User talk:Marc Shepherd/Archive 2

WikiProject New York City Transportation article on Andrew Saul
Just a heads up that Andrew Saul (vice-Chairman of the MTA) has been nominated for featured article status here. Any input, comment and suggestions would be greatly appreciated, there is not that much info on him as it relates to the MTA, and being an !expert, I'm not quite sure how well I can flesh it out. Please feel free to comment and/or improve the article. Thanks! Mrprada911 21:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Andrew Saul FA comments
Hi there. Thanks for your comments on the FA-nomination page--I've replied. However, I would like to address your concern that I'm here "primarily to edit one article". You might want to familiarize yourself with Special:Contributions/Mrprada911. Would be it fair to say that all of your contributions to Gilbert & Sullivan are invalid and you're only here to edit opera articles?

I've actually been a Wikipedia member since 2005, and I've contributed to numerous articles with 4,000 edits in different projects. I just found your particular comment to be slightly unfair to me, however I will extend you the courtesy of assuming good faith. This is not the only GA that I have written (by myself, as well). The goal of adding it to as many Wikiprojects as possible is to solicit more than one contributor. I hope you'll revisit the FA-nomination page and list your concerns so I can address them. In the meantime, I'll consider it highly likely—overwhelmingly likely, that your comment was in error. Thanks. Mrprada911 22:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Harvard referencing
Regarding your post on the WP:CITE talk page. Those of us who work with Harvard referencing on a daily basis find it quite strange to read articles with footnotes (and have to click every time we want to see what author a claim is attributed to). Is it the case that you see footnote based citations more in real life? I am trying to get a sense of why various people might feel that Harvard referencing should be deprecated on WP. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I had a similar section on WT:CITE about referencing styles. I see that your section is close, so I added a proposal here. Like you, I don't want to do away with these other styles, I just want to let users know which method is preferred. Thought you'd want to know. Timneu22 10:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Your edits to Church Avenue Line (surface)"
Hello Marc Shepherd, sorry for losing my Good faith and I can deal with that naming per the Three-revert rule ("If you seem to be the only person who feels that the article should be the way that you have made it, perhaps it is better the way everyone else thinks it should be."). Also, thanks for explaining the situation to me so I can understand and not losing your cool like I did.

-Happy editing from  TITAN O   SAURUS  02:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Gondoliers/Patience
Congratulations on finishing the production/casting history on The Gondoliers. Only Utopia and GD to go. Best regards! -- Ssilvers 04:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good catch! I seem to have edited an old version that I was looking at.  Aarrgh!  -- Ssilvers 21:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix!
Hi Marc! Just wanted to leave a little post thanking you for correcting my improper use of the spoiler template on the Ugly Betty Season 2 page. After spending so much of my time trying to fix other people's mistakes, it's good to know there more experienced editors out there willing to fix mine. Welcome back! --jonny-mt 05:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sullivan and Overtures
More than a year ago you made a comment that "the old idea" that Sullivan didn't write many of his overtures "just wasn't true". I put the following comment in, but as you are probably no longer watching the page in question I am echoing my response here! (Probably just because I am an Australian stirrer)


 * Utopia Limited doesn't actually have an overture - just a short orchestral prelude. The Sapphire Necklace and Cox and Box are not part of the G&S canon, and neither, strictly is Thespis, since its music is almost totally lost. That leaves only six of the "cononical" G&S operettas with overtures by Sullivan. This is pretty remarkable, and it is surely worth noting in some form that writing the overture was evidently NOT a favourite task for Sullivan, in fact one he generally tried, at least, to avoid (succeeding in this at least half the time!!). In fact the Yeomen overture is the ONLY G&S overture that is written as a proper operatic overture, as a opposed to a musical comedy style pot-pourri! So the "old idea" is very far from being "just not true" (even if it is a little overdrawn at times). Soundofmusicals 05:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Tag
I have replaced the spoiler tag in the Damages article. According to the WP:SPOILER article, plot details in character sections should be moved to different section or marked with spoiler tag: Altissima 05:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If a plot detail that arises in an unexpected place — a "Cast of Characters" or "Setting" section, for instance — consider moving that detail to a more appropriate section, or changing the section title. Alternatively, the unexpected plot detail may be marked off with spoiler tags. (Remember that those who are likely to be surprised are those who are unfamiliar with the work, so they may not know where to expect spoilers!)

Spoiler tag
I actually disagree - in this case, I think the revelation is major enough that it has to be covered in the lead, and that even a prudent reader could get surprised by finding it. Phil Sandifer 18:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book)
Thanks for drawing my attention to the WP:Spoiler guidelines. I did not know about these guidelines and my edit was in good faith. Yeanold Viskersenn 19:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sosuke Aizen
I remember seeing comments on the article talk page somewhat recently with a projected date when they think the tag will no longer be relevant. Perhaps the editors there would accept current fiction instead of the spoiler tag. My general opinion is that it isn't worth arguing about that one page, since the editors there do plan to remove the tag once the episode airs in the US. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nearer, My God, to Thee
Hi, Marc. Is the new edit basically ok? -- Ssilvers 23:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Opera categories
Another categorization issue. That makes two in the same week! Can you please take a look? -- Ssilvers 04:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the updates! -- Ssilvers 15:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan
Someone added a tag to the top of the article. Gilbert O'Sullivan named himself after G&S. Is this tag helpful? It seems unnecessary to me. -- Ssilvers 04:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of Template:Spoiler from articles
Please stop removing the spoiler template from articles. Your insistence that "obviously, a section called "Plot" discusses the plot" ignores the fact that section headings do not require sources and therefore are an unreliable source of information. Also, the word "plot" by itself does not indicate the level of detail that a section contains. Just because you assume something based on unsourced headings does not mean other readers will too. Critics regularly describe the plots of films, books, videogames, and other fictional works without giving away every plot detail and many readers expect simple overviews of plotlines on Wikipedia. Please stop ruining films for people. It's as if you have no understanding how certain stories work and use the knowledge/lack of knowledge of the viewer/reader/etc to generate suspense. If you dislike the spoiler template so much, I suggest you nominate it for deletion instead of patrolling the namespace for any use of it. You are not the sole decider of where templates should be placed in articles. Discussions of template placement belong on Template talk:Spoiler, not WP:SPOILER. Letting a reader know what they are about to read has a long tradition on the Internet. Roger Ebert, who is perhaps the most well-known critic in North America, said "critics have no right to play spoiler" and neither do you. You can't ask a reader to simply unread what they have already read. The spoiler template is a matter of being polite and your constant removal of it is uncivil and based on faulty assumptions of the accuracy of unsourced material. --Pixelface 08:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Rees
I don't mind if it's deleted. Just thought it might be useful. If there really isn't much more to say about him, let's delete. Vanished user talk 13:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with deleting the stub, unless he's done something else that's notable. -- Ssilvers 16:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll make it a redirect to Thespis (opera). Vanished user talk 16:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not really a very relevant redirect. Rees and Thespis aren't synonyms. Rees merely wrote a book on Thespis, among many other things he did in his life. Marc Shepherd 21:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, but it links to the section of Thespis on Rees, so... Vanished user talk 06:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a better than average chance that that section won't survive. "Terence Rees" is not a very good topic heading. The article should write on a subject, and then quote the relevant sources (Rees isn't the only one). After someone goes through and fleshes out the sourcing, that heading will start to look silly. Marc Shepherd 10:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Cats, again
I'm afraid that I am not equal to the intellectual pressure of the conversation. Unless you tell me otherwise, I'll assume that all the changes being made to the Gilbert play categories are OK. Please let me know if you need help with anything. -- Ssilvers 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Two problems with simpler lead

 * First sentence is too ambiguous: They HAD written comic operas before, but not together.
 * Does not mention the music is lost: This is one of the defining facts about the opera, and we can't leave it until paragraph 3.

Also, the peer review said that our first paragraph needed to be more engaging and draw the reader in. I'm not sure that simple statement of facts does that.

Forgive all the reverts - there were a LOT of edit conflicts. Vanished user talk 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks good to me. Though I did kind of like the word "surviving" in "Most of the music to Thespis was lost, but Gilbert and Sullivan went on to write thirteen surviving operas together". Vanished user talk 22:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But you're probably right - all the other information makes that sentence overloaded. Well, I might tweak a bit. A little mild humour does serve to engage people. Vanished user talk 22:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Grahame Clifford wikification
The second paragraph ends with this sentence: In 1938 and 1939 he returned to opera and was principal baritone with the Covent Garden Opera Company, and in the Grand International Opera Season. Can this be linked to Royal Opera House, or does it mean something else? What is the Grand International Opera Season? Thanks for any assistance. -- Ssilvers 17:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I added the first link.  Nothing for the second?  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Opera Project Talk page
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. -- Kleinzach 01:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Hollingshead.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hollingshead.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 01:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

George Thorne
Is the new edit ok? -- Ssilvers 17:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm sorry about that, but you kept quoting the sentence at the start of Rees p. 24, and, well, read the rest of that page and you'll see why I got a little annoyed at having that be used to support Allen's statements, and kept changing that. Eh, well. A bit of scholarly debate never hurt an article. Vanished user talk 20:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Done

 * Looks like we're done with Thespis, except for responding to the GA and then FA reviews. Congratulations on all your excellent work.  This is certainly one of the best articles I have ever been involved in editing, and you did the heaviest lifting, I think.  I'm off to Bob and Jackie's tomorrow so won't be on the computer much from tomorrow afternoon until Nov. 6.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 00:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan
Yes, I understand that I have, however, voting isn't a substitute for discussion. No user has actually provided a reason for removal. They are both phoenetically similar and should be distinguished. Reginmund 01:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it help to know that in this case that it is possible and it did happen; that the two just happened to be confused by me? And regardless of how many editors oppose putting it in, their point is that the mistake is not plausibe. Well, I am living proof that it is plausible. Reginmund 04:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that the tag is back in the G&S article. Shall we leave it be? -- Ssilvers 05:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I would remove it at the next opportunity. Marc Shepherd 08:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Trial by Jury cast lists
Hate to ask this, but just a reminder that we'll need the references for the cast lists at some point. But I think Trial by Jury has quite enough problems besides that, so don't sweat it. Vanished user talk 01:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've also begun collecting notes for the expansion on the Talk page - really don't think we have enough yet to do anything, though. Vanished user talk 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Passenger numbers
I'm just using rail pass box for information storage until someone (I'm really bad with esoteric syntax) can figure out a way of re-doing it and aligning the columns properly so that it flows with the rest of the infobox. This way the numbers that are on the page will just be transferred into a standardised format later. Geoking 66 talk 19:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I took the expression part off of rail pass box and now it works and has a new "Traffic" headline. Geoking 66 talk 23:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I got rid of the "Traffic" headline because it was a little too much. Geoking 66 talk 00:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sander
Please take a look at the Mart Sander article. I have been trying to clean this up over the last few months. I would certainly appreciate any assistance you can give. I have encountered some resistance in editing this article, as the talk page will show. -- Ssilvers 15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation
Rather than deleting useful information (W. S. Gilbert), why don't you improve it? And what is inaccurate about it? kwami (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
LOL! Great barnstar, and well deserved! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A comment you made at Deletion Review
"It's getting rather tedious to find the same 3 or 4 people piling on comments as if this were their personal turf." I'm sorry, was that comment you made directed at me? If you don't want to read someone's comments, don't. Users are not limited to one comment per page. I was providing the proof that Black Falcon asked for. And as someone who's apparently made it their mission in life to suppress a template before there was a consensus to delete it, I don't think you're one to talk about personal turf, Marc. Now that the spoiler template has been deleted, hopefully you can start contributing to this encyclopedia instead of removing verifiable content from articles you've never even worked on before. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ...What a bizarrely nasty message. Vanished user talk 07:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pixel, a few points:


