text:
User talk:FestivalOfSouls

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics!

You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some helpful links:
 * Merge, for information about merging, renaming and moving pages.
 * Wikipedia directory is also quite useful.
 * Meet other new users You may want to add yourself to the Wikipedia new user log.
 * Assign edits to your username from before you registered.
 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you
 * How to upload files and image copyright tags.

By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

Hope to see you around the Wiki! If you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page! ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 08:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mythology [Cat invocation converted to Cat mention by Jerzy·t 04:28, 2005 August 4 (UTC)]

Moving pages
Hi, thank you for your contributions. However the sudden moving of a page is a very drastic step, we have Requested moves, for requesting moves such as these. Since the article African American Vernacular English has been in existance since 2004, it is better to discuss the move on its talk page, or request the move. Also, moving pages creates redirects, and you have to ensure all links on the pages that point to the moved page, have been fixed. Please consider using these options before moving a page. Thank you. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 08:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. Your unilateral decision to move AAVE to Ebonics was precipitous and inappropriate. deeceevoice 14:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * omg you moved God. you cannot just do that, it has implications, and will have to be discussed first. I doubt you will get consensus for such a step anytime soon. dab (ᛏ) 15:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mythology
Adding Biblical personages and stories to Category:Mythology is quite controversial. I suggest you get consensus on that before continuing. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

a myth is a myth is a myth. Just because they are from the bible (with no outside verification) doesn't make them any less so than, say, the roman myths.

I would suggest that you put the topics in the proper subcategory of Mythology, such as Category:Abrahamic mythology or Category:Christian mythology. This is less controversial and less likely to be reverted. -- BRIAN 0918  19:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

a myth is a myth is a myth. I really don't know the difference between those two categories, but I am doing what I can...
 * If you don't know the difference, then you should get consensus before doing this. Jayjg (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I can put it in the myth category, and let someone more in the know put it in the subcategory. atleast them it is in the right ballpark, just not the right set of bleechers. Category:Mythology [Cat invocation converted to Cat mention by Jerzy·t 04:28, 2005 August 4 (UTC)] is much better that nothing.

 * Many people would argue it is not in the right ballpark. You are making very controversial edits which are bound to incite wars between believers and non-believers.  It would be best to get consensus on this first, before acting again. And please sign your posts. Jayjg (talk)  19:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It's zero trouble at all for you to say Category:Abrahamic mythology instead of Category:Mythology. Don't be a jerk simply for the sake of being a jerk and provoking response. Either work with consensus or don't make changes at all. Jdavidb 20:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I wasn't aware that the difference was important,like i said above. Also like I said above, I am willing to find out the difference and put the correct category in. I am in the PROCESS of GETTING consensus right here, rather that multiply the work 100 fold and have to do it on each page. Oh, and would it have been THAT MUCH more work for you to have added them into the correct mythology rather than remove mythology completly? I would have seen that, as I saw the removal, and switched to adding that. Sorry it worked out this way...  FestivalOfSouls 20:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * oh and, since those subcategories don't exist, it would make it hard to use them, in my own deffence. FestivalOfSouls 20:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, regarding the Devil article, there is no need to list the top level mythology category there, as Jewish mythology is already listed, anmd that's a subcat of that one. DreamGuy 20:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but more other religions are on that page than jewish and jewish variants... FestivalOfSouls 20:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * FoS, you categorized the article on the Trinity as Christian Mythology. The Christian concept of the Trinity is a doctrine or perhaps a theory, but it does not fit the definition of a Myth, and no logical person IMHO would see it as such.  Therefore, this seems to border on vandalism.  Jim Ellis 18:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I was looking at it in this light: Zeus, and God are not myths themselves, but since they are key components of myths, they get the label. I will concede that it may not be an appropriate labeling, as the trinity itself is not a myth, but I feel that as a significant PART of a mythos it deserves the label. I will not however, conced that it borders on vandalism, as, at worst, it was a difference in our two views on why the label was applied. I would like that label to stay, but I see why you contest it. FestivalOfSouls 18:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * another example, perhaps closer to wat i was thinking with the categorization would be Mount Olympus.FestivalOfSouls 18:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The word vandalism came to mind, not on the basis of this one edit, but on what seems to be a pattern of you traipsing through Wikipedia labeling everthing Jewish- or Christian-related as Mythology of some sort. It seems to be merely expressing your POV rather than adding a helpful encyclopedic category. Jim Ellis 19:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * Will you please explain to me how adding an appropriate category to appropriate articles is vandalism? the reason I am sticking to christianity/judiasm is because that is what was most lacking on correct categorization. I admit that the categorization is a form of POV, but it sadly is not the one you are thinking of. It would be the Neutral POV that every article on wikipedia strives for. FestivalOfSouls 19:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * FoS, I would agree that the story of "Adam and Eve in the Garden" or the story of "Noah, the ark, and the world-wide flood" could properly be categorized as "Abrahamic Mythology." But a religious doctrine or concept based on interpretation of the text or narrative of the Bible is just that, and not properly designated as Mythology.  The key word in defining Myths is the word "stories".  Jim Ellis 19:25, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * A doctrine or concept based on a story about how the world ends (said story is a myth, btw) would be an article that fits in the mythology category. It would fully fit the definition of a myth. Please look over mythology. It is all explained there. FestivalOfSouls 19:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh and, ignoring what i said above, the fact that Original sin contains the myth abouth original sin in the content of the article means fits the myth category. FestivalOfSouls 19:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry about the revert war, FoS. I will refrain from additional reverts even though I disagree. I've got to much to do besides clean up after you. I see a difference between an article on the story of Adam and Eve (Mythology) and the doctrine of Original Sin (a doctrine, not a story). Jim Ellis 19:57, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * Apology accepted. I also see a difference between an article on the story of Adam and Eve (Mythology) and the doctrine of Original Sin, however, if you read the article in contention (Original sin) you will see that it is not just an article about the doctrine, but and article about the doctrine AND the myth it is based on. The myth is actually included in the article. The same goes for Rapture, but to a much lesser extent, it is not the whole story, but rather quotes from it used as arguments for the belief. I see that as enought to relate the category and the article, as the belief is the direct result of the myth, through the study of the myth (also known as mythology). FestivalOfSouls 20:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Block
Hi FoS, I've briefly blocked you from editing as you seem to be adding pages inappropriately to categories and causing revert wars. I'll be happy to unblock you if you agree to discuss these issues, instead of reverting and calling other people vandals. You can e-mail me using the link on my user page. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:32, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * how is adding Category:Mythology [Cat invocation converted to Cat mention by Jerzy·t 04:28, 2005 August 4 (UTC)] to myths such as the garden of eden and adam and eve, or noah and his flood in appropriate?

