, change the name to Classical Composers Project. If not, nothing more needs to be done. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

We currently use the term 'art music'. I think that's fine. I'm not in favour of changing the name of this project (or indeed of Contemporary music), or even spending time defining 'classical' (a unsatisfactory term best avoided IMO). The overwhelming majority of composers will comfortably fit within the scope of the project, a few might not, but I don't think that should bother us unduly. (I'm reminded of what Tilson Thomas said "You can't have Bach, Mozart and Beethoven as your favorite composers: They simply define what music is!" — so, by extension, They simply define what composing is.) --Kleinzach 16:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, your right: the word classical is no where used on the project page, except in reference to other projects and the work of specific participants. Should the very first sentence state: articles related to composers of art music? That would probably solve the immeadiate problem (light classics and easy listening classics are still art, essentially). After that, we have to decide whether art music sits exclusively under Classical music or whether is too wide a term to be limited in this way. I might point out that avoiding the word "classical" is actually a good reason not to parent this project from WP:CM... (Contemporary music is a special case: the term is used almost exclusively for music that most people think of as "contemporary classical music", even if it is technically a contradiction...) --Jubilee♫clipman 16:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No, no, the logic of this is that the Classical Music Project should change its name. But that is obviously not going to happen. . . . --Kleinzach 17:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

One final attempt to explain. Composer article quality is high. Statistically, more than half the articles here are at Start-class or above, with an impressive 370 articles at B-class or above. But if you look at Classical music, coverage is haphazard and poor, especially for compositions. (You can confirm this by looking at Category:Compositions by composer, choosing a well-known composer's 'List of compositions by . . .', and checking the number of blue links.) Has anyone ever wondered why this is?

In contrast, look at the Opera Project which maintains both biographies and compositions, both people (composers, singers etc.) and individual opera articles. Do they have different standards, different priorities? No. They have consistent coverage and quality. My proposal here was made to address (albeit incompletely) this structural problem. Thank you for reading this. --Kleinzach 03:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Scope of the project

Well our scope is currently defined as "composers of all eras and all styles". The main thing I see that would change in this is that we really should be considering where non-classical composers who compose things like movie soundtracks, a jazz orchestra composer, video game composers and modern works fall. The original intent was for us to manage everything that could fit into Category: Composers It's a non-issue only in the sense that we can edit anything on the individual level and if people choose to edit articles not considered in the scope of the article with similar guidelines so be it. I'm not sure how we can encourage our individual members to edit articles on individual compositions. Even before the project started, a lot of biographical information was being collected and the individual composition articles were largely stubs or non-existant. I

I would think, however, that our recommendations (and that's really all they are) apply to all of the related genres *even if* it's not our primary focus most of the time. If someone was to come here asking a question about someone like Nobuo Uematsu or Carla Bley I don't think it would currently seem out of place. Our current scope already seems to allow for this and we still consider classical music as a related and relevant project. --Sketchee (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations, I understand more now. My main concern was that legitimate instrumental composers that some may not consider within the scope of classical music would be phased out of this project later under the Classical Music Project. But if that is not the case, I again apologize and have no objections. Cheers. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

However, your objections have, fortuitously, raised some fundamental issues which need resolving...

I'm going to have to think about this a while longer. One immediate thought, though: composer article quality is high, indeed, and that reflects well on this project which has sought to maintain articles in a consistent and clear manner.

BTW, technically, Carla Bley has the Jazz project, which seems to be pretty active as far as I can tell; however, I'm not sure where to point anyone interested in Nobuo Uematsu, since the gaming projects are more to do with the technology and gameplay etc than the music. I think we will have to help there.

As I said though, I need to think this out further and get back: there are important implications which Klein has either stated or implied which really need serious consideration. We had a very similar discussion a few months back concerning the Contemporary project which I need to review thoroughly since the issues there are very pertinent to this proposal. See here and here for more. I believe the issues are more to do with the workings of WP itself than to do with nomenclature etc, but I can't quite put my finger on what I am alluding to yet... Patience! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the jazz project, while maybe not dead, isn't very active at all. I dunno why that is, but certain its project's page has very little activity the past couple years (just look at the archives). As for Uematsu, well game composers do tend to get covered decently by the various gameing ones (especially Square composers as part of the Square-Enix project), but Sketchee really does have a point that such composers, especially film ones -- composers like Miklos Rozsa and Howard Blake to give a couple of varying examples who'd written plenty in the 'classical' idiom -- SHOULD be covered even if they're more well known for their media work. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The scope of the project was discussed in late 2008/early 2009, see The Scope of the project. Both Sketchee and Cricket02 took part in the discussion so they should be able to remember it. It was decided that "The scope of this WikiProject includes the life and work of art music composers of all eras and all styles." (my emphasis). That's what it says. It does not say simply "composers of all eras and all styles" without any qualification. --Kleinzach 01:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to The Scope of the project. That gives me a more solid basis for this discussion, especially as I think in more depth about this proposal and its eventual resolution. From my reading of it so far, we are not even excluding Opera composers, so almost all the points above are moot... Then again I have only scanned it so I may have missed something. Anyway, as I say, I feel we are being sidetracked from the real issues: how will this restructuring actually affect this project in terms of the processes at work in WP, in practice? That's what we really need to address. Regardless of where this project ends up, we can define its specific direction as we go along (here on this page). Indeed, every project mutates: the Contemporary one certainly has going by the old mission statements and discussions. Change is inevitable and unstoppable... Anyway, we're hardly going to send someone away simply because the person in question writes music that is uncategorisable or because "there are other projects, so there..." I feel we are all intelligent enough to guide as best we can where can and explain the limits of our own knowledge, individually. After all both Paul Mccartney and Jon Lord write classical music and we are hardly going to send people to the Rock project when they ask about the Durham Concerto or Ecce Cor Meum. There are far more blurry lines than that that should be treated with respect rather than saying "go ask over there". No, its the technicalities I'm bothered about: are there any, what are they, how do we resolve them etc?--Jubilee♫clipman 02:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Simply: different groups of editors edit in different ways. This creates tensions, which some people try to resolve by taking part in MOS debates, while others create project-specific guidelines. In the case of opera composers (a large and important group of articles) the Opera Project, with its detailed guidelines, are the appropriate editors to deal with them. Music theatre composer articles — written in an entirely different style — are best looked after by the Musical Theatre editors, and so on. We shouldn't have empire-banner-building projects that try to impose their standards in areas where they have no interest or expertise. --Kleinzach 02:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The quote "composers of all eras and all styles" is from the projects page under scope, but you're right it does say art music which I didn't really read when I first looked at that. And which I suppose could apply to people like Danny Elfman, Carla Bley and Nobuo Uematsu. And I don't think that because another project is working on those people that our view point on them as composers should be ignored on their articles. I suppose it doesn't really matter, because those are articles I would edit and questions about them would most likely stick with the talk page unless there was something so relevant that it would be brought to the appropriate page. If it was about a person's career as a composer it might go here and if it was about video games it would go to that project. It's a venn diagram. It seems more likely to happen with close topics like Opera and Wagner. In those cases there has to be some outcome that will please both projects. If we want to narrow the focus, I'm not going to be the voice against it. I don't personally think it would change the effectiveness of the project. The individuals who edit here will probably go about what they were already doing :) --Sketchee (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That's it! That was what I was trying to remember: a project does not write articles, editors do! Editors try to reach consensus over a group of articles, over style of writing and citation etc, in projects. Concerns over particular details of the topic belong in the article talkpages, though requests can be made for comment in several related projects. There is no clash or issue to concern us. (It's amazing how the obvious facts often elude you!) Anyway, I think we've pretty much bashed out which particular articles are included in this project (over and over again in previous archives, indeed) and have fairly established that the project covers mainly classical music with a small amount of overlap with other less definable styles/genres (ditto). If (as is indeed the case) the style guides etc over at WP:CM are pertinent here then this should be a child of that project. QED! Go for it Klein... --Jubilee♫clipman 04:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there an easier definition of "Art music"? I ask because, for example, Klein had said above that Yanni does not write art music and does not belong here, when interestingly he does have at least one composition (Acroyali/Standing in Motion), that was determined to have the "Mozart Effect," by the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine because it is similar to Mozart's K 448 in tempo, structure, melodic and harmonic consonance and predictability. (refs in article). I'm just trying to understand the difference between those whom this project deems bonafide classical composers and more modern composers who also write for solo instrument, quartet, orchestra, etc. Is it the method of notation? The style? Again, I'm sorry, I'm just trying to understand exactly what type of composers would fall within the scope. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To echo Jubilee, the real question is not whether Yanni or Billy Joel should be included in this project because they have written something that qualifies as "art music", it's almost more a question of what the participants in this project expect or want (consensus) in terms of article content and format. If the bulk of an article's subject matter is of interest to editors that work in this space, it seems to be it ought to be bannered for this project. There will always be judgment calls on gray areas (which is what prompted the older discussion).

If this project is to be a child of WP:CM, then its scope ought to be reduced to "composers of music that is (or should be) bannered by WP:CM and its descendents". (I note that CM currently has no formal statement of scope; its scope is effectively defined by a set of root categories.) If CM does not cover, e.g. Indian classical music, why should this project cover composers of that music (which they probably would under the current scope statement for this project)? Magic♪piano 14:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

...CM currently has no formal statement of scope... I think that that is probably deliberate...--Jubilee♫clipman 20:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Indian, Javanese, Japanese classical etc are clearly best covered by the relevent projects found in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Geographical/Asia since I doubt any of us would claim any but a passing knowledge of these musics. Notation has nothing to do with it: Perotin, Tallis, Bach and Stockhausen are certainly covered here despite using quite different ways to notate their music. I reiterate: the project covers mainly classical music with a small amount of overlap with other less definable styles/genres. (I include in the latter those "grey areas" that Antandrus has championed above and which you and I are both keen to see properly maintained.) Just to clarify another point I made: some "songwriters" (words and music) are also "composers" (music only) and vice versa. Where the works they have created are deemed in several reliable sources to be "art music" or "classical", then we are responsible for them; where they are considered to be anything else then other projects are responsible for them. Indeed, operas, filmscores, musical theatre scores, instrumental "art" jazz, and "art rock" are also left to other projects. Eg we don't touch the composers of Echoes, A Saucerful of Secrets and Shine on You Crazy Diamond even though those tracks are mostly instrumental and have (alongside many other tracks) caused Pink Floyd to be classed by many commentators as a group of "classical-rock" composers. I suspect Yanni is well covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians, but if not then he clearly has to be dealt with here also but in collaboration with those other projects. Communication is the key, as Klein is trying to point out (and as another discussion has highlighted. This is the underlying reason Klein is suggesting the change in structure, in fact, as far as I can tell. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Magicpiano and Jubilee make some good points. IMO the scope of this project is fine as defined. Composers and Classical music cover almost exactly the same territory, hence my original suggestion. The issue which is more difficult and challenging is the name and definition of the scope of the main Classical music project itself (currently only defined by the lead of the Classical music article and the exclusion proviso), but I'm not going to expand on this here because this is the wrong place, and it would distract from the minor change I am proposing now. --Kleinzach 23:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Any further thoughts on this? If not, I vote that Kleinzach goes ahead with this proposal. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Kleinzach 02:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.