 * Yes, it's true that users aren't limited to one comment per page. But you commented around 30 times on the original TfD, along with another half-dozen or so on the DRV. You did not violate any rule, but you ought to think about whether this approach is effective. Saying the same thing over & over again is usually not going to persuade any more people than it did the first time. Your argument on "critic-sourced" spoiler tags is similar. You've been stuck on this theme for a long time, and as far as I can tell, you're not making any headway.


 * You're right that I don't have to read your comments if I don't want to. But it does become difficult for others (not just me) to follow the discussion, when one or two people are taking up most of the space. You should focus on getting your point across once, and jumping in again only when you have something truly new to say that hasn't already been said.


 * The last part of the comment appears to be a reference to the "spoiler patrol", in which I have occasionally participated. As you know, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This is a system that lends itself to the rapid creation of content. But it also means we have to tolerate a very high percentage of low-quality edits. We need editors to weed out those edits. That's why no one "owns" an article. The editors who do the "mop up" work—and there are those who spend much more time on it than I do—are serving a valuable function, without which Wikipedia would rapidly descend into chaos.


 * You yourself have conceded that the old spoiler template was frequently misused. There was no clear consensus in favor of it, and those in favor had wildly different ideas about how it should be employed. At times, I removed placement of the spoiler tag where, in my opinion, it didn't belong there. Most of those removals were not part of any edit war. In the end, the community's consensus process (whatever its flaws may be) seems to have determined that I was right.


 * You are about the last person who ought to be judging whether I have "contributed to the encyclopedia". On any fair reading of my contribution history, the time I have spent on the spoiler debate is only a small percentage of my Wikipedia activity. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Marc, I'm sorry for that nasty message (as Adam noted). I reacted hastily and I was incivil. I personally have told other users to limit their excessive comments at past TFDs, and I forgot my own advice. I went overboard. Thank you for your suggestions. I realize that other editors removed the template regularly as well, and I realize that you were not intending to harm articles, or readers. I do think that the template was added to some strange articles in the past. And I realize that it's probably for the best if the template is in no articles. I'm truly sorry for insulting you and suggesting you don't help improve Wikipedia. I realize that you have made thousands and thousands of quality edits, much more than I have. I know you're a valuable contributor. I hope you can see where I'm coming from &mdash; I don't think it was totally off-base for editors to add the spoiler template to articles, since spoiler warnings have been published by reliable sources and have been common on the Internet for years. I realize I don't own articles, but sometimes I get frustrated when material with a citation gets removed. I know that editors should not submit anything if they don't want it edited mercilessly and I should have a thicker skin at times. I personally know to avoid Plot sections if I haven't seen a film and want to be surprised during the film. But this edit summary made me sympathize with readers and I think it's unfortunate that some readers are surprised to find certain plot details under Plot headings. The first experience of someone watching a particular film or reading a particular book has always been in my mind, but I guess some readers just have to learn the meaning of the word "plot" by reading a twist they weren't expecting to read. Thank you for your message. Happy editing :) --Pixelface (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Bothtones7
I was being diplomatic, but it appears that he's not taking the hint... ...alas I find making sock cases to be a bit harder than I expected: the first time I saw a pretty blatant meat/sock that was judged inconclusive, but since it's a repeat offender perhaps I'll find better luck. Kelvinc (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER and Million Dollar Baby
I suppose my changes to WP:SPOILER have no consensus on the talk page, but the total rewrite had no consensus on the talk page either.


 * The latest version came about after the TfD for Template:Spoiler was successful, and the attempt to reverse that decision failed. That was "consensus" as Wikipedia defines it. Clearly a guideline calling for use of a template that no longer existed needed to change immediately.


 * It is perfectly permissible to suggest improvements by WP:BOLDly editing the guideline directly. But the specific change you made is one that you've repeatedly suggested on the talk page, without finding any support. Introducing a change under those circumstances is not constructive editing.

And consensus by editors on a guideline's talk page does not invalidate the policies on verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view.


 * In what way does the current version of WP:SPOILER violate WP:V, WP:NOR, or WP:NPOV?

Go ahead and revert my changes to the guideline, but I don't appreciate you wikistalking me and reverting my edits at Million Dollar Baby.


 * I am not stalking you. When you continue to make edits that go against consensus, you are going to attract attention.

WP:NOT says articles should offer sourced analysis. And the policy on no original research says "Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses." The style guide for films says "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film. An exception to this rule may be films containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to reliable sources."


 * You've quoted all of the relevant policies and guidelines accurately. In what way does the current version of Million Dollar Baby violate them?

I have not vandalized Wikipedia to make a point.


 * So, you sincerely believe that the plot summary of Million Dollar Baby violates WP:NOR? You've edited that article on numerous occasions, and it never seemed to trouble you before. You've also edited many other film articles, and I've never seen you remove a plot summary or place an "OR" tag, even though most Wikipedia film articles, like this one, have a plot summary sourced from the film itself.

