Talk:Maritana: Difference between revisions
reply |
|||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:They both played the role, but I'm not sure if one was first, or perhaps they alternated casts or, as you suggest, acts. See [https://books.google.com/books?id=euEIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=Maritana+Harrison+Borrani+Rainforth&source=bl&ots=_k6AzhPbND&sig=JtW_5MQMfY4g5MmUKqg4BE3x6XI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g3nGVJewBMvZsATP5ID4DA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Maritana%20Harrison%20Borrani%20Rainforth&f=false this]. [https://books.google.com/books?id=sxXWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1130&lpg=PA1130&dq=Maritana+Harrison+Borrani+Rainforth+%22drury+lane%22&source=bl&ots=FdKg6nlkNS&sig=q6iR2mmpKpZyCOdYd1g_2ePvSRQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j4fGVNaKJ4HzggSp5YLQCQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Maritana%20Harrison%20Borrani%20Rainforth%20%22drury%20lane%22&f=false This 22 November review has Romer in the role.] But I do not see the original cast list, or a clear explanation of why two women are listed in the title role. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 18:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC) |
:They both played the role, but I'm not sure if one was first, or perhaps they alternated casts or, as you suggest, acts. See [https://books.google.com/books?id=euEIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=Maritana+Harrison+Borrani+Rainforth&source=bl&ots=_k6AzhPbND&sig=JtW_5MQMfY4g5MmUKqg4BE3x6XI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g3nGVJewBMvZsATP5ID4DA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Maritana%20Harrison%20Borrani%20Rainforth&f=false this]. [https://books.google.com/books?id=sxXWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1130&lpg=PA1130&dq=Maritana+Harrison+Borrani+Rainforth+%22drury+lane%22&source=bl&ots=FdKg6nlkNS&sig=q6iR2mmpKpZyCOdYd1g_2ePvSRQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j4fGVNaKJ4HzggSp5YLQCQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Maritana%20Harrison%20Borrani%20Rainforth%20%22drury%20lane%22&f=false This 22 November review has Romer in the role.] But I do not see the original cast list, or a clear explanation of why two women are listed in the title role. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 18:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC) |
||
==Infobox== |
|||
A user recently added an infobox to this article, which I reverted per [[WP:BRD]]. I object to the addition of an infobox in this article, and the user who added the article has already driven many experienced editors from the Wikipedia project with this repeated and frankly nasty tactic, including [[User:Tim riley]] and [[User:Schrocat]]. I guess she wants to see more productive and experienced editors leave. I had hoped she was ashamed of herself and would stop, but here she is back with this nasty behavior. While sports and certain other articles can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-02/Arbitration_report "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 because: (1) The box ''emphasizes unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance'', in competition with the [[WP:LEAD]] section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is ''redundant''. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and ''hampers the layout'' and impact of the Lead. (4) ''Frequent errors'' creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw ''more [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristin_Chenoweth&diff=675148792&oldid=675090232 vandalism] and fancruft'' than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of ''code at the top'' of the edit screen that ''discourages new editors from editing the article''. (6) It ''discourages readers from reading the article''. (7) It ''distracts editors from focusing on the content'' of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also [[WP:DISINFOBOX]]. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 07:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:04, 26 October 2016
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Opera Start‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Maritana appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 October 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Elizabeth Rainforth ('Emma Romer')
I'm unsure of the meaning of the first performance cast list entry: Elizabeth Rainforth ('Emma Romer'). They're distinct people (i.e. Elizabeth Rainforth (1814-77) vs Emma Romer (1814–1868)) ... so what's the meaning of the entry in this table? Did both of them play the part (e.g. in diferent acts, as we see on The Bohemian Girl? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- They both played the role, but I'm not sure if one was first, or perhaps they alternated casts or, as you suggest, acts. See this. This 22 November review has Romer in the role. But I do not see the original cast list, or a clear explanation of why two women are listed in the title role. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Infobox
A user recently added an infobox to this article, which I reverted per WP:BRD. I object to the addition of an infobox in this article, and the user who added the article has already driven many experienced editors from the Wikipedia project with this repeated and frankly nasty tactic, including User:Tim riley and User:Schrocat. I guess she wants to see more productive and experienced editors leave. I had hoped she was ashamed of herself and would stop, but here she is back with this nasty behavior. While sports and certain other articles can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "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 because: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)