User:Ssilvers/sandbox

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1130

Tags
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to : has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. If you believe the edit was constructive, please discuss it on the article's Talk page, and please cite your source where you found the information. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial. All the best, --

The recent edit you made to : constitutes vandalism and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize Wikipedia pages. Thank you. --

Do not vandalize pages, as you did with your recent edit to :. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --

Research

 * The Wikipedia Library
 * Gänzl's three-volume opus in the Internet Archive https://archive.org/search.php?query=%22The%20encyclopedia%20of%20the%20musical%20theatre%22
 * Sullivan scores on IMSLP: https://imslp.org/wiki/Category:Sullivan,_Arthur
 * DNB can be accessed through the National Portrait Gallery by scrolling to the bottom of a sitter's main page. For example, Arthur Sullivan.

iTunes charts are trivia
https://jezebel.com/what-no-1-itunes-song-really-mean-1849030690

Reliable sources
External links/Perennial websites

Internet Broadway Database is a reliable source
Here are some comments collected at the Theatre project and elsewhere about IBDB as a WP:Reliable source:

Per this, they appear to collect primary sources, and not accept direct user contributions like IMDB. I'd say they'd be ok for non-controversial BLP data like DOBs unless proven otherwise. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no particular reason IBDB can't be considered a reliable source for most non-controversial information in its scope. See the only previous discussion of this at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. --Xover (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the IBDB should be considered a reliable source for cast, creatives, production information, and any other production items not specifically noted in my comment, and non-controversial BLP info. I base my decision on this statement in the "About" section of IBDB:[About]. I have no comment on broadwayworld.com as a source, I do not know enough about their policies and procedures to give an informed opinion.JeanColumbia (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been my understanding that although for Wikipedia, the IMBD (films) is not regarded as a reliable source, the IBDB (Broadway) has always been regarded as reliable. I have access to a reasonably extensive theatre library and have not yet found any cause to demur at any IBDB citation I have seen in Wikipedia. Tim riley (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the IBDB should be regarded as a reliable source for production information about Broadway shows, including cast members, creatives and crew and musical numbers/awards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on this page IBDB seems like a reliable source to me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre/Archive_13#Reliability_of_IBDB

Template
We already have a wonderful template for G&S on the author's and composer's pages, as well as blue links in the text and further links in the "see also" section pointing to a list of the author's and composer's major works, and sections in the opera articles discussing adaptations. Plus, we have categories for the works and relationships related to G&S. We do not need any more templates on the creators' pages. The numerous templates on Dickens and Shakespeare pages seem like awful clutter to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes
While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, as a Signpost report notes: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article for these reasons, and the others mentioned below: first, the box would misleadingly emphasize less important factoids, stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the excellent WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts about the subject; and, second, as the key information about the subject that could be in the box is already discussed in the Lead, in the body of the article, and in the Google Knowledge Graph, the box would be a 3rd or 4th mention of these facts. Particular problems with the suggested box include: (1) --

See
 * WP:CITEVAR
 * WP:RETAIN
 * WP:BROKE
 * WP:BALASP
 * WP:HTRIVIA


 * GoodDay
 * Talk:Georges Feydeau
 * Talk:Fred Sullivan

Civil POV Pushing
Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing

Toolbox
Strunk and White wrote: "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that he make every word tell."

See: Advanced source searching

"Everybody does that isn't an excuse, it's a confession." -- Susanne Craig

DYK

 * Pgallert
 * Ritchie333
 * Cwmhiraeth ?

Vandalism help
Johnuniq

Images
Images: Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator

Licenses
Here is a list of PD templates: Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Public domain

Also: Keep Local tag

Declaration of Consent for Images
Declaration of consent for all enquiries

Lying about your age
from John Parker's introduction to the fifth edition of Who's Who in the Theatre (1925) pages iii and iv of :

"A great many members of the Profession [refuse] to give anything like accurate details of their early theatrical careers. ... [U]sually the player puts the date [of birth] forward".

Alternating images left and right
MOS:IMAGELOCATION says "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left."

Casting tables
Justifications for the more concise cast table format: The format with a separate column for each major production is hugely bloated and emphasizes non-notable actors. It also draws endless edits adding more and more columns, often for less WP:NOTEWORTHY productions, until the table squeezes the text more and more. In the more concise format, each name shown in the table, and the ref for each name, must be in the Productions section before it is added to the table. This format emphasizes the original production where people created the characters in the first major-market staging, and the other column is intended to include only those notable actors who originated the character in other major productions or portrayed the characters for, generally, at least a year as replacements. See also WP:NOTEWORTHY. Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory or a forum for promoting non-notable actors.