User talk:Pjrs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hi, Pjrs, Welcome to Wikipedia!


[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

I hope you like this place--I sure do--and want to stay. If you need help on how to title new articles check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and The FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or The Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on My User talk Page.

Additional Tips:

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

  • If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
  • If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like &#126&#126~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • You may want to add yourself to the New User Log
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Happy Wiki-ing. -- John Fader 18:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cromer crab

I moved the image to the top (which seems to be a fairly standard place) and made it a 300px thumbnail (again, reasonably standard). I don't quite know what you mean about changing the copyright bit inside the tag; it's generally considered bad form to have one's name in an article itself (including the visible caption), but it's quite alright to have it (as you do) in Image:Cromer crab boat.png. -- John Fader 22:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cromer crab / edible crab

I am uncertain whether the situation of Cancer pagurus off the Norfolk coast is really of sufficient importance for an encyclopaedia article. All of the text of a more general character from your original Cromer crab article [1] was carried over into the current edible crab article, but without the parochial elements. Wikipedia is intended for a global audience, but your article is only of local interest.

Simply re-creating the older article is not a good option. It would be acceptable to have a section of the edible crab article devoted to the edible crab in Norfolk (or, better, the British Isles), with the potential for other areas to be added later, but a separate article seems entirely unwarranted.

There are also a few other problems with the Cromer crab article as you created it (although these could possibly be fixed):

  • the term "Cromer crab" seems not to be widely used outside the town of Cromer and the Cromer Crab Company,
  • the article wanders off topic with discussions of other crabs,
  • it is not written in an encyclopaedic style, and
  • it is poorly referenced.

I'm sorry to sound so harsh about your efforts, and I hope it won't put you off contributing further. It would certainly be a shame for the pictures to go to waste, so I would suggest adding the picture of the crab to the edible crab article and the fishing boats to Cromer. But at the same time, I must recommend returning "Cromer crab" to a redirect. --Stemonitis 13:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cromer crab / edible crab

I don't propose to waste time changing articles backwards and forwards, but find your approach somewhat pompous - you also must excuse me being harsh - in apparently defining Wikipedia as an Encyclopaedia of Science, whereas I regard it of far greater value as a general encyclopaedia of History and Sociology as well. The term Cromer Crab has been in use for all my lifetime as a general term in the markets of the East Midlands and London. The article was written to illuminate the term as used by another writer in the original article on the town of Cromer, and defined by Wikipedia as a stub requiring enlargement - hence your comment on 'a separate article seems entirely unwarranted' is totally rejected. The defining of the term within a local context seems to me to be perfectly valid, and it was made perfectly clear that in scientific terms it was cancer pagurus, leading to such articles as were then available to take that definition further. Since then your very valuable additions have added greatly to what is on offer - and I shall be consulting them in reprinting the book on the history of the north Norfolk fisheries which I first wrote 20 years ago, and am currently updating - but I do think that you do Wikipedia a disfavour by having such a limited approach. However, long may it continue to develop!

--pjrs 30 August 2006

[edit] Clement Scott

I agree that UK spelling is the correct choice here. As for the content, some of it was added by me, and some of it was added by Marc Shepherd. Everything I added is from the websites noted under "External links". As for the Garrick Club, I just am pointing out that Scott's colleagues were members. I added Irving. By all means, add more people to the list: Other members of the Club in the Nineteenth Century included writers such as Trollope, Captain Marryat, Meredith, JM Barrie, and Pinero, actors such as Macready, Charles Kemble, Charles Mathews, Tree and Forbes-Robertson, composers such as Elgar and artists such as Millais, Leighton and Rossetti.

However, it is clear that Scott and Gilbert were very close in their "Fun" days, and there is correspondence showing that they wrote reviews for each other when the other was "unavailable" (hungover? With a lady?). In later years, when Scott was dying, there is correspondence and diary entries showing that Gilbert visited daily and helped with his correspondence and other needs. Anyhow, Marc may be able to go into more detail on this. Of course, you might wish to re-balance the article if you find it out of balance. One more thing. Early in Gilbert's career and even into the early years of the G&S partnership, Clement was a big supporter and wrote many positive reviews of Gilbert's many plays and operas. In fact, The Medicine Man, a Gilbert farce, was published in Scott's Drawing-Room Plays (1870). Later on, he an Gilbert had a falling out, but it appears that the two retained a soft spot for each other.

His December 1882 review of Iolanthe, for instance, included the following:

[Gilbert] makes them ache with laughing, and the endurance of the human frame is limited. As to “Iolanthe,” I can only judge by my own feelings, and by them I should say that this opera would be as popular as any in the series. You will ask me why? and I answer because I want to see it again. [...]
I will leave to a more competent pen the task of saying something about Mr. Arthur Sullivan's music, which, to my mind, is as instinct with humour as Mr. Gilbert's words. Concerning these words, however, I may say something, having scribbled some verses at odd times these many years. They seem to me, so far as accuracy of rhyme, perfection of time, and fall and variety of metre, to be as good verses as could be made. Their humour stands for itself. There is no living writer who could produce such an example of finished and faultless work. Not a single rhyme jars upon the most sensitive ear; there is not one word misplaced. These things are supposed to count for nothing; but believe me when I say that they caused that rapt attention that resulted not in listless attitudes, but in rustling leaves. If writers of libretti only knew how to write verses their audiences would not be so continually bored; and Mr. Gilbert’s neatness of manufacture has had its inspiring effect.

Perhaps we can add a reference to THE THEATRE ed. Clement Scott (1887?) I don't know the publisher info. This includes a selection of his reviews of G&S shows. Also, on 15 October 1881, Scott wrote a report on the new Savoy Theatre and its electric lighting.

I'm not sure how well Scott knew Sullivan, but both of them collaborated with B. C. Stephenson. Of Sullivan's music for "King Arthur" in 1895, Scott said "[T]he music is exactly what was wanted — ever subordinate to dramatic effect, and yet always assisting it." Scott's review was kinder than other reviews.

I just added a few more links, a little info and headings. I hope this helps! Best regards, - Ssilvers 00:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)