Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Plagiarism guideline: new section |
CarolSpears (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 226: | Line 226: | ||
Thanks for your comments at my talk page. I've proposed we create a separate plagiarism guideline (or rather, how to detect, deal with and avoid it). Please contribute at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Plagiarism]]. Thanks. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 20:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for your comments at my talk page. I've proposed we create a separate plagiarism guideline (or rather, how to detect, deal with and avoid it). Please contribute at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Plagiarism]]. Thanks. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 20:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Old musical prints == |
|||
If I go and support your prints, will you cease? The question is, are you trying to make an art that is like those prints? If so, it is tiresome. -- [[User:CarolSpears|carol]] ([[User talk:CarolSpears|talk]]) 04:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:20, 20 June 2008
Thanks for the feedback on the GA review. I've made the changes you suggested, and listed it for peer review. Dhaluza (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
pseudoscience infobox
Hi, I see you removed the infobox from Water memory, where is the infobox exactly broken? I first thought that maybe someone had vandalized it, but I couldn't find anything. Are you referring to the changes on the format that were done during the RfC, or maybe to the text on the fields? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Of course there is science, the theory was supposed to revolutionate Chemistry (and maybe Physics. It was later found to be full of flaws, but it does have relationship to some scientific fields, otherwise Nature would not have accepted it, not even conditionally.
- For the name change, the solution is changing the content of the field to adapt for the new name, not removing the whole infobox. If you don't mind, I'll replace homeopathy with chemistry and restore the infobox. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- (btw, I agree that homeopathy is not a scientific field as such, and was totally inadequeate for the new wording) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- At the end, I added also Medicine, like on the Iridology article, see my explanation on the edit summary. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, man. It only says "related". I think that you are giving too much thought to this. After all, if it wasn't related to science, it wouldn't be pseudoscience :D And if it is related to science, since science is divided into scientific fields, then it must be related to at least one of them. Remember that we are talking of what the proponents are claiming that the theories are about. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Creatures of Impulse copyedit
I have a couple of other promises to keep before I can get to Creatures, but I've put it on my to-do list. Finetooth (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I started reading just now, but real life has interrupted. I will come back and finish this later today. Looks excellent so far. Finetooth (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't go too far afield of Trial. This is the Trial article, not the G&S article, so unless the influence can be traced to Trial, at least in significant part, I think it's too tangential. BTW, re: my annoyance this morning, you should know that I think you are doing a good job, but I don't appreciate when you are preachy with me, which you are quite frequently. I know that I am not perfect, and I make sloppy mistakes sometimes. However, I think I am a very good writer and copy editor, and no one on Wikipedia is perfect. Before you tell me what to do or criticize some sloppiness of mine, I suggest that you review your own edits and make sure that you who are about to throw a stone is without sin. Instead of preaching to me, just correct something if you think it is wrong, leave an edit summary, and I shall do the same. I think that is the Wikipedia way. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Can you make the casting tables nice and square, the way the Pirates ones are, with the grid lines? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried to do the casting table for Utopia, but I can't figure out how to get the date header for the 1975 column to float up. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Opera Comique -> Opéra Comique
Throughout G&S operas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.15.240 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, this is wrong. That is the Paris theatre. This is an old issue. Leave it Opera Comique. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Companion pieces to Trial
Sure, if you find more on Crypto, Perichole, or any of the other companion pieces played *in London*, I would add that to the articles. I don't think we need any information on companion pieces played OUTSIDE of London. Sounds like you had fun in the library. I am going thru your changes and making copy edits. I will leave you information on the Trial talk page about any significant changes that I make. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
1899 cast
OK: best of both worlds: I added a Note 2 to the 1898 cast that gives the names of the non-notable late 1899 cast members. I suppose that you could put the footnote marker at the end of the description of the 1899 production row. Where do you like it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Trial status
OK, I finally have an idea of what you did. IMO, People go to Wikipedia to read the Synopsis and find out some background about the show and maybe information about musical numbers and productions. Please do not bury the straighforward sections about the show below the analytical sections. Take a look at what I did. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- See the talk page for Trial, where I have left my status report. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Tables
That looks much neater, Shoe. Can you get them to compress more to the left, as in Pirates? As they are now, they look a little too spread out. I think it's easier to read across the columns when they are a little narrow, if possible. Also, can you do the same magic to the Benefit performances? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at Marc's code in Pirates. Does that give you the code you need? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, looks good now! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Suture diagrams
Hi, Just wondering if you are hapy with the final versions of the Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#Suture diagrams? /Lokal_Profil 01:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Creatures of Impulse final tweaks
I think I buried my last short note to you too far up on this page. Yes, the current layout is an improvement over the four sets of notes. I went back just now and did a few more tweaks. The main one replaced the last big block of italics with a small bold head. It's hard to predict what might happen at FAC. For example, literary critics might weigh in with concerns unrelated to the copyedits. I think, though, that we have fixed most of the small things. Finetooth (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Edinburgh wikimeet
Venue sortedish, I hope. Please can you confirm attendance on the page. Best, Asty (137.195.250.2 (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC))
Creatures FA review
I handled as many of the comments as I could (at least the ones that were up before I went to sleep) but left a few for you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Trial by Jury copyedit
I'll put this on my ever-expanding to-do list. I can't promise anything in the immediate future, but I'll take a look when I can. Finetooth (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. This is covered by Opera's descendant project WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan. Regards --Kleinzach 00:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, and though I'm a member of the Opera Project but not the G&S project, I'll look through the article. Where should I direct any comments? Here? On the TBJ Talk page? I already have two, and that's just from reading the lead and the beginning of the Background section.... --GuillaumeTell 16:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I probably read through the rest of the article at the wrong time - I got increasingly depressed by all the sentences that I wouldn't have written like that (quite likely they were written by American(s)), but I couldn't really comment on each of them, let alone edit them. The content looks generally OK, though the enormous table of casts down the years looks like total overkill - put it in a subsidiary "Main article", I'd say. Anyway, I'll give the article another read. BTW, I didn't register any mention of the earlier appearance of Edwin and Angelina in Oliver Goldsmith's The Hermit and subsequently The Vicar of Wakefield. --GuillaumeTell 16:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
GA Review
Thanks for reviewing the article, I will keep working at it.Gears Of War 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks dude. The review wasn't meant to actually be premoted. It was so that it could not only get feedback from the PR but an even deeper prospective from a GA. Tahnkyou.Gears Of War 20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
E. Ellet
Thanks for your GA review of the Ellet biography and your recommendations for bringing it up to FA standards! Will be working toward that goal soon. - Epousesquecido (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
NTWW
WRT this: Did you mean to sign up in the participants section? dorftrottel (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
TBJ timing
Why not cite the CD covers of some recordings? My recording totals about 33 minutes (Godfrey 1964, 1989 CD reissue) -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Lead image is captioned "Chaos in the Courtroom...." Where did that phrase come from? It sounds nice, but I am now thinking that if we just made it up, we should take it out of the image caption. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll leave it to you whether or not to leave the caption alone. How do we make the G&S template at the bottom of the article "hide" as a default? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Template: I would rather hide it on all articles - it's easy as pie to click the [show] button, and I think it's more attractive to have one sleek little line at the bottom than a big fat template about stuff that is not directly informative about the subject of the article itself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you add anything to this new article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Pinafore
Thank you very much for your note: I'll give the article my closest attention. Tim riley (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Trial
You wrote:
There's actually two more songs in The Bab Ballads, etc: Comes the cheated flower (No illustration) and When first my old, old love I knew, which may be a little too abstract and dependant on knowing the lyrics for its humour for it to be useful to us. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think that we should add footnotes to the song list, noting when/where these were first published. Also, GT noted that Edwin and Angelina appear in Oliver Goldsmith's The Hermit and subsequently The Vicar of Wakefield. Can you try to come up with a sentence or two about this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You wrote: who is GT? ... Also, when you say "when the songs were first published", do you mean lyrics or music?....