Providing citations is not vandalism.


 * Correct. I did not remove the citations that you recently added to Million Dollar Baby, did I?

Removing unsourced material is not vandalism. If material is challenged, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who wishes to add or restore that material. --Pixelface (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I will let someone else remove the OR tag on Million Dollar Baby, as they will most surely do. Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * During the discussion to delete the spoiler template, only Kusma suggested any changes to the guideline, and the rewrite was not made based on Kusma suggestion. The only thing that needed to be done to WP:SPOILER was the removal of any mention of the deleted template. There was no consensus at WT:SPOILER to perform a complete rewrite. So I need consensus on the talk page first but they don't? I suppose my fault was making proposals first instead of just doing what I wanted to. I don't see why you're removing any mention of citations from WP:SPOILER. The version of WP:SPOILER before Template:Spoiler was deleted mentioned citations. I'm sorry for accusing you of "wikistalking" but I really don't know if you have Million Dollar Baby on your watchlist and you saw my edits and that's how you got to the article or if you looked at my recent contributions in order to revert my edits. Which is it? Yes, my edits to Million Dollar Baby are supported by guidelines and polices. I provided citations. You're re-arranging content based on your own personal opinion. A section entitled Spoiler alerts has nothing to do with Critical reception and doesn't belong in that section. And yes, I believe the current plot summary at Million Dollar Baby is original research. I challenged it, removed it, and you and another editor put it back in with no citations. The burden of evidence is on you and TheFarix, not me. I do let unsourced plot summaries stay in articles most of the time, but I challenged that one. Editors are not reliable sources. The film may be a source, but the film doesn't write the article. A human does. A human has to interpret what they see and all interpretations must be attributed to reliable sources that make those interpretations. Editors cannot cite themselves. You did not remove the citations I added to Million Dollar Baby, that is correct. But removing unsourced material is not vandalism. If you want to defend unsourced material, that's fine. But I will insist that you prove it. Perhaps you should nominate the Original Research template for deletion since you feel it doesn't belong in Plot sections. --Pixelface (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pixel, as I said, you're welcome to boldly edit, and see if anyone reverts you. The specific edit you're pushing — the idea of including "sourced" spoiler warnings in the plot summary — has been rather emphatically rejected by the community.


 * To answer your question: yes, Million Dollar Baby is on my watch list. And yes, I am, in a sense, re-arranging content based on my personal opinion. The task of editing involves judgment as to how the material should best be arranged, and no Wikipedia policy says otherwise. There isn't a "Judgment not Allowed" policy. However, like most other editors, I try to make similar pages look consistent. In this sense, the encyclopedia develops a recognizable style, as many editors come along and make the same judgments over & over again. If you keep trying to insert a back-door spoiler warning in front of the plot summary, I am quite certain you will keep getting reverted. If you doubt me, go ahead and keep trying.


 * I'm curious when you made the "discovery" that the plot summary in Million Dollar Baby was "original research"? You've edited that article dozens of times since October, and the Plot section hasn't changed significantly since then. And in which other articles have you challenged the inclusion of a plot summary based on the work itself?


 * If your interpretation of the policy were correct, thousands of articles, perhaps tens of thousands, would need to have their plot summaries removed. Most plot summaries on Wikipedia cite no source other than the work itself. If these were were "original research" according to the policy, does it not strike you as odd that they've been allowed to stand? And since they are so prevalent, with (as far as I can tell) no other editor objecting, has it not occurred to you that you might be wrong about this? Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You said "the idea of including "sourced" spoiler warnings in the plot summary — has been rather emphatically rejected by the community." Up until November 15, 2007 the spoiler guideline said "In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section. These should be sourced when possible (e.g., by citing a professional reviewer who describes the impact of the surprise)." As far as I can tell, this was added on September 15, 2007 by Jere7my. Citations from reliable sources are not a "back-doors." I have edited the Million Dollar Baby article before and it's true, I did not remove the Plot section before or tag it with the OR tag. I believe editors should be given time to provide citations in most cases, but you've shown that you repeatedly ignored this statement in the spoiler guideline, "In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section. These should be sourced when possible (e.g., by citing a professional reviewer who describes the impact of the surprise).", and if you're going to move or remove citations from reliable sources, I felt I had no other option but strictly follow the guideline on reliable sources which says articles need to be written from third-party sources. You've said that USENET posts are not reliable, so what makes plot summaries written entirely by editors on a open wiki reliable? I realize many plot summaries do not have inline citations, but I still enjoy reading them occasionally. I also removed the plot summary from the Eastern Promises article for having no third-party sources. I don't advocate the removal of tens of thousands of plot summaries, but if they have no citations, the policies on verifiability and no original research as well as the guideline on reliable sources seem to me to advocate that. I fully realize I may be mis-interpreting the policy on verifiability and no original research as well as the guideline on reliable sources, but I don't think I have. If editors can write plot summaries based on their own personal observations, why can't they place a spoiler warning in that plot summary based on their own personal observations? --Pixelface (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I think I've said that the previous Spoiler guideline was a failure, because it merely said that a warning  may  be appropriate — implying that it also may not be. To be successful and workable, the Spoiler guideline needs to provide a few hard-and-fast real-world examples where the warnings  are  appropriate, not merely a general statement that they may be.


 * The overwhelming majority of SW's added to Wikipedia were indeed reliant on editors' judgment. You were practically the only editor who ever added a "sourced" spoiler warning—and there were only 2 or 3 cases where you did it. Unfortunately, most editors placing spoiler warnings not only didn't have a source, but they didn't exercise much judgment either. The most common placement was either the entire plot or the entire article, making little distinction between spoilers and general information.


 * The position you are currently taking is tantamount to arguing for removal of tens of thousands of plot summaries. It is typical for no source to be given, aside from the work itself. You could quite easily do a back-of-envelope guess for the number of articles that would be involved, and it is clearly in the many thousands. But take a look at Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. It is a featured article, representing Wikipedia's highest quality level, and there isn't a single footnote in the Plot section. What is the probability this article would have reached FA, given the level of scrutiny involved, if it violated WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR in so blatant a fashion?


 * I have indeed said that Usenet posts are not reliable. But a fictional work is a reliable source for factual information about itself—including the "fact" that such-and-such happens in the story. Citations may be helpful in a plot summary if the plot is open to interpretation, but we don't need a third-party citation that Harry Potter kills Voldemort. This is a widely accepted interpretation of the policy, as shown by (among other things) the many articles that have reached FA status after following the exact procedure you say you are opposed to.


 * The practice I said had been "emphatically rejected by the community" is the post-TfD practice of using critics' opinions about spoilers as a substitute for the lack of a spoiler template. I believe you are about the only editor who has tried to do this. I realize you disagree with the result of the TfD. It's a legitimate position, and I admit it was a very close call. But unless you can get that result reversed, for now it stands as the "consensus" of the community, as Wikipedia defines it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And thank you for your reply. Maybe I am the only editor who has ever added a sourced spoiler warning, I don't know. Isn't that what editors are supposed to do when material is challenged? Provide citations from reliable sources? I see no problem with a spoiler warning covering an entire plot section. You saw that statement in the spoiler guideline, that a warning may be appropriate, and you thought it implied warnings may not be appropriate and that's why you removed them? I think the previous spoiler guideline was fairly confusing. If there is a consensus to remove tens of thousands of plot summaries because they contain no citations or are original research, I could easily see why. The guidelne on reliable sources says articles should be written from third-party sources and the policy on no original research says the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources. We don't accept plot summaries written on blogs. We don't accept plot summaries written on Google Groups. As far as I know, we don't accept plot summaries written on the Internet Movie Database. So why accept plot summaries written by editors who just watched a film? I think editors should certainly be given fair warning if unsourced plot summaries are going to be removed, in order to give them time to provide citations. I really don't know what steps led to the Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back article becoming a featured article. It's certainly a popular film and that may have something to do with it. A USENET post with a plot summary written by a person who watched a film is consulting the same fictional work as an editor on Wikipedia. I don't know how you can say plot summaries on USENET are not reliable but plot summaries on Wikipedia are. If a film is a reliable source, isn't a blog post written by someone who watched the film just as reliable as a plot summary written by an editor who watched the film? The criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. It may be true that so-and-so kills so-and-so, but I think it needs an inline citation, preferably from a secondary source to prevent original research &mdash; and citing the entire fictional work does not qualify in my opinion. Many featured articles have lost their featured article status. If a featured article has a section with no citations, I don't think that's a license to stop using citations. I'm confident the TFD result will eventually be reversed, Xoloz's decision notwithstanding. The template was not listed for seven days, it was closed early by an administrator who suggested a TFD on the mailing list and actively removed the template from articles and actively opposed it on SPOILER, and templates that are part of a working policy or guideline cannot be listed for deletion separate from that guideline. --Pixelface (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I am the only editor who has ever added a sourced spoiler warning, I don't know. Isn't that what editors are supposed to do when material is challenged? Provide citations from reliable sources? I think you are misunderstanding what was being challenged. It was never in dispute that the point mentioned was indeed a surprise plot twist in Million Dollar Baby. The dispute was whether it was relevant to the article, and if so, where (and how) in the article it should be mentioned. Finding citations is the correct way to resolve disputed facts, but no fact was actually in controversy.


 * I see no problem with a spoiler warning covering an entire plot section. As I understand it, a "spoiler" is a plot event that, if known in advance, "spoils" the major plot twist(s) in the story. A spoiler notice indiscriminately placed on the entire plot doesn't really serve the alleged purpose of isolating spoiler material from general information. Obviously that could be appropriate if the "twist" comes right at the beginning of the work, but that wasn't the case in the examples I'm thinking about.


 * You saw that statement in the spoiler guideline, that a warning may be appropriate, and you thought it implied warnings may not be appropriate and that's why you removed them? A milquetoast guideline that merely says may be invites every editor to exercise his independent judgment, and that's what I did. In most cases where I removed a spoiler tag, it never came back again. That either means that other editors agreed with what I had done, or that they didn't care about it enough to pursue the issue. That is how most Wikipedia editing gets done.


 * I think the previous spoiler guideline was fairly confusing. We certainly agree about that. Therefore, I feel rather strongly that, if SW's are to make any kind of "come back," it should be with a sensible guideline that provides, as the word implies, real guidance.


 * We don't accept plot summaries written on blogs. We don't accept plot summaries written on Google Groups. As far as I know, we don't accept plot summaries written on the Internet Movie Database. So why accept plot summaries written by editors who just watched a film? Let me make an analogy for you. Suppose there were no Wikipedia article on Abraham Lincoln. I find a biography of Lincoln and write the article, citing the bio as my source. Since I cannot just copy the whole book, my article will necessarily be a summary. As such, it will entail my judgments about what facts to include, how to organize those facts, and how to put them into my own words. Now, in that hypothetical situation, what assurance is there that the article summarizes Abraham Lincoln accurately? Answer: none. The only safeguard is that many editors will look at that article, and if I have misrepresented the facts, over time this will be discovered and corrected.


