User talk:Marc Shepherd/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, Marc Shepherd/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 15:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comic Operas vs Operettas

Responded on my Talk page. Hope that clears up my reasons for the revert. Hope this won't start an edit war. :) --Quuxplusone 04:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Gilbert & Sullivan etc.

Thanks for your message, Marc and welcome to the Opera project.

G&S are probably closer to Offenbach's operetta than anything else, but I think they belong in a category by themselves. I'd prefer to see them referred to as Savoy Opera - or 'Savoy operettas' as per David Russell Hulme in Grove.

The article on comic opera begins by saying "Comic opera, or light opera, is a genre of opera". This is misleading. 'Comic opera' is not really a genre. It's just a description like 'tragic opera', 'short opera' or indeed 'boring opera'.

The article lists a number of different genres that appeared in different countries at different times (opera buffa, Singspiel etc.). These are useful and 'Savoy opera' can go alongside them.

Actually there are a lot of problems with Wiki opera genres which we will have to deal with at some point. Best - Kleinzach 00:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Marc! How good to meet you here! Been working on revising W.S. Gilbert's page. It's a... very lengthy task, given what was there before. (Let's just say that it was clearly written by someone who hated Gilbert, and leave it at that) Adam Cuerden 19:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Marc, Thanks for your reply and kind words.

"Comic opera" equals comedy in opera. It includes everything from Meistersinger and Falstaff to G&S - works that don't belong together in a single category. Opera is highly stylized. Rules created by major works are then followed by lesser ones, thereby creating traditions or genres. These are usually local/national, so we create problems if we translate opera buffa or opéra-comique etc. into English.

In order not to re-invent the wheel, the Opera Project follows the New Grove Dictionary of Opera. All the main contributors for the project use this source to ensure accuracy, correct style and terminology etc. I strongly recomend using it. Kleinzach 11:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

New York City Subway line colors

I've noticed that you changed the colors in the station infoboxes in various station articles, describing the change as "standard bgcolor". Please refer to User:Flamurai/NYCS colors for the proper line colors. Thank you. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • lol, internet)} 21:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • lol, internet)} 21:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Subway article format

Another thing: In subway articles, the break between the External links section and the template call for the navbox should be <br style="clear: right;" />. This is because of a difference in the way Apple's Safari browser renders the pages; without this, the navbox might not be centered if the article is too short; instead, it will be centered between the left margin and the infobox, not centered over the whole article width. The other break (before the stub tag) can remain simply <br />. Thanks. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

NYC subway edits

I see that you've been doing quite a bit of work on articles regarding the New York City Subway, and many thanks to you for your contributions. I must take issue with you on a few minor points.

• You've been making many edits to pages simply to change redirects to "direct" links (e.g., changing [[Jay Street-Borough Hall (New York City Subway)]] to [[Jay Street-Borough Hall (IND Eighth Avenue Line)]]. I must ask you to refrain from this, for reasons written out here. If you are making edits to a page's content and happen to find a few redirect links, go ahead and fix away. However, don't edit a page for the express purpose of fixing a redirect.
• I find that starting articles with "<Station> is a subway station on the <Line> of the New York City Subway" is a little more clear, formal, and encyclopedic than "<Station> is a subway station on the New York City Subway's <Line>" is; the use of apostrophe-S for possessive purposes is somewhat "loose," if you know what I mean. Also, from now on, link "station" or "subway station" to the Metro station article, because "[[subway station]]" redirects there anyway. Don't go fixing all the occurrences of "subway station" now! Just remember that in the future. Also, try to restrict using "subway station" to stations that are actually in subway, rather than open-cut or elevated stations, which would probably be better off as simply "stations."
• Use of the {{NYCS ref}} template should conform to the nycsubway.org page's title. That is, if the page says "IND Fulton: Kingston/Throop Aves." the template call should be {{NYCS ref|http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/stations?217:1753|IND Fulton|Kingston Throop Aves.}}. Not "IND Fulton Street Line," but "IND Fulton."

Again, thanks a lot for everything! Feel free to add your name to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 03:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! About the redirects: just making sure you don't … obviously, there are those who do, and I'm just covering the bases. About the topic sentences: It is a little clumsy, but I'd prefer it read a tad awkwardly than run those links so close together, and in a strange way, by separating the line and the subway reference it is a little clearer. Strange how that works. About NYCS ref: There really isn't a pattern, since the people who maintain nycsubway.org don't seem to have one. Best thing to do is just open up the page and check the titles. It does get annoying, but it's not terribly hard to deal with. (P.S., a friendly reminder to sign your comments!) --Larry V (talk | contribs) 14:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: 155th Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line)

The same could be said for all of the Japanese and UK station articles. Yes, eventually they should all be tagged as such. I got that one on the list because it showed up on the unwatched pages list (requires admin permissions) the last time I checked it. I've tagged the appropriate articles from my watchlist and I intend to tag all rail transport related articles as such; I just haven't gotten to that step yet. I'm tagging articles as I see them. If you could tag articles as well, it would help greatly in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment efforts to identify which articles still need to be rated against the WP:1.0 guidelines. I'm working through assessing the articles in Category:Unassessed rail transport articles this month. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 13:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Trains

What it looks like to me is that someone decided to rate the 155th Street article, and the rating process happens to be a part of WikiProject Trains. It doesn't seem that the articles particularly belong to that WikiProject, as they have only been added to their respective rating categories (e.g., Category:Start-Class rail transport articles). However, I do agree that the subway is somewhat too specialized to be lumped in with the other rail transport. Maybe we should start a rating project for WP:NYCS only, design our own little "This article is a part of …" box, and so forth. This way we can retain the rating system (which I find useful) but avoid the general categorization of WikiProject Trains. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Books

What about the Bab Ballads? Shouldn't that be in the list? Or at least on Gilbert's page? I see on the Gilbert page you have one Stedman book. Is that sufficient? Also, for a general audience, I would add the Benford book. Most newbies to G&S, especially new performers, just want to know what the heck the funny words it mean. Ssilvers 17:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Edward Solomon

I put up a quick page for him. Is it an article or a stub? Ssilvers 06:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

DeKalb Avenue

Sorry, I was still typing this up when you sent me that last talk message.

You are correct in your observation that the Manhattan Bridge south tracks carry both Q and non-late-night N service. However, N service over the bridge does not stop at DeKalb Avenue; it uses the center bypass tracks. Same for most D service; most of the time, these two services bypass DeKalb on their way to the bridge.

As for the nested templates, see Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates. Although the policy was rejected, it points out several problems that nested templates may cause. In the case here, the nested templates are by no means necessary and are easily substituted with non-template coding.

--Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

7-8 trips in each direction? I only see three southbound trips in the early evening. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

U Mich

I happened to notice that you are a self-proclaimed Wolverine. It just so happens that I have a friend who will be attending Ann Arbor in the fall; see User:Zouf. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

F/V

Ah, I was just in the process of splitting up the tables. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 21:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sheffield

I finished his page. Please take a look when you have a moment. -- Ssilvers 05:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I hereby award you this Working Man's Barnstar to recognize your tireless contributions to WikiProject New York City Subway, especially those contributions of a repetitive and tedious nature. For those I am especially grateful. =)

--Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Gordon; Barnstar

Congratulations on the Barnstar. You've made thousands of edits on the subway articles, and I have no doubt that you've enhanced the resource greatly.

I put up a page on J. M. Gordon -- please take a look. I did quite a lot of research, but there's not much on his early career. -- Ssilvers 12:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Okay, thanks for the heads-up.

Speaking of editing as a full-time job… I work during the summer as a technical analyst at Citigroup Corporate and Investment Banking. I work a 9-hour day, but mostly take phone calls from employees having computer and PDA issues. Usually I have a lot of free time between calls, so what do I do? Edit Wikipedia, of course. It really does get me through the day; amazing how 9 hours flies by when you're Wiki-ing. =) --Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

External references

I noticed that in your recent edit to Canal Street (BMT Nassau Street Line), you removed one of the nycsubway.org references. (See here.) While consistency (through the NYCS ref template) is important, it is more important to provide all the references used, and I had made use of the second site (an article about early transit in Brooklyn) to write the article. This is why I reverted that part of the article. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Savoyard articles

I put up articles on Derek Oldham, Courtice Pounds, George Thorne and Nellie Briercliffe. Take a look when you get back. Note that there is a new active member of WP:G&S. --Ssilvers 04:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

W.S.Gilbert

Aye, sorry to disappear like that - was visiting my parents last month, and between the preparations for that, the visit itself, and the jetlag when back, I wasn't able to do much. And I have the exams I missed due to my Spring illness coming up... but, oh well! Have adopted W.S. Gilbert as I had started on the revision already anyway. Might as well finish! Adam Cuerden 15:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeomen

Say, Marc, how interested are you in the original version of "Is life a boon"? Adam Cuerden 20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well... I've been trying to find a copy of it, and have managed, after some effort, to fail to locate one. Then Paul Howarth casually mentioned it was in the NYPL. Would you be interested in helping to try and get a copy of it (and, hopefully full scores of WJT and ALB also, since they're buggers to get parts for) for the G&S archive? Adam Cuerden 20:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

True about WJT and ALB - after I wrote that I found that Christopher Brown sells minature scores for them for... I'll convert this to dollars - less than $8 each. So I bought them. But Is life a boon - that's the real rarity. Ah, well! Do you know anyone who might be able to do the task? Or, for that matter, does NYPL offer a copying service themselves? (I know the National Library of Scotland may not allow you to photocopy some things, but will gladly make you a copy of anything out of copyright for... not ridiculous fees, although my Festival Te Deum full score ended up pretty expensive indeed, since it had to be done A3 and was long) Adam Cuerden 22:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ruddigore

Major changes to this today! Combined the version listings a bit, added a couple cites. Also added a short section to Yeomen saying where the autograph score and such are though it should probably move a bit. Adam Cuerden 18:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Bridge categorization

Thank you for your contributions to the New York bridge pages. Unfortunately, however, the changes that you made to categorization are contrary to the method decided at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bridges and were inconsistent with the way that every other bridge in the U.S. is categorized. The New York City bridges are used as a specific example on the Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories guideline page. Thanks Cacophony 17:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Billington, Nautch and Burnand

I put up a page on Fred Billington. I also did a quick page on The Nautch Girl, because it annoyed me that we couldn't link to it on everyone's pages. Also expanded the pitiful Francis Burnand page. --Ssilvers 05:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I also did W. H. Denny and beefed up German Reed Entertainment, Carl August Nicholas Rosa, Sydney Grundy and Lionel Monckton. --Ssilvers 06:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC) I need to check out Adrian Ross too. Marc Shepherd 01:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Billington: I had missed the info about Carte telling him to retire. Does one of the links shows give that info? If not, can you add the ref that said this?

Re: Vicar of Bray: See talk over there. There are separate articles for the opera and the folk song, and it is not clear to me which one should have which of the historical info. Thanks --Ssilvers 15:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also see Ivan Caryll, which is now a pretty good page, I think. --Ssilvers 22:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I just put up a page for Helen Roberts. I intended to do a stub but next thing I knew, I was done. --Ssilvers 04:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I beefed up Richard D'Oyly Carte and Alfred Cellier. See what you think. --Ssilvers 23:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the copy edits. I added the "British musicals" cat to the rest of the new musicals stubs. --Ssilvers 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I beefed up the Sidney Jones page. I think it's about as complete as I can get it. Can you please give it a quick look? --Ssilvers 17:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ann Drummond-Grant is finished. --Ssilvers 08:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Chambers-WTC

The thing is, I would much rather not rename it, because then there would be two articles:

• Chambers Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line)
• Chambers Street-World Trade Center (IND Eighth Avenue Line)

I think you'd agree that this would be more confusing than anything we could do with the text inside the individual articles. I like the idea of merging the two into Chambers Street-World Trade Center (IND Eighth Avenue Line), since they were meant to be one "station" (albeit quite a unique station). Larry V (talk | contribs) 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Great work, as always! Larry V (talk | contribs) 17:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

42nd St-GC

Oh, here we go again. Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, luckily it looks like he did a cut-and-paste move, which means that each article's edit history is more or less intact. I just reverted both moves, without having to "re-move" each article. Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

What you're doing would be a hell of a lot easier with non-admin rollback. Search for "god mode light". alphaChimp ^laudare 20:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's still very possible. I just did a couple. Copy my monobook.js to yours. It should give you a couple of other functions. You'll find a link on my userpage. Let me know if you need any more help. alphaChimp ^laudare 20:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, no. Don't just click the link. Just copy my entire monobook to yours, link included. Trust me, it just works. You're not supposed to click the link. A little rollback link should appear next to every contribution. (using firefox, that is) alphaChimp ^laudare 20:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Give it a shot in mozilla. It should work perfectly there. (emphasis on the "should"). alphaChimp ^laudare 21:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Block it. Right now the bot is not running, so I don't really know what you are talking about. alphaChimp ^laudare 21:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I just dug up the approval. His bot is only approved to add block messages to userpages. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Nice catch. I totally missed the other two. This certainly bears looking into, and formal mention. alphaChimp ^laudare 03:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alphachimp

Hi, just to let you know. You forgot to sign your support at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alphachimp. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Alphachimp works faster then me. :) He already put on unsigned tag to it. Garion96 (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

lol. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

More G&S stuff

Check out Francois Cellier, George Edwardes, and The Cingalee. Also, Basil Hood --Ssilvers 02:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

According to this very good source, the children's versions were by Francois. I think you will recognize this authority!  :) --Ssilvers 20:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm finished with Leonard Osborn, Ella Halman, George Cook and Leslie Rands. Please take a look. Joyce Wright doesn't want anyone to know how old she is. I can't find a year of birth for her! --Ssilvers 05:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Yale Society of Orpheus and Bacchus

I left a rather long-winded comment on this article's deletion talk page. If you google my name, you will find that I am a member of said group. I certainly understand where you're coming from and don't blame you for targeting the article for deletion; I have, in the past, personally pared down other group members' edits for NPOV, if you take a look at the history of the page. And I actually initiated the deletion process for another music-related article on a unnotable punk rocker named Reeves James or something like that.

I do think it's unfair, though, to delete the article over any of the multitude of other articles up on Wikipedia on other Yale a cappella groups. Let me tell you a little about Yale a cappella.

At the beginning of each year, there is a ridiculous process at Yale (called "rush") by which unwitting freshmen are "tapped," or accepted, into any one of the various a cappella groups out trolling for singers on campus. Because of the number of options freshmen have, groups compete strenuously for talented vocalists. In the past, rush has lasted six weeks plus and has resulted in violence, bribery (freshmen were flown places), etc. In response, a singing group council was set up to regulate the rush process to prevent further abuses. The articles each group has up on Wikipedia probably constitute a rush violation as most of them read right now, and perhaps they all warrant deletion.

I personally think the numerous pages can be combined into one more interesting article about Yale a cappella. But please target all of the groups if you intend to delete the SOBs page (which is what they call commonly call themselves, by the way). I've let the group know their page may be deleted, and I'm sure someone will edit the page for NPOV in the next few days. Mgummess 06:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Those 9/9 subway changes

When 9/9 comes along and those changes to service don't actually occur I wonder if that @#$%^ (sorry) will stop trying to update all those articles. Strange, with all the reversions that have happened, that he isn't getting the message.

--Allan 12:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Back!

