User talk:Flami72/Archive 3

Deletion of EL from Peters

Re: Bernadette's NYT link: It is true that WP:EL suggests not using subscription/pay sites, but unless the article is being considered for FA promotion, what harm does it do? The information is true and from a reliable source, it's just not available to many readers. But I think the rule is pretty silly. None of the books listed on WP are sitting on my desk. To see them I'd have to go to the library, which would cost me a lot more than paying the NY Times to read a Select Article. If following a WP guidline makes me feel "regret", I just don't do it. See WP:IGNORE. Just my 2cents. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, taking a deep breath I put the link back. I'm not trying for anything special with this article, but I do like to keep it neat and tidy, and all in order. And 100% accurate, of course. JeanColumbia 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a lot of admiration for all your excellent work and industry here on Wikipedia, Jean. Don't be afraid to stand up to the wikilawyers, bullies and frauds. There is strength in numbers, so if you ever need me to add my opinion to a discussion, just let me know. I've got plenty of opinions! Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I put up a page for Kim Crosby. -- Ssilvers 16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox question

Jean -- I've come across some of your infobox adds, and I have a question. I see that you sometimes add an "imagesize" field, and I was wondering where that was coming from. Are you copying and pasting the code from somewhere that has it? I know the code for the infobox is in a couple places around here; if you're getting it from somewhere, that page is incorrect and would need to be fixed. If you're just making it up on your own, no big deal. It just doesn't do anything except add a couple of bytes to the file. The template code has a fixed size for the image (something wacky like 237px or something...), so that all of the infoboxes look generally the same. Otherwise, keep up the good work! —  MusicMaker 05:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Response

I think the image size may be a carry-over from the old info box -- when I use the new one, it doesn't have the image size, but perhaps the old one did, so when the old was converted, the image size line carried along. I am most recently getting the info box (current one ) from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Musical. It's possible that I inadvertently included the image size in the old info box when I added one, and copied an image that was already in the article.

Oh, well, it's a bit of a mystery. At any rate this is what I know: I copy the info box from the above-cited page; I have been advised and will be extra-carefull; I probably will not be doing much more in the way of adding info boxes as that seems to be proceedng along nicely 09:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC).JeanColumbia 12:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign) ADD: I've been able to find a few of the info boxes that I did, and sure enough, there was the errant "image size"--deleted those.JeanColumbia 12:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... A little WikiMystery.... Oh well -- I just wanted to make sure that we didn't have it wrong someplace. —  MusicMaker 20:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Molly Brown, etc.

Hey, Jean! Nice fork on Molly Brown! Just a thought or two though:
I've noticed that when you upload an image from Amazon that there's sometimes a lot of whitespace around the image. Since we can't change the image size in the infobox, cropping it down would make it easier to see. If you're not sure how to do that, just leave me a message on my talk page after you upload one and I'll take care of it.
Also, I'm fairly sure that fair-use rationales have to be done by article. The one you did for Molly Brown was fine, I just think you have to say "Fair-use rationale for The Unsinkable Molly Brown (musical):". I know that there has to be a separate one for each article the image is used on, and I think that in a single-use instance that they want us to provide the article name, in case the image is later used on other articles.
I wish there were a more specific one, but....

		The Special Barnstar
		This Special Barnstar is hereby awarded to JeanColumbia in recognition of this editor's unparalleled use of edit summaries. An oft-overlooked aspect of being a great Wikipedian, so few can put 200 characters to such consistently good use. —  MusicMaker5376 21:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

—  MusicMaker5376 21:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. I never have to check a diff after one of your edits -- I know exactly what you did. I know it may seem trivial, but I've been meaning to compliment you for awhile....

As for cropping, it's something in just about every image editing software out there, but they all do it a little differently. If you don't have image software, this page lists some good free ones, but something is usually included when you buy a digital camera or a scanner or a printer. It usually involves stretching a box to fit around what you want left in, and you click a button, and what's left out is removed. You'll see -- it's pretty easy. —  MusicMaker5376 23:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Grease (musical)

Don't give up on Grease - it's getting there now. Do you have any resources that will help with "background" and production history? I added what I could see about the London productions, but it's still pretty sketchy. I also expanded the synopsis and added in song titles where I could, but it probably needs some clean-up. Also, I deleted a bunch of junk from the roles section (copied from one of the audition sites, no doubt) and instead listed some notable actors who have played the major roles. But a table would be better, if you can figure out who starred in which productions.... Anyhow, good job with your recent changes! Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no resources whatsoever. I have just recently lost my access to Lexis-Nexis and my local library has, essentially, nothing on theater. I might be able to figure out a table, but I'm oddly busy until Sunday. I suppose google might help, and google books, but I just can't do much of anything right now. (Posted here in the hope that User:Ssilvers will read!) JeanColumbia 21:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Beauty and the Beast (musical) sources

Hi there! I'm sorry if my tags made you panic, that wasn't my intention. All you need to do for your sources is to be more specific about where they're from. I think you might have an easier time if you look at this page: Wikipedia:Citation templates. That page contains templates for citations, and will hopefully guide you the next time you want to add sources to articles. :) Again, I'm sorry if I caused you distress! :( -- SilentAria ^talk 17:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Phew, I'm relieved that I didn't scare you! I'm sure you'll do a wonderful job with the article, and any articles you choose to work on. Feel free to ask me for help if you need it! :) -- SilentAria ^talk 17:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the citation templates are ugly make it harder to edit articles, and sometimes I think they actually make the footnote hard to understand. I do not recommend them, unless you personally like them. There is no policy requirement to use them. It is amazing to me that an editor would waltz into an article that you have worked so hard and well on and try to impose his or her own preferred style. -- Ssilvers 18:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Re all of the above: after I was guided to the page on formats that editor wanted used in the article, I read very carefully, and I especially noted this paragraph (emphasis mine):

"The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines. They may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, while other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text. Because they are optional, editors should not change articles from one style to another without consensus."

Once I realized that it was not the substance (ie is the Houston Chronicle a reliable source) but rather a presentation issue, I decided to go along with using the requested form, just to see whether I could do it and to see how it would look. Rest assured, I have no intention of using citation formats in the future unless there is a very good reason.JeanColumbia 19:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)