![]() | A fact from Maritana appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 October 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I'm unsure of the meaning of the first performance cast list entry: Elizabeth Rainforth ('Emma Romer'). They're distinct people (i.e. Elizabeth Rainforth (1814-77) vs Emma Romer (1814–1868)) ... so what's the meaning of the entry in this table? Did both of them play the part (e.g. in diferent acts, as we see on The Bohemian Girl? thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
A user recently added an infobox to this article (and all of the Wallace operas), which I reverted per WP:BRD. I object to the addition of an infobox in this article, and the user who added the article has already driven many experienced editors from the Wikipedia project with this repeated and frankly nasty tactic, including User:Tim riley and User:SchroCat. I guess she wants to see more productive and experienced editors leave. I had hoped she was ashamed of herself and would stop, but here she is back with this nasty behavior. While sports and certain other articles can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 07:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
More a difference of opinion over infoboxes I think, Gerda obviously sees it as an improvement. The infobox would have limited value in my own opinion, though I personally don't like the side nav templates either.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I am really surprised and disappointed to see that Gerda has sought to add an infobox here without any prior discussion - she well knows the controversy and needless waste of time that can result from this. I thought we had all grown up beyond this sort of provocation. For what it is worth, I am in complete agreement with the arguments against an infobox adduced by Ssilvers above.-- Smerus ( talk) 08:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Ssilvers and everything else above. I would oppose any form of infobox in this article and hope that its absence will prevent controversy in the future. JAG UAR 11:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maritana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The story or tradition that parts of Maritana were written in New Norfolk, Tasmania, [3] or even Sydney, does not merit inclusion in the article, but may be worth mentioning here, along with its falsification. [4] Doug butler ( talk) 20:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Maritana appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 October 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I'm unsure of the meaning of the first performance cast list entry: Elizabeth Rainforth ('Emma Romer'). They're distinct people (i.e. Elizabeth Rainforth (1814-77) vs Emma Romer (1814–1868)) ... so what's the meaning of the entry in this table? Did both of them play the part (e.g. in diferent acts, as we see on The Bohemian Girl? thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
A user recently added an infobox to this article (and all of the Wallace operas), which I reverted per WP:BRD. I object to the addition of an infobox in this article, and the user who added the article has already driven many experienced editors from the Wikipedia project with this repeated and frankly nasty tactic, including User:Tim riley and User:SchroCat. I guess she wants to see more productive and experienced editors leave. I had hoped she was ashamed of herself and would stop, but here she is back with this nasty behavior. While sports and certain other articles can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 07:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
More a difference of opinion over infoboxes I think, Gerda obviously sees it as an improvement. The infobox would have limited value in my own opinion, though I personally don't like the side nav templates either.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I am really surprised and disappointed to see that Gerda has sought to add an infobox here without any prior discussion - she well knows the controversy and needless waste of time that can result from this. I thought we had all grown up beyond this sort of provocation. For what it is worth, I am in complete agreement with the arguments against an infobox adduced by Ssilvers above.-- Smerus ( talk) 08:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Ssilvers and everything else above. I would oppose any form of infobox in this article and hope that its absence will prevent controversy in the future. JAG UAR 11:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maritana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The story or tradition that parts of Maritana were written in New Norfolk, Tasmania, [3] or even Sydney, does not merit inclusion in the article, but may be worth mentioning here, along with its falsification. [4] Doug butler ( talk) 20:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)