Just to let you know I'm (finally) done with exams. Couple essays to finish up, but now that I can move into year 3, I'll have a little more time for this again.

Er, this was me. Also, did some more work on Victoria and Merrie England - straight-out copying, but it'll do for a start. Adam Cuerden 16:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing articles with {{NYCS service|A}}

Do you have any ideas on how to edit, nonetheless, read articles with {{NYCS service|A}} on them? Geoking66 04:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

NYCS template switch

I don't understand why the switch in {{NYCS}} is necessary, or how recursive redirects come out of the non-switch version. The switch makes for a longer template, which might run into the 2Meg limitation. Switch statements can be a problem if a template is ever subst'ed. Other than that it doesn't really matter, except for my curiosity. Gimmetrow 13:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

NYCS template switch

Happy to explain. As mentioned in various places, we use these templates — among other purposes — to ensure consistent formatting, and not just to create links. For example, on R (New York City Subway service), {{NYCS R}} is used. It displays as just plain R. On any other page, it would display as R (with a link).

Now, on that same page, you'll also see calls to {{NYCS RR}} and {{NYCS RJ}}, which display as RR and RJ, because in the background {{NYCS RJ}} is pointing back to R (New York City Subway service). The WikiMedia software is smart enough not to insert a link when you're already on that page.

However, if you replace those calls with the non-switched version of {{NYCS}}, those template calls will display as RR and RJ. The WikiMedia software doesn't know that RR (New York City Subway service) and RJ (New York City Subway service) link right back to R (New York City Subway service). That's what I meant about a reflexive link.

I do realize that the switched version cannot be subst'ed, but it is not supposed to be. We want them always to appear in template form, so that formatting remains consistent; and that the links will always be correct if pages are merged or split.

I didn't understand your comment about the 2 meg limit. We don't appear to be in any danger of coming near that. Marc Shepherd 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

For some reason I had not noticed that some of the templates don't use the redirects. Yes you need some sort of switch logic to do that. Some editors would object to using the self-link "feature" this way, but if that's what you want, OK. If the switch were expanded to handle all the other templates, I could imagine a page with a lot of NYCS calls running into the template limit. Not a problem with a small switch and 20 options. Gimmetrow 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Right-o! Won't do it again. By the way, am trying to be really helpful and work on a stub proposal.... I hope this isn't meddling... Adam Cuerden 21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Note

Have modified Template:Gilbert and Sullivan - I hope for the better - and added another template to the project page to try and organise work. Since I feel worried when doing this, best I mention. Adam Cuerden 22:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

subway vandals

I made a page on the subway vandals. The Sept 9 thing was pretty blatant, but now they are getting more subtle. Is this or this a verror? Any recommendations on how to proceed as this gets more complex over time? Gimmetrow 00:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That still raises the question, what is "The Right Version"? Have you looked over my page on this? (If you're watching my talk page I'll respond there in the future.) Gimmetrow 14:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi Protection

I actually did that as an experiment. To be quite frank, I'm a little annoyed that the last 50 edits on that page were either vandalism or reverts. I'm not really sure what we can do other than semi protection to get around that....

I'm a little apprehensive to continue protecting the pages, just because it seems somewhat controversial. Let's broach the topic in WP:NYCS. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Sapphire Necklace

Ayup, it's another new, crappy article from me! Adam Cuerden 16:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As to sources: Sapphire Necklace is all from the two sources in the Bibliography, except for pointing out that particular lyric (mention of the difficulty of the libretto is made in both sources, I picked out a relevant section to expand). and the brass band repetoire (I've seen that mentioned elsewhere, but fear I don't recall where.

In Memoriam uses as its source the score itself, and what little information is available on your site and the G&S archive. I was trying to give an analysis of the musical technique - it probably will need some NPOV editing. (But I'm in a rather awful state today - nasty depressive funk). Adam Cuerden 02:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

...Also, it's rather hard to do an NPOV analysis of a work of music. I take it that the probvlem comes down to my description of the theme being full of hope and striving? Arr, weel, can cut back on the description, and just describe in general terms, but if we don't do some sort of musical analysis, it's hard to justify an article on some of these overtures. Adam Cuerden 02:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

True about it being impossible to describe the quality of the libretto, though both sites I cited deemed to do so. Was trying to back up their somewhat rash judgement. Adam Cuerden 08:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. I think I've removed all POV now. Everything is highly cited - perhaps a little too much, even. Adam Cuerden 18:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right about these works being low priority, but the Chorley period (and it's probably pretty fair to call it that) was probably more important than it's usually given credit for - let's face it, having a very difficult work to set that early in his career probably did immense good at preparing him for Gilbert's creativity.

However, I do agree, and would like to move on to Gilbert. But, well, I'm not that confident at Wikipedia yet, so I'm a little more comfortable in the shallows of the obscure stuff and the minor parts of the articles at the moment.

And since I'm more of a Gilbert fan than Sullivan (much as I like him), it's easier for me to be working on things I'm interested in, but don't care quite so strongly about whilst I regain my feet. Probably do a nice, short Gilbert piece next - Dulcamara, or perhaps No Cards? Adam Cuerden 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, aye. Could I e-mail you some images? I don't really have appropriate image-editing softward, but they'd be very good illustrations for... rather a lot of articles. It's a broadsheet for emerald Isle of seven actors (including all the famous ones) in costume, as well as Francois Cellier, and the producer, whose name annoyingly slips my mind. Adam Cuerden 20:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I can't guarantee that I'll get to them immediately. Marc Shepherd 20:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. Which e-mail d'ye prefer? By the way, a sample can be seen at Francois Cellier Adam Cuerden 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Aye. Realised after I wrote ye that I wouldn't need to edit them too much, just clip 'em to size. Problem is what to do with the people who don't have pages yet. Sorry. I'm not at my best judgement right before bed. Adam Cuerden 21:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

More G&S articles

See Marjorie Eyre, John Ayldon, J. C. Williamson, Meston Reid and Alan Styler. --Ssilvers 06:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Finished Joyce Wright, John Dean (singer) and L. Radley Flynn --Ssilvers 17:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to do Peggy Ann Jones, even though she did have an acting career after the DOC. --Ssilvers 01:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Date of Mikado film. You wrote 1968 in Godfrey's entry. We have written 1966 and 1967 in various places. This is the first time I saw 1968. Was it recorded in 1966 and released in 1967? --Ssilvers 12:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

He's been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism only account. alphaChimp ^laudare 21:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's no problem. Link me (or Larry, I guess) to any future accounts with similar behavior. If he were willing to explain his reasoning or cite sources, these edits would be reasonable, but, as they are, they're just vandalism. alphaChimp ^laudare 22:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Griffin and Menzies

I finished bios for Elsie Griffin and Ivan Menzies, but I wonder if I am missing anything from her opera career? Google didn't show me much. -- Ssilvers 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Clement Scott

User pjrs put this notice on my talk page just now:

Thank you for the additions to the Clement Scott page. However, I have some queries and intend making some amendments.... I am a little concerned at the additions of the references to Gilbert and Sullivan - much as I love their work - it shifts the balance of his positioning a bit and I haven't anything in his publications or letters which suggest affinity - though logically there ought to have been, given the time he is writing. I think it much more likely that his desire to be a member of the Garrick was because Irving and other actor managers were, rather then Gilbert and Sullivan.

I am particularly intrigued by your attributing 'Now is the Time' to him. In all my research on this, I can find no evidence that he wrote it. I will check my notes on his travels, but the dates on the song all suggest that somebody used the name long after this Clement Scott's death in 1904. I shall be delighted if you can inform me otherwise.

I note that a certain amount of your information comes from the Rochester Library magazine. They were very helpful there when I went through his papers (with the exception of a couple of the middle years when time defeated me) about three years ago. I felt a need to shift the balance slightly in a number of places - though I have no doubt that Scott was selective in the letters that he kept. pjrs

Can you help? --Ssilvers 22:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Malcolm Sargent

This was a bear. I'm sure that more needs to be done to this complex bio, but I think I did my share! --Ssilvers 13:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hicks and Terriss

Since they stayed with Gilbert at Grim's Dyke often and both wrote about Gilbert and Sullivan, I have beefed him up and added her and added them to people associated with G&S. -- Ssilvers 23:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Which George Grossmith; Mackerras

In the 1902 benefit performance of Trial, which George Grossmith played the Usher? Was it the DOC principal comedian, or was it his son, who had by then made a name at the Gaiety Theatre playing in casts that looked very much like the one listed for this performance? If the latter, at a minimum we need to drop a footnote.

I also beefed up Mackerras' bio. -- Ssilvers 03:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The bot

No, the bot is not mine. I just saw a bunch of updates to various subway/transit pages today. I started combining those where it had duplicated the project banner, going by those that were listed on the logs as moving from X to Unassessed. I've only got about another 10 minutes of editing time today before I leave to ride the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad (we're doing the round trip from Antonito to Osier), but I'll be back late tonight and most of the day on Monday; our flight home gets back to Madison around 10.00p. Slambo (Speak) 13:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Station Complexes

I have finished merging all of the station complexes that you have listed on the WP:NYCS talk page. Now that these are done, we can get statred on the hard ones. Give me a reply whenever you can. Thanks. --imdanumber1 19:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Marc,

First off, thanks for the positive feedback.

Secondly, I have an idea on how we can get reasonable names on station complexes. For example, the order of the station naming should be IRT station names first, BMT station names second, and IND station names last. One reasonable matter is 74th Street-Broadway (IRT Flushing Line) and Jackson heights-Roosevelt Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line) into 74th Street-Broadway-Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Avenue (New York City Subway).

That is just an idea on how it could be, but not necessarily. Drop me a line with your opinion. --imdanumber1 18:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that we have redirects. We are putting redirects on the articles prior to the station complex move. If a person searches 74th Street-Broadway (IRT Flushing Line), it will redirect to the new title. I STRONGLY believe that we should use all of the station's naming instead of part of it. We shouldn't omit out part of the station's original naming. --imdanumber1 00:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Wikipedia. With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you. (Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp laudare 01:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope I can help you with more NYCS issues. Regards, alphaChimp ^laudare 01:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Zoo

Did you make the edit there that you intended to make? The reference to dislike of the libretto is still there. --Ssilvers 17:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Leonard

I'm finished with her bio, and that concludes my project to input DOC performers into Wikipedia. Of course, a few more may be added, particularly if they turn up as big musical comedy performers or for some other reason, as Evett did. In addition, some of the people who are already there could use expanding, especially with respect to their non-G&S work. -- Ssilvers 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Pirates of Penzance

I suppose that works, though it still seems a weak joke if it is one. But the original wording definately overstepped.

Still, given it's a show about pirates, it's difficult to claim that it's a joke about theatrical pirates unless there's further evidence for it than the fact it opened around the time that theatrical piracy was occurring. And it seems a bit much to swallow that Gilbert would base an entire operetta around Pirates to poke fun at theatrical pirates, and at the same time would leave no hints of the intent in the libretto.

Where is this coming from? Adam Cuerden 19:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it sounds a bit like an urban myth to me. I'm sure thyey were aware of the name. But I suspect Gilbert had more integrity than to make the change from the one-act Burglers (as Wachs pointed out) to Pirates just because of a little theatrical piracy.

In short, I'm sure that G&S reference books love to point out theatrical piracy and Pirates of Penzance: It's a nice comparison. Nice rhetorical device to go from the theatrical piracy of H.M.S. Pinafore on to the actual Piracy of Pirates of Penzance. Lends itself to many rhhetorical devices, e.g. "Whilst this theatrical piracy was going on, Gilbert and Sullivan began work on The Pirates of Penzance". However, I am deeply suspicious that this tale that the theatrical piracy DIRECTLY INFLUENCED Pirates of Penzance sprung through Chinese Whispers from a rhetorical comparison of the two as a transition between operas.

The "joke" is obscure, not actually funny in the least, and has no evidence other than propiniquity and a few books - and given Eden can get his books on Gilbert published, we can't trust every G&S scholar. So, did Gilbert and Sullivan, or anyone contemporary, ever mention these things being related?

It's interesting if true, but it's of the sort of urban myth category that needs primary evidence. shall we leave it in but put a [cite needed]?

The Sapphire Necklace

Readded reference to the Zoo, but added a quote from the linked article as hidden text (it's not directly relevant to the Sapphire Necklace, or I'd have included it as a full reference) Adam Cuerden 18:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, just because he reluctantly let it be revived because he was pressured to do so doesn't completely invalidate the fact that the concern for the libretto caused a fair bit of suppression of the Zoo, in my opinion. But I suppose it doesn't really matter, except that it seems a common thread between the three main lost works (Thespis, Zoo, and Sapphire Necklace) Adam Cuerden 19:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Subway station ratings

A couple of comments... First, I understand the concerns and I'm not taking anything personally here either (kind of hard to convey body language and inflection via the keyboard). Yeah, most of the subway station articles will have very little to them and some may be destined to never have more than a few sentences, but they can all include at least one photo and references pointing at external sources of information (I don't consider External links to be the same as References; "External links" to me means "here are some sites with more information" while "References" means "this is the source material used for this article"). I do a quick check for the presense of attributes like these and assign a quick rating. Obviously, I'm not spending a whole lot of time on each article when I put an assessment rating on it, and I know very little about New York's system and even less about London's system, so it's very likely that many of the assessments should be modified. If there are specific ratings that you disagree with, by all means change them (you can leave article-specific ratings comments in the /Comments pages [linked from the template] or on the talk pages). My main goal is to assess the articles in Category:Unassessed rail transport articles so I can get back to tagging and assessing the articles in the Category:Rail transport category tree (I got up to the articles in Category:Railway companies → Category:Railway companies of the United States → Category:Maryland railroads, so there's quite a few more to look at). Last weekend's fiasco with bot tagging is one reason why I'm doing this completely by hand (I'm also finding items for the Portal's Did you know section this way).

I haven't updated {{TrainsWikiProject}} to add the importance ratings yet. I thought it would be better to get through with this first round of assessments first and then start discussion on talk:WP Trains to define the importance levels. I'd like to have some buy-in from other project members before starting on that path, especially since an article like A (New York City Subway service) would have different importance levels between WP Trains and WP NYCS (even though it was the subject of Duke Ellington/Billy Strayhorn's "Take the A Train," it probably wouldn't be higher than Mid importance to WP Trains). Adding importance ratings will take some more advanced template mojo so that the subprojects can assign their own importance levels.

That's all I can think of right now, I've got to get to a doctor's appointment now. I should be back online later tonight. Slambo (Speak) 21:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

G&S article

Somebody did a lot of work on this today (yesterday for you). I copy edited some of what he/she did, but you'll want to consider it. I didn't edit the following, which I think you will want to work on:

Apart from Yoemen, which is in many ways exceptional, Gilbert's plots remain perfect examples of "topsy-turvydom," in which fairies rub elbows with English lords, flirting is a capital offense, gondoliers ascend to the monarchy, and pirates turn out to be noblemen who have gone wrong. Gilbert's lyrics employ at times ourageously ingeneous double (and triple) rhyming and punning, and served as the very model for such 20th century Broadway lyricists as Cole Porter, Ira Gershwin, Lorenz Hart, and Yip Harburg.

