Talk:The Black Crook

message: A November 14, 1882 production of this play in Birmingham, Alabama was the opening-night attraction at O'Brien's Opera House, a notable meeting-place run by one of Birmingham's most colorful characters who served as mayor and whose daughter became a prominent suffragist. I suspect this is too trivial for the article as it stands, but it may at some point belong on a list of notable performances or something like that. Take it or leave it. --Dystopos 05:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is notable, because there are very few if any other modern productions.  However, you need references from a published source like a newspaper review or something we can cite to.  The stuff about the mayor is not relevant to The Black Crook; just the date, city, venue and, if available, mentions of notable cast/crew members (i.e., bluelinked people).  -- Ssilvers 05:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the performance opened the theater is mentioned by Birmingham Public Library archivist James Baggett in his "Timepiece" column in the November 2007 issue of Birmingham magazine. (Vol. 47, No. 11, pp. 266-7). It sounds like you have a better idea of how to incorporate the information. If I learn more I'll try to find more immediate references to cite. --Dystopos 07:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I added a mention.  See if it is accurate.  Do you know of any other more recent productions?  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected the reference syntax, stopping short of applying one of the recommended citation templates. I have no knowledge about the play, only some interest in the history of Birmingham. --Dystopos 17:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1882 Birmingham, Alabama production

message: Someone added two new ELs from the NYPL.  These seem to contain a lot of new info, so if anyone has any time, please look through them and add info from them to the article, moving the ELs to in-line cites.   Happy editing!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NYPL ELs

message: I just reviewed my edit and found the link to New York that you mentioned and I've removed it. However, I would like to keep the other links. Faustian should be linked from the lead (it is linked later in the article), and royalty is not a commonly understood word. How would removing these links improve the article? Dartslilly (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, do not WP:EDIT WAR. Your re-revert is a clear violation.  I disagree with your edits.  For example, Royalty payments are commonly understood.  Moreover, your change to the statement about how the The Black Crook regarded is just  wrong.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is more likely if you do not attack other editors with false accusations. Royalty is not commonly understood. You explanation here is sufficient to justify the revert as there doesn't seem to be a policy based reason for your reverts. If you come up with one, I will self-revert. "I disagree with your edits" is not enough. Please use the talk page instead of edit warring.Dartslilly (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the statement "may be" back to the original "is often". In the future please remember that making these small changes on your own is part of collaborative editing.Dartslilly (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with linking Faustian.  I have de-linked costumes.  Everyone knows what a costume is.   If you make a *change* to an article, and another editor reverts you, that means that they *disagree* with you.  In that case, WP:EDIT WAR (one of our most important dispute resolution rules) states that you *may not* re-insert your preferred changes *until* you have reached a consensus to do so on the Talk page.  I have been editing here for more than 13 years, and I can tell you that edit warring is one of the fastest ways to lose editing privileges on Wikipedia.  I think you have the potential to be a good editor, but if you continue to edit war when you have a disagreement with someone, it will not end well for you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

text: MOS:OVERLINK says: "An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly ... links compete with each other for user attention." Readers of English Wikipedia know what a costume is.  You don't want someone to click away from your article about a musical to see what the "costume" article says. Every article about a musical or play does not need to link to the words costume, set, lighting, director, etc.  Anyhow, you obviously don't want my help, so good luck.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but I would want readers interested in costumes to have the option to learn more. Since the current costume article is very broad and in need of work and the section about theatrical costume is very brief, I don't object to de-linking. Dartslilly (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone has the option to learn more about anything they are interested in, just by using the search box. But you only blue-link a word when you, the author of the article, think it is *likely* that the reader will need to click away from your article in order to understand your article. Costume is an "everyday word understood by most readers in context", so the guideline asks you to use some self-restraint in linking it. We want to focus a reader's attention on one article at a time, except to suggest connections to other relevant subjects that present significant context for your article.  For example, in the Kismet article, a link to musical theatre is given, as it may be helpful for a broader understanding about musicals. Anything about costumes that is *particularly significant* to The Black Crook should be in the Black Crook article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlink