Talk:Brian Yorkey

References?
Hey guys. Is there a reason you're removing details from the references in this article? Typically, when you're citing articles in Wikipedia, you'll want to follow WP:CITE, specifically WP:CITE. It may not look as clean as some may want, but it makes it much easier to identify the reliability of a given source. For instance, if you're only using doollee.com as a reference point, you'd think that Mr. Yorkey only wrote two shows that appeared at Village Theatre, when in fact there were at least four of his full-length productions done there (five, including Feelin' Electric / Next to Normal). ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed Reference Content
Hello there. I noticed you reverted a bunch of text for references I'd added on the Brian Yorkey page. I'm just wondering about the logic behind this "clean up." I've posted a comment on the talk page, and I'd encourage you to post your thoughts there. Typically, when including references in an article, editors are encouraged to include as much information about the reference as is possible (to help with reference verifiability. I would encourage you to check out the Wikipedia style guideline on Citing Sources.  Specifically, how to cite sources.  Another helpful how-to is here.  I'm going to revert your edit, but I wanted to check with you before doing so, so we don't have any problems with multiple reversions of the same edit.  Thank you for your contributions, and I'm looking forward to expanding this article and others in the realm of Theatre. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. Sorry it took me so long to respond to your message - I've been away. I assure you I'm familiar with the guidelines for citing sources. I just find the end result is a sloppy mess at the bottom of the page. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it constantly evolves as new ideas are introduced. If people weren't bold enough to make changes, the site would still be the same as the day it was created.


 * I don't quite understand your contention that citing references your way makes it much easier to identify the reliability of a given source. The definitive way to know how reliable a source is is to click on the link and access the web page that was referenced. Knowing who wrote the article, on what date it was written, and where it was published can be learned just as easily from clicking on my style of citing as yours. I don't feel it needs to be spelled out in such a messy fashion at the bottom of the article.


 * My personal policy is never to create an article and leave it in this state, or to bring it only as far as this . I try to add as many details as possible in the initial draft. I think that's more important than worrying about the formatting of references, especially when either way is going to bring you to the same point. Thanks for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there, thanks for getting back to me about this article. To be perfectly honest, I really don't have any opinions regarding the format of an article. I don't edit with a personal aesthetic appeal in mind; making decisions on whether something is "sloppy" or not.  I have no personal preferences.  Now, it's great that you have an opinion about how an article should look.  I disagree with your opinion on reference structure, but the great thing about Wikipedia is that people can disagree about stuff all the time, and it will often turn out for the best.


 * You're right, the state I left the Brian Yorkey article upon creation was far from fleshed-out. I totally agree.  What I created is what's called a stub.  I'm sure you've seen them before, being, as you are, familiar with Wikipedia guidelines.  The initial user creates an article stub, then users (such as yourself) fill out details with further edits.  It's a great system that has worked well for articles in the past.  Heck, the Featured Article 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix started out with this humble edit: .  Maybe the "Literary Maven Guidelines" wouldn't allow for such a simple edit, but luckily I am not beholden to your "personal policy."


 * Yes, Wikipedia is constantly changing. What passed for a "featured article" in 2004 wouldn't even qualify for a "good article" nowadays.  The screws have been tightened.  There's a lot more emphasis on references and citations now than there used to be.  When I edit, be it a "stub" or a "featured article," I do so with the idea that any article could be expanded, and eventually become featured.  Consequently, I write with the idea that the content I'm adding will not need to be removed at any point.  It starts, for me, with the references, which are the building blocks of a good article.  Now if you would, take a look at the any of the featured articles on the main page.  Do you notice something?  None of them are using the reference format that you prescribe.  Obviously, I'm not the only one who appreciates a sloppy reference or two.


 * Why should anyone use the format set forth in WP:REF? The simple answer is: "That is what the Wikipedia Manual of Style dictates."  But perhaps you need further justification?  Well, most people don't click on the references at the bottom of articles -- many references are not even online, so they can't be "clicked."  They're found in "books," or "journals."  So that rules out the click-check method.  But if there is online material available, the casual reader may see some information that is questionable and say, "Wait, who said that?"  And if it's available, they'll click on the inline citation which will show who "said that."  That citation is important for verifiability and accuracy -- university papers require similar methods.  Now, suppose that the link you clicked goes dead?  Someone could justifiably remove that bit of information, accuracy be damned.  Finally, what if there's inaccurate or incomplete information (as was found on the Dollee link)?  Well, the casual reader could see that it's a website with no editorial oversight, maintained by a fan in England, and take that information for what it's truly worth.


 * But I understand your desire to make things look neat. Certainly, if you want to use short, attractive citations, there's another method: WP:CITESHORT.  But that still requires a separate "Reference" section with detailed citations.  I ask you this: what exactly is "sloppy" about giving the full details of a reference?  I can cut the references down to "Byline, Title, Source, Date, and Page Number," per WP:CITE.  But I don't see the logic in doing more than that (Source & Date), other than to satisfy your own personal sense of propriety (especially when a biography of living persons is involved).  Because, as I mentioned before, I don't edit to satisfy the Literary Maven personal policy.  ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of what a stub is; in fact, I've expanded dozens of them, many of which were no more than a sentence or two. I don't understand why people create an article that brief, and I choose not to do so myself. According to, I've created 100 articles (probably more, as I believe that page shows no more than 100), and all of them were as complete as possible before I submitted them. The "LiteraryMaven personal policy" to which you refer (with what I sense is a tinge of sarcasm) is a standard I set for myself, not others. I'm deeply sorry you seem to have been distressed by my reference to it and I apologize if you felt I was trying to impose my values on you or anyone else, as that never was my intention. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No sarcasm intended; I'm being totally straight with you. What I'm simply trying to point out is that yes, it's fine to have a personal policy...I'm sure every user has one.  It's good to hold yourself to a certain "personal standard," but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (which is: Should this article have fully sourced references, or shortened reference stubs that look "cleaner").  Whether I started this article as a stub, or wrote an entire article is also irrelevant.  Whether or not you like to expand stubs, or if you've started 100 articles, while praiseworthy (truly), is also totally irrelevant.  I'm not sure why you opted to comment about my leaving this article in an unattractive "state," but that's what I was responding to.  If you're going to be critical (and I don't know what else to call it), focus on the content, not the editor.


 * I'll put it this way. I created this stub, and added a few references to pass the notability requirement of new articles.  Mr. Yorkey won a Tony.  Some editors came by and added more content (good), but some editors deleted the reference content I'd added(bad).  I asked you why you did this.  You said it looked "sloppy."  I cited guidelines.  You said you disagree with the guidelines, called me out for leaving the article in poor shape, then explained your personal editing philosophy.  I attempted (in my admittedly discursive way) to tell you that you hadn't really addressed the issue at hand, but had instead focused on editing habits.  Maybe I should have been more concise.


 * But please understand, I'm not trying to take shots at you here. I'm glad as hell that people are expanding the Brian Yorkey article.  And I'm glad for editors like you, that expand stubs and create new articles.  If people like me ruled Wikipedia, it'd be all very well-sourced, well formatted, and lacking in spelling errors.  But it'd be mostly barren.  The only thing I ask is that, before you go removing someone else's content, make sure you're justified in doing so, because it's irritating to have your hard work removed incorrectly.  This is why I'd rather cite Wikipedia Policy as opposed to Personal Editing Philosophy when I make changes. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Native of Issaquah
Not really, http://www.seattleweekly.com/2011-02-16/arts/brian-yorkey-from-issaquah-to-a-tony-award/ says he was born in Omaha, Nebraska, and moved to Issaquah at the age of 10. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)