Yip Harburg? -- Ssilvers 15:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

NYGASP

Thanks for your edits. I added more info this afternoon, so if you have time, please take another look. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 22:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Mikado

Someone's buggered up the references, and I've been getting iller and iller all day. Could ye have a look? There's things in the wrong places. Adam Cuerden 16:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

His Excellency

The G&S Discography says "I have not heard the score by F. Osmond Carr, but others tell me it is terrible." Do you want to update that? http://www.cris.com/~oakapple/gasdisc/he.htm -- Ssilvers 12:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Gilbert Short Stories

I'm afraid your presumption they're all collected in Foggerty's Fairy is very much incorrect. He wrote reams of stuff for Fun, maybe half Bab ballad, an eighth short story, an eighth chatty series, and a quarter parodies of book and theatre. Adam Cuerden 19:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from Talk:List of important operas

Hello. I wanted to let you know that I quoted your post about Jimbo Wales' reaction to another one of these lists on Talk:List of major opera composers where a discussion is going on concerning NPOV issues and sourcing. A discussion using reference lists already in place has begun and you might be interested in following this. Thanks for bringing this up! Musikfabrik 16:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced tag on Opera

Hello again and thank you for participating on these discussions. I think that we're working for the same thing and I wanted to explain why I did indeed think that it was right to put an unsourced tag on this article. My rational is at the Wikipedia policy page Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence which basically says that if any editor feels that a piece of information should remain, the specific phrase must be sourced. According to the way this reads, general references do not replace specific references as "Burden of evidence".

To quote Jimbo Wales in this article, "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

• So, my statement that any unsourced materials could be immediately removed seems to be backed up by this statement by Jimbo. And the use of the word "aggressively" in terms of removing unsourced items would also tend to suggest that concesus is not the issue here.
• I'm wondering that since this is the main article in this genre and that since it's been featured on the CD-rom version, if people somehow have the idea that it's somehow okay as it is. I believe that it is not and that every major idea needs a source. While in the case of many articles , this could be a problem. With an article which is obviously the result of a great deal of research, this can be put to rights quickly. But it cannot be allowed to remain as it is.
• I will refrain, in the interests of good faith, from readding the "sources needed" tag, but can we discuss how this article may be properly sourced and divide up the work? I haven't worked on this article myself, so I'm perhaps not the one to lead this discussion. Musikfabrik 08:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

List of important operas

Eh, I'm washing my hands of this article. If only me and MusikFabrik are collecting lists, why should I bother? Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Assessment project

I see that you've begun the assessment project. Before we assess Ruddigore thru GD, could you add the "historical casting" tables? I find those really helpful and fascinating. Regards, -- Ssilvers 14:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be right about my initial skepticism re: the "historical casting" tables, but you were right, and I'm not afraid to say so. As far as Sapphire Necklace, I never would have put up the article, but once it was up, I did what I could to fix it. I agree that the G&S and G articles need more work, but I gave them my best shot a few months ago, and I'm no scholar. I think we need some help from Crowther, Turnbull and that ilk. We could e-mail the main article to those to worthies and ask for comments? I was planning to put up articles for the most successful curtain raisers next, and then look into the German-Reed pieces. -- Ssilvers 16:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

MORE Subway Changes

I was afraid that the vandals were coming back. I have reported the issue to Larry V, Cecropia and Alphachimp. I hope they can do somethhin about this. Glad we have more sysops on the team. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

List of major opera composers

Look Moreschi moved this to List of opera composers considered major according to the formulation given by Jimbo Wales in the statements you quoted. I first tried to move it to a non-POV name (typing the name incorrectly, which lead to the problem) and THEN the site went down. When it was back up, I reverted the whole mess into List of major opera composers, but I will NOT take the responsiblity for this mess. If Moreschi hadn't moved it in the first place, this wouldn't have happened. And under the circumstances, it should not have been moved.

I am not a computer expert. I am a musicologist, composer, instrumental soloist and conductor. I will NOT play these sorts of games. If you want to lay all of the blame at my door, so be it, but you're then responsible for knowledge not being on the site that only I can add. Already, my friend who is the librarian at the Royal college of music is pretty much laughing at this entire situation. Is this what you wanted? If so, then please continue. Musikfabrik 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

List of major opera composers

I just took a look at it. I'm so confused at what happened... I can't find the history of the page anywhere in the deleted edits, but I suspect I'm looking in the wrong place. Could you give me a list of pages to check (for history). thanks, alphaChimp^(talk) 00:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

G&S Template

I've added plays to it as well - but this is hopefully a temporary solution - it shouldn't take more than a few days to get the list of works page up to date. We could, perhaps, give those with articles links at the top. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Station Complex merges partially done

I have finished merging most of the articles listed at WP:NYCS talk. However I am against one specific merge that you are supporting. You said you would support merging of 14th Street (IND Sixth Avenue Line) and Sixth Avenue (BMT Canarsie Line) into 14th Street-Sixth Avenue (New York City Subway) but you would exclude 14th Street (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line) from it. You also said that because of a non-confusing name, which would turn out as 14th Street-Sixth and Seventh Avenues. I do not think that the Seventh Avenue segment of the name should be added anyway. We can still call the article 14th Street-Sixth Avenue. But all of the articles (IRT Broadway-Seventh, BMT Canarsie and IND Sixth) should be added. There is no name 7th Avenue included in the complex. Only 14th Street and Sixth Avenue, since the IRT and IND stations stop at 14th street, while Canarsie trains stop at Sixth Avenue. So the Seventh Avenue segment of the name shouldn't be added, but we can still include all three of the articles.--Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 02:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Great. But for the 14th Street-Sixth Avenue issue, 7th Avenue trains stop at 14th Street, while Canarsie trains run on 14th Street. I'm not so sure how it is misleading, but 14th Street-Sixth-Seventh Avenues doesn't make much sense to me either. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Fulton Street-Broadway-Nassau move should be reverted to Broadway-Nassau-Fulton Streets. It's on the map anyways.

That seems fine with me. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 14:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

GA class

It'll be more work, but might I suggest W. S. Gilbert, as the top-importance article most in need of work, would possibly be the best choice for our first GA-class push? Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree that other articles are nearer. However, W. S. Gilbert seems somewhat more in need of the work, due to the very poor nature and imbalance of it, so concentrating work on it would help get rid of what is still [And it used to be much worse] a prominent bad article for our project. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:List of major opera composers

Ha! Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Subway table

I have changed the table seen at my sandbox (click here), to make it show when 5 trains run. I stopped at East 180th Street, but the table seems worse than before. Putting text that shows when trains stop at a specific station doesn't seem to work, just like what Marc said. This is why I want to upload those bullets seen on the MTA website and make those substitute the text. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So what I really want to do is to upload those bullets. But since I haven't been with Wikipedia for that long, and those help pages are hardly any help at all (all I know how to do is revert, that's it), I need to find someone who has uploaded pictures before. Do you know how to upload pictures? If you do, can you teach me a few things so we can get further on what the table will look like? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, subway-related images, like bullets, show a caption that says, "This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." So these bullets that will denote when trains serve stations will have the same public domain caption as the subway bullet images do.

The subway bullets were uploaded from Wikimedia Commons, and so will these denotations. Just need to find out ho to do it! --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 00:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Good news Marc! I have created a Wikimedia Commons account (so ironically, is called Imdanumber1, hahahahaha!), so now I can upload those denotations. Actually, I already uploaded them, or at least a couple. I have already inserted them into my new table, so feel free to take a look at my sandbox page. And you were right; the column that shows these denotations are so narrow that it doesn't matter. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad you like it. I am still working on it, and I am still uploading the images from Commons. But I will work on it so we can get some support. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I have just finished expanding the table to full length, which shows the 5 train's whole route, I am not done. Although you suggested creating an individual column for the ADA icon, I really think that we should put it after the station's name, most probably because the MTA does this, without giving it its oun column; just directly after the station's name. And speaking of the ADA icon, I want WP:NYCS to use this ADA icon, which looks like this, because it is brighter than the current one we are using and is more noticeable. Get back to me with your thoughts. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter 7

Hello Nice to see that some new faces have recently become interested in commenting on the article. However, I am interested to know how you became involved with the page? It would seem that someone came along and changed the title without any discussion. Then someone started a debate about a different title. A number of people I have never seen comment on a Harry Potter page then opposed the proposed further move. This is quite extraordinary attention for a HP page.

