Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1130
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. --
https://jezebel.com/what-no-1-itunes-song-really-mean-1849030690
Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites
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)
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)
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 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. To address the suggested box: (1) --
See
| 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: Wikipedia:Advanced source searching
"Everybody does that isn't an excuse, it's a confession." -- Susanne Craig
Johnuniq
Images: Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator
{{Information | Description = | Source = | Date = | Author = | Permission = see below }}
{{PD-US-expired-abroad}}
Here is a list of PD templates: Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Public domain
Also: {{Keep Local}} tag
Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries
from John Parker's introduction to the fifth edition of Who's Who in the Theatre (1925) pages iii and iv of Parker, John (1925). Who's Who in the Theatre (fifth ed.). London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons. OCLC 10013159.:
"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".
MOS:IMAGELOCATION says "Multiple images can be staggered right and left."
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:NOTadirectory or a forum for promoting non-notable actors.