- User:GuillaumeTell, who commented on Trial. Re: the two songs that you pointed out were in the "Bab Ballads, etc.", I mean the lyrics. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK then. Can you follow up on the Edwin/Angelina connection? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Bradley, p. 6 agrees with Benford's Lexicon, which says that Edwin and Angelina are a traditional pairing of lovers' names, dating back to the 1764 poem The Hermit by Oliver Goldsmith. Oh! Look here: http://victorianweb.org/mt/gilbert/judge1.html I think you will find some other info here for the article - maybe even enough for a short article on the Judge's Song? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Urk! I didn't even know there were any comments at the Trial peer review. I'll never learn how to use Wikipedia properly! Please see my various comments there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Creatures and Trial
You are most welcome. I was happy to see the FA star and glad to have helped in a small way. I have in mind to copyedit Trial by Jury if you still want me to and if it's ready. Just let me know. Finetooth (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
FPC (H.M.S. Pinfaore)
Will do, thank you for notifying me. NauticaShades 01:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Rewrite of Grey Griffins book series
Alright I am about to ask you for a bug favor, before you decline please just think about it. You said that the article suffers from poor writting. Can you please rewrite the entire article by upgrading the grammar and improving it so that it is well written while at the same time not getting rid of an of the key stuff in the article.Gears Of War 02:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Gilbert and Sullivan Barnstar | ||
For your many contributions to articles about the works of Gilbert and Sullivan (and each of them separately), I award you this barnstar. Because of your enthusiasm and expert research skills, the quality of these articles is being greatly improved, and the coverage of Gilbert and Sullivan on Wikipedia is proceeding swiftly. Well done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC) |
- Congrats, guys! I was happy to help. Let me know how Trial goes and if I can be of any help. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 13:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Mary Shelley herself is up for peer review, if you feel up to the task! Awadewit (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Pictures...
Oh, wow. I need pictures of most every medieval bishop of England. How's that? The big pushes would be things on User:Ealdgyth/Works In Progress, but anything medieval and English would be helpful. Doesn't have to be contemporary, illuminated manuscripts, stained glass windows, statues, tombs, signatures on documents, seals, I'm not picky. I'd especially kill for Ranulf Flambard, Nigel, Bishop of Ely, Hilary of Chichester, Theobald of Bec, William Longchamp, or Geoffrey, Archbishop of York, who are probably coming up on FAC at some point. I hate using the "picture of the cathedral" route! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Answer to old question
I found a source of the Gilbert Young photo: http://books.google.com/books?id=BpCMTsYMjy0C&pg=PA62-IA1&dq=%22Trial+by+Jury%22+Fisher+Sullivan+Bromley&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1&sig=uJ9mOldgVptFxlU4sBIsBZUbNlE -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
TBJ
It was first recorded on the 1953 album. The discography page gives information about all the recordings, so it seems particularly helpful in the paragraph, since we are making the point about Trial as setting a pattern for the later G&S operas. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to let my temper get the better of me. Let me start again: It would be easier for me to help you, if you would send me a request and wait for me to respond before deleting material from the article. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth gave us some comments recently on the peer review page. Do you think those have all been dealt with adequately? Also, I think there may be one or two outstanding Awadewat comments still needing your attention on the article's talk page. I reviewed them today and did what I could. Please make any changes that you think appropriate. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Opening cast: This source disagrees with our cast list. Can you advise? Thanks -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, should we use this source, pp. 65-69? It suggests that the idea for the story of Trial actually comes from Gilbert's story An Elixer of Love and other earlier sources. It also notes that the chorus was a fairly new innovation of G&S, as we had discussed in the Thespis article (could go back there for some language and cites). -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I knew you would be able to separate fact from fiction. But I need to cite this book for another point, which I have already done. I doubt that anyone will try to add a piece of info that is demonstrably wrong, and if they do, we can easily explain it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This source has a substantial discussion of the text and music of Trial by Jury, from about p. 24 to p. 31. I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not to mine it for more info/quotes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Here is another. Oops! That is the same as this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be broken up: In fact, I moved it up so that all the stuff about the opening night is together. The prose just needs to be smoothed out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
properly cited vs copyvio
If you can make it very simple for me to understand -- and complicated rules tend to fail, so this should not be a problem, if the information in an article is all carefully cited as being gotten from a specific source, how can that be a copyvio? -- carol (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- If I may, I had Agrostis gigantea on my watchlist and saw the copyvio notice. I completely missed it and thought I might give some specific examples. Generally, Carol, wording and phrases taken directly from another source, cited or not, is a copyright violation. For example:
- From the source: The sheath of each leaf is open and hairless; it has a tendency to split open into a deep-V shape, sometimes all the way to the node.
- From the wiki article: The sheath of each leaf is open and hairless; it has a tendency to split open into a deep V-shape.
- Even the grammar was copied, with the exception of the last clause. The entire paragraph under "Foodplant" was taken directly from the source. Citing sources is important, but it must be written in your own words. Sometimes it's an honest mistake; it is possible to read a source and then get that particular phrasing stuck in your mind. Hope that helps. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is one of the first plant articles that I wrote, and I will not complain to much about how it is handled. I will say this though, this is a terrible way to communicate. And I will say one more thing about this. Perhaps this is the reason there are so many articles here that do not cite their references.
I think that what you ended up with is OK. Walbrook's description of Penley's career came when Penley was still famous, and IMO, Walbrook is making a much bigger deal of Penley's place in Trial than it warrants. Notice that Stedman, Ainger and the other later writers hardly mention him. I disagree that "Trial was a big springboard to his career". Trial was merely his first starring role. He was just a replacement player, late in the second production. If he didn't get his break in Trial, he'd have gotten it somewhere else. He did not play John Wellington Wells, which was cast the next year - they had to go looking for someone new (any idea why?). His biggest role by far was Charley's Aunt. In fact, you might say that he was a one-hit wonder. It's like writing about, say, Bernadette Peters, today. She is mega-famous to Sondheim fans. She got her first Broadway roles in Johnny No-Trump and George M!, but the article on Johnny only says that she made her Broadway debut in the show. Neither article goes into any detail about her, relying instead on the hyperlink. In 50 years, she will certainly not warrant much of a description in even a Featured Article on those shows. The place for detail on Penley's career is in the Penley article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- You wrote that Fred left the cast due to tuberculosis, and you cite Ainger, p. 120. Ainger does NOT say tuberculosis - he just say "poor health". I had read somewhere else that he died of liver disease. Can you tell me where you found the cause of his death? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the recent changes you made. Not sure about the Jacobs question - why don't you write a couple of sentences about A Nice Dilemma, if you think Jacobs' analysis is helpful to the reader, and I'll tell you whether I think it's too much. It would be nice to cite Jacobs for something, just to show that our research is complete. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Invite to review a set of articles
Hi there. You participated in this ANI thread. I picked out the names of some editors I recognised, or who had extensive comments there, and I was wondering if you would have time to review the articles mentioned in the thread I've started here, and in particular the concerns I've raised there about how I used the sources. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
More Trial by Jury
Sorry, I missed your reply on this: Have you gone thru the Ealdgyth comments on the peer review page? Do you think that all of those, as well as the last few Awadewat comments on the Trial talk page, have all been dealt with now?
Reminder to self: This source, pp. 65-69 or our previous discussion in the Thespis concerns G&S unique use of the chorus. Also, This source has a substantial discussion of the text and music of Trial by Jury, from about p. 24 to p. 31. Finally, need to check this book. Which ones are you obtaining? I don't know if they're worth buying. If you can't access one or more of them, I'll try to review them this weekend. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Synopsis - I tried taking the lyrics out of the blue box, but it definitely looks better in the box. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I am finished reviewing your changes of this morning and making my edits. I did not make any frivolous changes. For example, our readers are very familiar with what oom-pa-pa sounds like but have no idea what omm-cha-cha means. The "Nice Dilemma" chorus definitely makes an oom-pa-pa sound between the bass notes and the higher choral voices, as the image that you added clearly shows in the first four measures. So, don't change what I wrote, unless you have a good reason. We must EXPLAIN the sources, not merely parrot them when they are incomprehensible. As to taking the older sources with a grain of salt, I certainly agree, and that is what I was trying to tell you with respect to Walbrook. So, go ahead and review what I did, but I expect you to consider carefully why I made a change before reverting it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that you are going to get musicologists to agree on the exact distinction between the baby-talk terms "oom-cha-cha" and "oom-pa-pa". I think that the second term is far better known among English-speakers, and so it will be more meaningful to our readers. I don't think technical accuracy is as important as presenting concepts in a way that the general encyclopedia reader can understand. If something makes your head hurt, that is a good indication that the readers won't understand it, and we should simplify. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The text under the drawing looks good. Nice! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
New Pinafore image
It's a great image, but can you put an image from an authorized production at the top of the article, and move the new image down a bit? Also, it seems to me that some of the images in the article are oversize, and when we get to working on the article, we will get MOS comments on that, so why don't you downsize them now to what you think is appropriate, just to get a jump on things. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Plagiarism guideline
Thanks for your comments at my talk page. I've proposed we create a separate plagiarism guideline (or rather, how to detect, deal with and avoid it). Please contribute at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Old musical prints
If I go and support your prints, will you cease? The question is, are you trying to make an art that is like those prints? If so, it is tiresome. -- carol (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)