No one has yet explained the grounds for changing the page from its original title. Can you explain why this was done? It was also done by someone who had never edited the page before and was pretty inexperienced. A justification was given, but not explained. Then an anon deleted the debate. Also very strange. Why would anyone do this? Sounded like someone wanted to avoid discussion. While I do not think it likely that people would have opposed the page title change if it is satifactorily explained, this has still not been done. I do not see how any change of title can be discussed or considered unless someone explains why it needed to be moved in the first place. Sandpiper 07:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to Sandpiper: Marc has left Wikipedia. See below. --Ssilvers 15:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Textual criticism

I see that you have been a major contributor to Textual criticism. So, this is just to let you know that I have submitted in to QP:GA. See Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates#Other_5. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Post-mortem messages to Marc. See Notice below

Sorry to see you go, Marc! The WP:G&S project and I will miss you! -- Ssilvers 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly see your point, Marc. Anyone who takes this project seriously feels that way at least occasionally. Take some time off but keep this in mind: do or don't do exactly what you want on Wikipedia. Trying to enforce a quality standard is an exercise in madness but still outstanding contributions help the reader who is not into Wikipolitics. I myself have given up on political articles long long ago and earlier this year I walked away from intense work on WP:RFA. But I still contribute now and then to transit articles when it moves me, and I do work on some literary articles that please me. Every now and then I correct egregious attempts at POV, and my NPOV-ing usually sticks (for awhile, anyway). For all the people who have no respect for quality, there is a "silent majority" that appreciates it, and they remember the quality editors, even if they're not always throwing bouquets. :) -- Cecropia 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am 100% with you Cecropia. You can always come back, but taking some time off would be better. We all need a break sometimes. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go Marc. Although we had that little dispute over NYC Subway Service V), I am sad to see you leave. Nos opto bonus tidings praecessi vestri via --Anthony 18:42 17 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Notice:

I departed the Wikipedia community on September 20, 2006. Messages left on this page will not be looked at or responded to. See my user page for the reasons behind my departure. Marc Shepherd 18:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Imdanumber1 & NE2

I've done a bit of research, but can't find what exactly was the tipping point that caused your Wikipedia relationship to become so acrimonious. Surely an argument about redirects can't, on its own, be important enough to be worth such acrimony.

For what it's worth, the Wikipedia page on redirects is a guideline. As noted here, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

Another FWIW: The Service History section of 1 (New York City Subway service) isn't very good, and could certainly use a thorough rewriting. Part of the problem is that the history of the various IRT services (except the 7) really needs to be one narrative. Practically every combination of northern and southern terminals that is physically possible has been used at one time or another. A historical narrative that tries to cover one service in isolation doesn't really do it justice.

Third FWIW: The name change from "IRT Eastern Parkway Line" to "IRT Eastern Parkway and New Lots Line" was an error, and should be reverted. There is no such thing as the New Lots Line. As noted in the article New York City Subway chaining, there is a single Chaining Line from Borough Hall to New Lots Avenue. Physically, the line remains under Eastern Parkway past the point where the Nostrand Avenue Line branches off. The book Tracks of the New York City Subway confirms this. If anyone can find a source that contradicts this, I'd love to see it.

I'm retired from editing, but if you'd like to state concretely what it is you disagree about, I'd be happy to try to suggest a resolution or middle ground. Marc Shepherd 00:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Common sense says that Imdanumber1's bypassing of redirects makes it harder to fix when things change in the future. Imdanumber1 has stated multiple times that he opposes any linking to redirects.

According to the MTA, there is a New Lots Line; see the references on IRT Eastern Parkway Line and New Lots Line. In fact I have never seen the elevated portion called the Eastern Parkway Line by the MTA. --NE2 00:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the guideline is pretty clear that a link to a redirect shouldn't be edited out for its own sake, if the page text is displaying correctly.

You can find a variety of nomenclature in MTA literature --- the same station given multiple names, for instance. I haven't found a source where the MTA states, "These are our lines, and this is where each one begins and ends." When it comes to naming a whole bunch of related articles, there should be a system grounded in verifiable fact. "Eastern Parkway and New Lots Line" is ugly and basically contradicts the way all the other articles were put together. A documented system based on verifiable sources, and employed consistently, is far better for all concerned. Marc Shepherd 01:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "Eastern Parkway Line and New Lots Line" is ugly, and should be split. The issue is that no reliable sources show the elevated portion as part of the Eastern Parkway Line. --NE2 01:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you can get a good idea of his view at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/1 (New York City Subway service): "NE2 persists on systematically instating redirects into articles and refuses to engage in a consensus to get an invoice from other users to agree on the article's styleage. I find this disruptive, because it is not normally one's nature to put redirects into articles..." --NE2 03:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why did you decline Imdanumber1's request for mediation? I've never gone thru that process, but it seems to me this would be a pretty good way to get an impartial answer, one way or the other. Marc Shepherd 13:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would get anywhere. --NE2 14:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is NE2's problem: He never wants to reach a conclusion. And these unilateral edits he keeps making have got to stop. He is throwing everything out of the context and it is getting worse. If he continues, it may lead to an request for arbitration. I will NOT be afraid to file that case if he persists. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to reach a conclusion, one that makes sense. Bypassing redirects for the sake of bypassing redirects, and thus making it harder for others to edit and fix problems, makes no sense. --NE2 01:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth (pardon me for intruding, Marc), here are my thoughts about whether a link that redirects should be changed to the redirect's target (as a piped link) or should be left alone. Some things are implied by WP:REDIRECT, but others may not be.

In prose, if a [[link]] currently points to another page (the redirect), and you're thinking if you want to change [[link]] to [[redirect|link]] (notice the pipe):

1. Change if the target reduces disambiguation or if the target is not what you intended (The Meadowlands -> Meadowlands and you want Giants Stadium)
2. Change if it is to correct a misspelling of a proper name (Brittany Spears -> Britney Spears), and do not pipe this lnk
3. Leave alone if the link is specific enough that a detailed article could be written about it someday (Live with Regis and Kathie Lee -> Live with Regis and Kelly)
4. Leave alone if the target introduces ambiguity or if the current link is referenced in only a small section of the target (extra virgin olive oil -> olive oil)
5. Leave alone if the only difference is valid spelling variations (yogurt -> yoghurt)
6. Leave alone if the semantic difference is minor or cosmetic enough that the content of the article should be the same under both link and redirect (redirects of en dashes to hyphenated)