 * The situation with plot summaries is no different. The Wikipedia Million Dollar Baby article is no better off if I find a third-party source who has written a plot summary of that film, and use that as my source. I still can't quote the third-party source directly. The article will still be in my own words, reflecting my judgment about what facts to include, and how to organize those facts. This cannot be avoided. Therefore, it does not improve the encyclopedia to insist that there be another source interposed between the work itself and the Wikipedia plot summary. You will still have editors making judgments about what facts to include, and how to organize and phrase those facts.


 * Of course, there is nothing wrong with citing a reliable third-party source for the plot summary, if you happen to have one. But there is no rule saying that the work itself is unreliable. Creating a plot summary requires editorial judgment, no matter what source it comes from.


 * Yes, many featured articles have lost that status, but there is simply no evidence that any long-time participant in the project ever had any qualms about relying on the work itself for a plot summary. It is highly unlikely that such a wide-spread practice would have endured for so long with hardly a peep from the broader community, if it blatantly violated core policies. Today's featured article is Edgar Allen Poe's The Raven. It's a fairly recent promotion, so it presumably reflects current practice. Though there are citations in the Synopsis section, they are all to the work itself. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the original research tag from the article and cited the film as the source of the plot summery. Pixelface's only stated reason for placing the tag was because the plot summery was not cited. I have since added the citation, even if I think it is a little silly to do so and it only requires a little bit of common sense to realize that the film is the source of the plot summery. --Farix (Talk) 18:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Did the film write the plot summary? --Pixelface (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is the source of the plot summery, that is all that is required by WP:V and WP:NOR. Providing a summery of a source is not a form of original research. If it was, then "Spoiler debate" and "Critical reception" and most content on Wikipedia would also have to go. In fact, you are the only one to make such an assertion that summarizing a source is a form of original research. But if you continue to insists on that issue, then you should take it to WT:NOR instead. --Farix (Talk) 18:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You said "It is the source of the plot summery." You don't know that. You assume the film is the source of that plot description, but the editors who wrote it provided no citations. You don't know what they wrote it from. You added a cite video template because you assumed that whoever wrote the plot description wrote it after watching the film. Do you have any proof that they watched the film? You didn't write the plot description, so why are you defending it? When an editor looks at footage of the September 11, 2001 attacks and describes what they saw, is that original research? When an editor views a film and describes what they saw, is that original research? The Spoiler debate and Critical reception sections are written from citations independent of the film. Shall I add a cite video template to every statement in the article because the film is obviously the source for the article? Information has to be previously published outside of Wikipedia before it appears in an article. --Pixelface (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I don't see why plot summeries can't be cited from the source, as they are in a number of video game articles (see Final Fantasy VII as a for instance, but many others). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

SW / troll
okay! tx for the reminder. ... btw i love your wikibreak/wikibreak notice. i might grab & save that code for a later date. --Lquilter 20:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Prodigal Son (cantata)
Please take a look at this new article. Any comments or improvements are very welcome. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep going
Marc, I hope that the message at your user page is obsolete. You seem like the kind of dedicated editor (I really mean editor) that we so desperately need. How can we keep the information flowing in without restriction and still keep up the standards? Despite the problems I think the outcome is worthwhile. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Links
Someone removed two similar links from the Carl Rosa and Edward Askew Sothern articles on December 9 and 10 without explanation. I tried to put the link back in, but they deleted it again. Would you please take a look and see if you agree with the deletion? The links seem useful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Rail line templates in infoboxes
Ah, thanks for the heads-up; I had no idea. I'll restore the templates. Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 16:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 16:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Trulystand700
So, do you know what's going on with this guy? Is something going to be done about him? Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 17:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

GA reviews
Thank you for leaving me a message about the GA reviews, it's good to receive some feedback on how to continue to improve. Although I delisted Tompkins Square Park Police Riot (1988), I don't believe that Collapse of the World Trade Center will be delisted because several editors are working on the issues that I raised. I never enjoy delisting articles, but I need to ensure that the article continues to meet the criteria. Even though I state that there is a deadline of a week, in the past, I have allowed for extensions if progress is being made. In the case of the Tompkins Square article, no changes were made, so I delisted it. However, if progress continues to be made on the WTC article, I'll extend the deadline if necessary as I want the article's issues to be addressed. Considering the standards, the criteria may be similar to FA in some ways, but for many of the issues I raised were over citation issues which are part of the verifiable requirement of the GA criteria. I believe that all questionable statements, statistics, and quotes need inline citations and have stressed this in the past. I may be a little more "strict" then other editors concerning this, but I want to ensure that the article meets the criteria. Although you're not affiliated with the articles, I still thank you for taking the time to point these issues out to me, and in the future I'll make it clearer that the article may be allowed an extension if necessary. I do prefer there were more volunteers to help with the process, as right now there are under twenty reviewers attempting to look over 2,800+ articles. If you don't think I addressed your concerns, please message me back and I'll explain further. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Far Rockaway Branch map
I put that map in the infobox because the the map of the former extension obstructs it. DanTD (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to the Eastern Promises article
Do you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies? Removing material that does not cite reliable sources is not. The policy on no original research says "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." The policy on verifiability says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." The guideline on reliable sources says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If you want to keep material in an article, the burden of evidence is on you, not me. Removing material that does not cite reliable sources is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, no matter how many times you say it is. Please go read the policy on vandalism. Following policy is not vandalism. --Pixelface (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Enes Blackmore; C. Wilhelm
Happy New Year. Notwithstanding that Blackmore is barely notable, Jack has written quite an article on him. Do you think it is B-class? Please take another look at Wilhelm and see if you have anything to add. Should Wilhelm be mentioned in the individual articles, like Ida and Mikado? Did he do all the Ida and Mikado costumes, or just some of them, as in Iolanthe and Ruddigore? Did he do all the Sorcerer costumes? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL! Jack started the article on Blackmore, but Wilhelm is mine. I was turned on to him by Simon Moss, who responded to my request for "missing persons" on Savoynet.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediocre content vs. non-existent content
Just read your well-expressed ideas about Wikipedia on your user page. While I agree that Wikipedia is largerly mediocre, I don't think that is such a big problem. Take it as it is. And I'd far prefer a mediocre source of information than none at all. When you think about the amount of information here on Wikipedia you can see that we humans now have an easily-accessable source of knowledge unlike anything we've ever had before, and that is presumably a good thing. --RenniePet (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Projects vs Subprojects
Thanks for the note about my addition of several pages to Wikiproject New York, although they are already in appropriate subprojects. You're right, of course - this was a mistake on my part. Thanks for calling it to my attention. Happy editing! Merenta (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for copyediting
Hi Marc. Thank you for copyediting my contributions about NYC subway Stations, and their available bus transfers. GK tramrunner (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you live in New York City?

