User talk:NovaHyperion

Your thread has been archived

Hello NovaHyperion! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Resolving a broken reference, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello NovaHyperion! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Referencing questions, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello NovaHyperion! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Question regarding attribution, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, NovaHyperion! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you have questions, just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Libriomancer has been accepted

Libriomancer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn Thank you! Both for accepting the draft and fixing up the lead a little, I appreciate that kind of feedback :) NovaHyperion (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing the article! It was an easy choice to accept because you included the book reviews, so it obviously met our criteria at WP:NBOOK. Everything also looked good with the little details like categories, wikiprojects, and the short description. If you want to keep expanding it, I think the advice at WP:RECEPTION is useful. Or, keep making new articles! Like the semi-automated message says above, you don't need to use the Articles for Creation submission process any more, and I would encourage you to be confident in going without it in future. Happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn That's also great feedback, thanks! This was my first swing at an article, so I am grateful for the AFC process providing a set of more experienced eyes, in case my reading of WP:NBOOK was wildly out of step with accepted practices (but it seems like it wasn't, so yay!).

The advice at WP:RECEPTION is helpful, I had no idea that was there! I really struggled writing that section and am dissatisfied with its current state, so I'll definitely look into incorporating those suggestions. Thanks again! NovaHyperion (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High quality theatre articles

Several of the R&H musicals, including Carousel, The King and I and South Pacific. Hair is not bad. I think that Wikipedians are WAY too focused on casting, especially of non-bluelinked people and replacement players. Who cares what the cast was of an Australian, Toronto, Manchester, Paris or Chicago cast, or a national tour cast, of Cabaret? And *really*, who cares about replacement players in regional, international or national tour casts of B'way or West End hits? Second, the obsession with award tables that include lesser awards is, to me WP:UNDUE. Tonys, yes! Olivier Awards, yes! Even Drama Desk, Obies, and Offies. But why should the main article have a bloated table full of stuff like Drama League, Critics' Circle, Evening Standard Awards? There could be a sub-article with all these silly awards, and just a narrative summary in the main article. Plot summaries should be concise. See WP:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure for good ideas and advice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See how Hair handles international productions. At some point, you can't mention them all, as it will get out of hand. You can just say that the show has been produced in [25] countries around the world, and then discuss the most important/long-running/interesting ones. Do we really need 4 headings and 8 paragraphs on Canadian productions? "Limited engagement" is a silly phrase. All shows close if ticket sales are bad, and most of them can be extended if it is a sell-out. Better just to give dates of opening and closing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to state (with a WP:RS) that the show is presented in one act. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: Thank you so much, both for the recommendations and doing a bit of cleanup on the article! I will definitely look at the articles you recommend.

I have pared down the cast table already ([1]), and the list of productions was an interim step to remove an unmanageable table ([2]) before hopefully better summarizing the various productions. The RS coverage of the Canadian productions is fairly extensive, but I do agree it could be organized better.

As I said, I know there is work to be done on this article (I have barely looked at the plot summary, but I know it needs improvement), and I appreciate your providing some direction for further improvements. NovaHyperion^talk 23:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. When you're done, if you want me to look it over, let me know. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks! NovaHyperion^talk 00:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]