In addition, be conservative whenever you change links that redirect: only make such an edit when necessary. There are special exceptions and circumstances that come to mind, but I want this to be a simplified view in order to hopefully gain some agreement. To both parties, does all of this make sense? I purposely gave non-MTA related examples for each of these so both of you may come to your own conclusions. I am also withholding my opinion on the 1 service article until further comments are said. Tinlinkin 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I agree with that. --NE2 02:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is OK to create redirects to articles, provided that the redirects are sensible. NE2 appears to do this in order to fit his writing style, and I nor anybody else has the right to judge that: it's all in the appearance of links, not content (unless the redirect target somehow changes). Creating redirects to fit my writing is not my style of editing, and that is when personal preferences should be respected. But if someone "fixes" New Haven, CT to New Haven, Connecticut, that kind of correction should certainly not be reverted back. Tinlinkin 03:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would not revert an edit in which the only "fixes" are of that nature. However, I would also support enforcing a general "ban" on making those fixes for the reasons described at WP:R. --NE2 03:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Tinklin's guidelines sound pretty good to me, too. Let me emphasize something Tinklin said in his reply, and it's a concept with broader application. When one is working in a very large field, such as the New York City Subway, almost any name change has a ripple effect on a dozen or more articles. Consider all the different articles that need to be updated when we decide that the 1 train's northern terminus is Van Cordlandt Park–242nd Street, rather than 242nd Street–Van Cortlandt Park. True, Wikipedia's redirect mechanism makes the links work either way. But to the general reader, it's confusing when the same concept is not consistently named. We should therefore embrace naming standards, and having reached consensus on those standards, we should be hesitant to re-name an article unless there are very good reasons beyond a particular editor's mere preference. Marc Shepherd 11:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess that the light can finally shine: we are near a conclusion, and that is what matters. And NE2, that message I left you on your page under the redirects post was not about redirects in general but your attitude towards other people. It is not good, and according to your talk page archives, it doesn't look good. I am trying to help you become a better Wikipedian, but if you continue to have a bad attitude towards others, everyone will avoid you, and feeling excommunicated isn't pretty at all. I just hope that this issue is over, and we can continue to move onto better ideas, like improving the transportation project.

Also Marc, I know that you are retired from editing, but I hope that sometime on into the future, you will make a grand return, as a trusted and valued Wikipedian by all and can continue on outside G and S projects as well. I know that WP can be a frustrating place, but always remain civil,cool headed and respectful at all times. That was a standard other users described you as, and how everyone should take into example if things are going to work. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope the issue is over too. So you will not bypass redirects any more? --NE2 01:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of redirects that contain a misspelling would be okay. But I would not endorse putting redirects in articles legitimately. And if someone bypasses the redirect, do not complain; it is a guideline and it is not set in stone. Some people like guidelines, some don't and that is where WP:IAR comes in. The guidelines, like use disambigs when necessary, doesn't fit well into nte transportation project because the NYC subway system is uniue in its way where the stations are expected to have a dab. Unless the nam is so obvious, like Grand Central Terminal, then it may not be needed. The bottom line is, sure, guidelines are used as an example, and unlike policies, they do not force us to do what it says. Hope this helps, –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 16:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But I don't see the rationale why we should ignore all rules. I think of this as an audit—if you are challenged, you have to justify why you choose to ignore a guideline, and if you are opposed by a stronger reason (such as the consensus behind the guideline), then it may be an indication that your argument is weak (but not necessarily non-justified). As much as the NYCS system is unique, in my opinion it's not unique enough that we are able to disregard all precedents. Tinlinkin 18:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Imdanumber1 has chosen to ignore the above: [1] --NE2 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. And I've put a note on the appropriate talk page. In this case, Imdanumber1 is wrong. Marc Shepherd 19:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Shrug* Um, sorry. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 21:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It continues on 1 and Q. Something tells me Imdanumber1 has not decided to listen to us. --NE2 03:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're the one that doesn't listen to anyone, NE2. Your trollish behavior has better stop, or else I will take it to corrective actions. Marc, I'm sorry if I drove you into this mess, but NE2's behavior has got to change or else I will report him. He has a history of insubordination and doesn't listen to anyone. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 12:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In the first place, NE2 is not a troll. As explaned at WP:Troll, "Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling."

Although I disagree with quite a few of NE2's edits, he has also made a number of extremely useful edits. I am satisfied that, whether he is right or wrong, NE2 is making a sincere attempt to improve the encyclopedia. He is therefore not a troll (or even close to it) under the official definition, and it is not helpful or accurate to call him one.

During my very long absence from Wikipedia, it appears that NE2 made a lot of unilateral (or close-to-unilateral) decisions that departed from the standard way the NYCS articles had been set up by previous editors. Whether or not NE2's ideas were better, his changes often introduced inconsistencies, since he didn't always implement them thoroughly.

I realize that WP policy specifically encourages editors to "be bold." But in a subject area with as many inter-related articles as the NYC Subway, I think a bit less boldness is called for. A localized edit might seem to be an improvement when considered in isolation, but it might actually harm the overall project, by introducing new inconsistencies. For instance, when you rename something, you need to fix all the places that use the old name. Both of you have been guilty of renaming pages, while leaving references to the former name unchanged.

Let me be clear about this. If the correct official name of a station is XYZ, then it should be called XYZ in every article where it is mentioned. Let's say that the current name is ABC; one of you realizes the error, and renames it. Redirects will ensure that users can still find the page. But it doesn't change the fact that the same physical station is called ABC in some places, and XYZ in other places, and that is not a good thing. Obviously, the same concept applies if a line is renamed.

In the particular case of redirects to defunct services, I agree with NE2. If we are talking about the former BMT 1, then the physical text should refer to 1 (BMT rapid transit service). The fact that this redirects to another article is an implementation detail that could change in the future. Marc Shepherd 13:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess he is not a troll, but is showing trollish behavior, And he should be bold, but he shouldn't be reckless. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 13:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Have You Returned?

You said you have retired from Wikipedia, but why are you editing and discussing many users' talk pages? The Legendary Ranger 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't see myself jumping in with both feet again, but I saw the current ad hominem attacks going on, and decided to dip a toe in the water. Marc Shepherd 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

C. William Morgan *OWNED* the role of 1st Yeoman! Woo hoo! Thanks for the "Yeomen" effort today! -- Ssilvers 03:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hety, Marc! Good to see you around! Not much change, I fear - slowly gaining GAs and FAs... Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of progress in your absence: about two dozen new articles in the project, improvements to many others (W.S. Gilbert now a FA), and the acquisition of an extraordinary editor, User:Tim riley, who has been very helpful in numerous difficult issues. Note his excellent contributions to Malcolm Sargent. I (with the help of User:Broadwaygal) have been adding images, lately, and could use a second pair of eyes on image placement/size. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm Sargent ought to make GA. Some of the reasons for failure seem to me quite picayune. But of course, this is why the GA process is so flawed. The number of GAs, in relation to the size of WP, is embarrassing.

At the moment, I can't conceive of returning to the days when every article in the G&S project was on my watch list. But I am happy to help out in selected spots. I've noticed all of the images, which spruce up the articles considerably. Marc Shepherd 19:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll watch 'em and try to notify you of the more interesting issues that could use your attention. Meanwhile, I think that adding the the Gondo production/casting info would be a good next project, whenever you can get to it. Be well, -- Ssilvers 19:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

James Albery

Do you think that he should get a WP:G&S tag? Regards, -- Ssilvers 04:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no. I did a quick check, and it seems most people with that tag have a more solid connection to G&S than Albery does. Marc Shepherd 11:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sullivan music articles

I don't see how to illustrate these except (e.g. Cello concerto) for 1. A picture of Sullivan; or 2. A scan of the cover of the score. Any other ideas? -- Ssilvers 21:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not easy. I see there's an article about St. Margaret of Antioch, and in that article is a picture of her. Other possibilities would include the venue where the work premiered (e.g., the Crystal Palace), the original performers, Sullivan's collaborators, and so forth. Marc Shepherd 21:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up

Good day, Marc. There is a First Annual New York Wikipedian Picnic taking place at Central Park. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Thanks, –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 14:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

re:Help with template:-

re: #Help with template:-

Hi there,

You seem to be a good source for help, so I thought I'd ask. If the following appears in an article source:

{{-}}

What does that do? Marc Shepherd 15:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Sorry bout the delay--RL intrudes now and then!