Help for NPOV at Atheism
Marc Shepherd. I looked at GAR and FAR archives and you are one of the Wikipedians who best fight for Neutrality. Your help is needed at Atheism where the article sounds as an apology of Atheism and worse, it is a Featured Article! The editors are strongly against any change. They are propose a very minor compromise in the form of linking to Criticism to Atheism.

I told them the article on atheism "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each," "in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." (NPOV)

The discussion place is here. Please help. Kleinbell (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Barrington, Grossmith, Bond
They have all been promoted to GA-class. I do *not* want to push for FA at this time. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Coding problem?
I don't know if you can solve this problem, but something is wrong with this page: Category:Opera articles by quality. The newly assessed opera articles are not being populated into the categories by quality, except for the stubs. Do you know how to fix it? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Signor Brocolini
I added this new article. Any comments/changes welcome. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Status on WP:NYCPT
Hello. I've noticed that you have registered as a member of WP:NYCPT. Please go to WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Participants and add or correct you status as an active or semi-active member, as well as if you are an admin, whay projects you work on, and a sample of the work you do in the NYCPT scope. Thank you. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 15:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Light of the World (Sullivan)
I think we now have an article on all the major Sullivan pieces. Take a look if you have a chance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

TBJ
Opening cast: This source disagrees with our cast list. It seems that there were almost immediate subsitutions that, I would guess improved the cast and caused Mr. Pepper to be demoted to "Associate". Can you advise, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that we've about finished our research, and both Adam and I seem to have run out of brave new ideas, would you please give the article a read and make/suggest any edits that you think helpful? FA almost done.  Thanks!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSUE
You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 04:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore
Hey, Marc! Glad to see you're about on this one =) Sorry if my work on the Background was a little rushed - I wanted to move the old stuff to the talk page, but also put in some new, well-referenced material at the same time, so that anyone reading it wouldn't get a sub-standard article. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

C-class
The rating scheme was updated to add C-class. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Um... yes it does? It's on Template:Grading scheme just under B-class Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
No problem. I'm glad to reward a fellow Wikipedian for his endless effort to the project.

I guess I understand what you're saying, but wouldn't it be better for readers to know what rolling stock the signs are located on? I mean, the 1 bullet certainly isn't found on the R68, so I was hoping I could add that bit for clarification purposes. The way I see it, a reader would think that the 1 bullet is found on every single car of every division! That is not the case. I hope you understand where I'm getting at, but I'm sure with myself that the extra bit is necessary. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 19:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact tag
The cite was right there, a few words later! Why put on a fact tag, when you can click on the cite and fix it yourself? That was strange. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

IRT BMT IND
What's the background for why these obsolete designations appear in Wikipedia articles on the NYC Subway? Why not Division A and Divison B or some other equally obscure description? patsw (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That strategy was adopted by the folks who set up the subway project, a bit before I became involved. Frankly, I think it happened because the articles were created by railbuffs who were infatuated with nostalgia for the old days.


 * There's a pretty strong argument that it was a bad idea. As you've noted, these names are obsolete. Some of them are even ahistorical. The BMT and IND took over a number of lines that had been built by others, and later sank themselves. So why would you put "BMT" in the article name when the BMT itself has been out of business for almost 70 years?


 * Unfortunately, that nomenclature — whether rightly or wrongly — has been adopted fairly consistently in hundreds of articles. Changing it now would be a massive undertaking. Renaming the articles and categories is a chore in itself, but it pales in comparison to the effort of changing all the references in the body of the text.


 * I'm not saying we shouldn't do it — coincidentally, it has been on my mind as well — but past experience with renaming efforts hasn't been good. You'll note that one NYC subway line article does not follow this convention: Culver Line (New York City Subway). But the editor who made this change did not carry it out consistently in the body of the articles. Consequently, among articles that refer to the Culver Line, terminology is extremely inconsistent.


 * So despite my view that it was probably wrong, and I certainly wouldn't have chosen to do it this way myself, I've been hesitant to wade into this thicket. There's also the question whether there would be consensus for the change. The subway articles have a tendency, overwhelmingly, to attract nostalgia-minded editors.


 * There's not a lot of quality, though. Among 1,426 articles in WikiProject New York City Public Transporation, there's only one "good" article (Transportation in New York City) and none "featured". Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh... It's another of the subcultures of the Wikipedia. Whom does the Wikipedia serve?  The buffs/fanboys/afficinados, or the community of Wikipedia, or the whole Internet-connected universe?


 * To the specific point, it makes no sense to me to use neither original nor current designations, but that ones which were in common use only from roughly 1930 to 1950. I concur, it's an error too big to fix. patsw (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

New York IRT
I respectfully disagree. The only reason the articles linked to that page is because that was the name of the article. I fixed it now and all the relevant links link to New York IRT (soccer team) with New York IRT going to Interborough Rapid Transit Company. Someone can easily find the obscure soccer team when they see it in the See also section. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I consider the issue resolved. Thank you. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Subway Naming Convention
I cleaned up a bunch of pages based on WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/New_York_City_Subway/Station_naming_convention. Now, I see Allangermain (talk) has gone through and reverted all my cleanups. Not being an editor, and not wanting to get into a revert war, I would like your input. I'm happy to do the cleanup again, but only if I'm on the right track here. (sorry for the train pun :-) Thanks! Adamnyc77 (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Cultural influence of H.M.S. Pinafore
I started a discussion here. Would you kindly weigh in? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Recordings
I was thinking the other day - you run the discography site, do you have some of the records in question? Because I suspect at least some of the recordings have entered public domain, at least in the US - which is all that's needed for English Wikipedia. What d'ye think? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ...Um... no. t's actually pretty much pre-1923 for US, and 70 years after the performer died for the UK. However, being out of copyright in the US is sufficient for use on English Wikipedia, so...
 * I've found a nice recording of Lillian Russell to start off. Think you can get Bertha Lewis?  Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Well, it's probably one of those opt-in copyright schemes if so. You know, where it can last longer, but only if you ask for it to. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

...Marc... does a 1911 recording of H.M.S. Pinafore by the "Edison Light Opera Company", evidently consisting of Elizabeth Spencer, Mary Jordan, Harry Anthony, Walter Van Brunt, James F. Harrison, and William F. Hooley ring any bells? Because I've found a copy. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No doubt you know more about this than me, but...
I think it's a nice find, and it was kind of fun restoring it. =) If you know any more details, do tell. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Ballets by Arthur Sullivan
Is this new category appropriate? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see the changes to our categories. Now someone has taken the ballets OUT of the Sullivan compositions category.  This doesn't seem right to me.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. It seems like WP:OVERCAT. In addition, don't we want people to be able to easily find all the non-opera Sullivan compositions in one place? You could make separate subcats for his songs, orchestra pieces, choral pieces, etc. but wouldn't it just make it harder for people to conveniently find his works? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Whitehall Street–South Ferry (New York City Subway)
Hi, Please comment on the proposed merger of Whitehall Street (BMT Broadway Line) and South Ferry (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) and subsequent split to South Ferry Loops (New York City Subway) at Talk:Whitehall Street–South Ferry (New York City Subway). I'd appreciate your input. Acps110 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Patience (opera)
Someone has added the full text of the Colonel's song (diff). Please comment on the talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Old New York El articles
Good to know. I just redirected Debrosses Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) to Desbrosses Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line), despite the regulations for AfD tagged articles. In spite of the workload, I think Franklin Avenue (BMT Fulton Street Line) original station might be one example of why deleting all of them is a bit drastic. Assuming that the Station Master website is correct, some of them may've become part of existing subway lines. DanTD (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Gretchen (play)
I put up this new article. Please review. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Good idea.  I moved the Analysis section down. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of The Absent-Minded Beggar
I am conducting a Reassessment of the article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have one small concern which you may find at Talk:The Absent-Minded Beggar/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore
As you saw, the article has been promoted. Thanks for all your help in getting it there! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

G&S Casting Tables
Shoemaker has added citations to R&W to all the shows. However, he does could not do a couple of the ones from the 1970s and 80s. Also, he does not have access to the original cast info for the New York productions, so most of the shows need one or two more citations to be filled in. Would you kindly add them at your convenience? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Textual criticism
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Textual criticism/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Return to the subway?
Are you considering returning to Wikipedia to edit NYC Subway articles again? I miss your input. Tinlinkin (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your edits
Why are you using the template? The reason Acps, Gfoley4, and I went through all those articles to change them was to make it work for Google Earth.-- iGeM  iN  ix  03:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing. I don't understand the Google Earth issue. Is there a place it is explained?


 * As for why I use, it is the following: Bare service letters (as in "A Train") should never appear in articles. The reason is that sometimes you need to find all articles referring to the service, e.g., if the MTA makes a change. You cannot search on a bare letter A (you'd get far too many false positives). For that reason, every reference to the A must be linked. Otherwise, you have no way of finding them.


 * Indeed, where you see examples of bare (unlinked) service letters/numbers, they are frequently wrong, because they are unsearchable. For instance, the other day I found a reference to the M Train that described its former route, as if that route were still current. When the M Train changed, I'm sure someone looked for every article linking to the M. That one, which was unlinked, was missed.


 * The template is simply an easy way to refer to these services, without having to type out the laborious M . I realize there is also the M . Does that foul up Google Earth too? Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is fine as long you use the and not  –  as it doesn't show up on Google Earth, if you wish to link every letter, it is fine. I have no problem with that. But if it is a station page, try to use the  codes so no errors might show up on the station as Google Earth only uses HTML Characters. It is also why we use & l t ; for < and & g t ; for >. --  iGeM  iN  ix  01:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Flower Drum Song
Hi. We've been working on Flower Drum Song, and it is at FAC. Would kindly take a look and either comment or vote? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Parody music
As far as I know, this is NOT an article you have ever edited, or have any particular interest in (although it does, naturally, mention Sir Arthur Sullivan). Some one wants to hijack it for academic musical theory as opposed to general interest (at least that is my impression) and s/he and I have a dispute going. I would especially appreciate your opinion. Perhaps you will see in his argument something I am missing. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)