Talk:Zena Dare

Use of the word "Glittering"

Am I right in thinking that the word "Glittering" could be changed for another such as successful? "Glittering" may qualify under the banner WP:PEA. Just a thought. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL. We use the word successful and success a lot. I haven't looked at this yet, but people are trying to find synonyms. Yes, words like "rave", "glowing" and "glittering" are too peacocky, but it would be nice to find some synonyms that are useful. What adjectives do the sources use? All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Whilst

This word is too idiomatic. Given that this is an international encyclopedia, I suggest that we use "while", since that is acceptable everywhere. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll set about changing. Incidently I went with "offered the role of" because she must have been offered it to have played it. But yes, I see your point too!

-- Cassianto (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter Pan

Peter Pan didn't become a pantomime until the late 1980s, so Zena Dare could only have performed in the original play. Panto versions only appeared in the late 1980s, after the copyright first expired in the UK in 1987, when they were no longer any restrictions. --Stelmaris (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

More important than merely spotting the error, you identified the production in which she did appear and added a ref to a WP:Reliable source. Well done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zena Dare. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.philcoradio.com/zena/zenabio.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071022231745/http://cyranos.ch:80/spdarz-e.htm to http://www.cyranos.ch/spdarz-e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). 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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:DISINFOBOX

Please stop trying to push infoboxes into existing articles. As we have discussed before, the Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "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 would emphasize 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 would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper 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 vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (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 would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract 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. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)