2) Check templates out using {{Lts}} or {{tiw}} from inside any edit window 'preview' like this:
Template:-(edit talk links history),
Template:! (backlinks edit),
Template:!!(edit talk links history)
and so forth... the help for lts lists a bunch of similar utilities. Just navigate using the edit link to examin under the hood and see what's what.

3) Specifically, it does the same as HTML <Br Clear="all"> which forces floating elements to use that point as and ending point, so to speak and as I understand it. I'm not a HTML savant, by any means. Basically, what comes after and what comes before makes up two separate page compositions. The one above being forcibly ended by the clear="All" aspect. Should the dash template appear after a floating element such as a picture, it will prevent wrapping of text which follows and should display "up and around" to the sides of the floating element... for example, an image, an infobox, or a TOC.

4) See usage and link to wikipage (help) on {{TOCnestright}} which link presents some issues, and one instance of a discussion of when this is useful.

Hope that helps // FrankB 22:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

G&S

Thanks for the message. It looks like Adam was trying to respond to some comments at the FA review. By all means, please go ahead and fix the writing that has become less effective. If you explain what the problem is on the talk page, it will help us reach a consensus on a better expression of the sentences involved. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, almost certainly worse. But if we have to start with Gilbert and Sullivan, it's going to be awkward until someone manages to come up with a half-decent way of bringing that phrase in. Figured I might as well bite the bullet and start it, and hope that someone gets clever soon. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

FA review

Marc, since you have had some space on this article, would you please give me comments on what you would do to the article optimally to make it FA quality? Thanks for any thoughts. -- Ssilvers 21:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to find some time to work at it. I wasn't active when W. S. Gilbert went thru the process, so I don't know how hard it was to get thru that gautlet. At the moment, most of the comments in the FA discussion are by people who've put a lot of time into the article themselves. I assume the final decision is made by an independent team who take a detached look at it. Marc Shepherd 22:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia suggested that the reviewers may be holding off until I (the person with the most edits) give the article an unequivocal endorsement. Paradoxically, I don't really feel comfortable doing that until I have a critical review of it by a person who is not as close to the article as me (and I imagine your months off have probably given you the fresh perspective to do this). For instance, the section from Patience to Gondoliers is relatively pithy (and perhaps so is the discussion re: Pinafore and Pirates). It describes the period when the partnership produced six of its important shows. There is much that one could say about each show, but that is said in their own articles. One could also say more about the significant bumps and potholes on the G&S roadway during that period (clearly Mike Leigh found that very interesting), but the section does cover the historical highlights in broad strokes. Do you think it ought to have more detail there? Finally, again because I am so close to the article, I have trouble deciding what further referencing is needed, if any. FYI, the Gilbert article recieved detailed comments by at least a half dozen reviewers. Then, people oppose or support it. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 00:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just trimmed down the lead. Please don't hate me for it: everyone was upset at the length, so I tried to cut only the worst-written parts. (Though I did lose one rather good sentence, if not a well-worked-in one. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know whether where you moved the description of Gilbert's work is very good: "In Gilbert's absurd worlds, fairies rub elbows with English lords, flirting is a capital offence, gondoliers ascend to the monarchy, and pirates turn out to be noblemen who have gone wrong." - the Mike Leigh quote is perfectly valid, but two out of three of those themes aren't in the Bab Ballads, but only in operas written long after the period being described. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've put it back in the lead. We've cut enough else from the lead. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Thought this was Sam's page. Anyway, that good sentence is back where it was now. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, for the record, Adam cut the sentence himself, and I rescued it, putting it lower down in the the article. Then Adam thought I had cut it. <sigh>. In any case, after a frenzied round of editing, I think the intro is, in fact, sweeter as well as shorter, and that the info that has been cut from it has been put into the article itself in (I hope) reasonable places. -- Ssilvers 03:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will definitely put in some time on it. It will need to be an evening when I have a couple of hours to set aside...which isn't right now! Marc Shepherd 01:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What changes would you make to the intro? Is your objection content or prose? -- Ssilvers 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-write of the intro. I'll focus on the expansion later in the week. If you have any time to help out, I'd rather that you work on referencing, and I'll go into the various opera articles and get some info for the expansion. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

G&S Article

Hello, Marc. I've begun the expansion. Please check the write ups for Patience, Iolanthe, Ida and Mikado in the G&S article. BTW, are you satisfied with the intro now? Also, note the new article for The Happy Land. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. I expanded Ruddigore, Yeomen and Gondoliers; and also Pinafore and Pirates. Please review when you have a chance. -- Ssilvers 17:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fulton/Broadway-Nassau

When you split the Fulton Street Transit Center article, I wonder why you didn't just put the station article at Broadway-Nassau-Fulton Streets (New York City Subway), where it was most recently, and then move the article to the new name? The merge and unmerge would have been recorded in the edit histories, and also your notation of a consensus-led name would have been noted. Plus you would have avoided an eventual need to merge the histories anyway due to the GFDL. Tinlinkin 05:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Templates for New York City Subway lines

So we have to make sure that the line templates are consistent as possible. I've created one for the 42nd Street Shuttle and Dyre Avenue Line. Feel welcome to make any changes, but don't forget to use Template:Railway line legend as a guide to maintain consistency. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Good progress on those two. Marc Shepherd 11:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

En dashes

Thanks for the notice. Sometime back, I did the same thing-insert en dashes. But in April, there was a guideline stating that the hyphen couldn't be used in article titles, and the articles were moved back hyphens. This was at WP:NC#Special characters in April. I guess they fixed it now. Again, thanks for the notice, and I will move all articles back to en dashes or insert dashes that don't have. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:NYCPT

Please take a look at WT:NYCPT#Rollsign template. I agree that they are over the top and a reconfiguration can be possible. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 20:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

I would like to ask why you chose to post a useless and confusing topic here that I removed from the page because I considered it vandalism.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 21:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clearer. It was this edit that I was confused about.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

G&S projects

Thanks for today's corrections. Not that I think you might forget, but these are the areas that I think most need your attention whenever you can get to them:

• Gilbert and Sullivan - finish clean-up of my expansion and correct/add references as you indicated
• Gondoliers production/casting history
• Arthur Sullivan referencing

I'm off to Buxton on Friday. Best regards! -- Ssilvers 16:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

editing discussion

Why are you editing other editors' discussion? That seems to me like a remarkably bad idea. [2] Claudia 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Imdanumber1/Sandbox

Please do not add fair use images to the userspace. It is blatantly against WP:NONFREE. Thank you! — Moe ε 15:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert again and I'll report you to an adminsitrator for blantantly violating WP:NONFREE, I suggest you discuss rather than revert. — Moe ε 15:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing the fair use image messes up the template and makes it configures incorrectly without the image, so maybe I thought the courteoud thing to do is to remove it to make the page look nicer. And if you're smart, you best not link WP:DICK anywhere, people frown upon it. — Moe ε 15:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that one was PD, it looks identical to the Fair use image. Maybe next time before you discreetly revert saying I'm wrong, maybe point this out before saying I'm a dick and adding fair use images are fine. — Moe ε 16:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My sandbox

Thanks for calming the fire, Marc. I don't know where these people came from. Everything was fine before. There was no trouble then, and I don't know why there is any trouble now. I am almost finished with the article. I just need to fix up the station table before I put it up on the main article. Thanks again. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 22:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of my sandbox, I have finished the 1 train draft at last. I have added the new draft to the main article. If you have any suggestions to improve it, go ahead. I hope it will make GA now. Third time lucky you know. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 02:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Line maps

Taking a lead from {{PATHmap}}, I have a solution for the interaction problem on IND Sixth Avenue Line. Geoking66_talk 01:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see gaps, but I know what you mean. I fixed the only one that was visible on my computer by shortening it to "West 4 Street." Geoking66_talk 02:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm on OS X using Safari, that's probably why. Geoking66_talk 02:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)