Sorry FoS, I didn't really want to block you there, but you seemed to be on a roll, and what you were doing was arguably vandalism. There are many people who don't believe these are myths, so Wikipedia can't assert that they are. You also added creationism, which again we can't assert is a myth. You might want to read Neutral point of view and No original research. Are you prepared to stop adding these articles to the mythology category? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Would placing them in the correct subcategory, as suggested by Brian(see above) be an acceptable compromise? By not putting them in a mythology category at all, you are violating NPOV, in my opinion. I can see how creationism might be arguable (some people think it is science, so psuedoscience might be more appropriate) but adam and eve and garden of eden are obviously myths. I know some world holding turtles that are feeling lonely in the mythology category, if you catch my drift.... oh and how do you folks get that signature?

"Obviously myths" is POV. Get consensus for these things. And use 4 tildes in a row to sign: ~ Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Seems to me that that would be a lot of extra work to ask for permission to add what is a simple thing. How could anything that violates science so blantently be anything BUT a myth? I am confused about that. It is not like myth is a negative term. It is applied to all non-factual beliefs and stories. It is highly appropriate to place that category on all religios myths. I still say that claiming they are not myths is obscene POV, when it is on such silly things. FestivalOfSouls 20:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * FoS, I don't myself mind which categories you place these in. The point is to get consensus when other editors object. It's important not to ignore what others are saying (and even more important not to call them vandals), and that's especially true when you're getting advice from experienced editors, as you were in this case. So by all means, confer with them, and decide what to do for the best. Regarding the signature, you get that by typing four tildes after your posts like this ~ . See Sign your posts on talk pages. I'll lift the block now. Happy editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:10, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

oh and here is the definition of mythology from mythology "Mythology is the study of myths: stories of a particular culture that it believes to be true and that feature a specific religious or belief system." The very reason you say it is inappropriate (some people believe in it) is the very reason they ARE myths! FestivalOfSouls 20:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I am in definite agreement with you here... though I would suggest you use proper subcategories so it's more obvious to others who don't understand the definition to see the point. DreamGuy 20:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * I went back and looked, the reason i was confused is the "appropriate" categories are sub-sub-sub categories, and I didn't dig far enough... FestivalOfSouls 20:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Rapture
I'm not sure if you meant to, but you reverted my edit in addition to Jim's...mind if I change it back? freestylefrappe 19:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry about that. If you don't fix it I will shortly. FestivalOfSouls 19:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Categories again
Hi FoS, there has been another complaint about your categorizing certain ideas as myths. For someone with so few edits, you're causing quite a bit of trouble, so you might want to reconsider your approach or interests, at least until you're more settled here. Perhaps you could explain how you're defining "myth" (and please don't refer me to another Wikipedia article): it would be good to know whether you're using a scholarly definition (and if so, whose) or a personal one. The idea of "original sin" being a myth, for example, is arguable, though I see what you mean, but the story of Adam and Eve is only one example of a narrative illustrating the concept of original sin, which I'd call a concept, not a myth, though I accept the WP page focuses on that narrative. Other edits of yours are not so ambiguous — classifying God as a myth is clearly not going to go down well in certain quarters. It might be helpful to separate the concept of myth (generally speaking, stories with a didactic purpose) from the ideas they transmit. Let me know whether, and if so how, you intend to continue with this. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I plan on continuing, assuming wikipedia lets me. I have been using myth in the contemporary sense, that of a story or parable relating to the supernatural, that are not scientifically provable.

 * Using a personal definition is hard because you'll always be running into exceptions. Would you call the idea of "sixth sense," or stories arising from it, a myth, for example? That an idea is unsupported by science doesn't, in and of itself, make it an example of myth.

I have been using the examples of other articles as a basis for my edits. For instance, the claim that God is a myth was only made after checking and seeing that Zeus was labeled a myth.

 * Stories about Zeus do fit the scholarly definition of myth, and some stories about God do (stories about Jesus, for example), but concepts of God are not stories.

While I admit that it may not have been the most politically astute edit ever made, but going by the definition set forth in mythology, the corresponding definition from dictionary.com :"A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society", and the examples set forth in other articles such as Zeus and Mount Olympus, which are generally agreed upon to be myths, it was a legitimate edit.

 * The key words in the dictionary definition are "that serves as a fundamental type." A myth has a didactic quality to it. It illustrates a category, a form, a type. It might help you to look at some scholarly work.

I also, personally, feel that beliefs based solely on myths as appropriate to label as a myth. An example I am sure most people would agree on is that "Lighting is caused by Zeus" is a myth, even though at one time it was considered to be a doctrine embraces and supported by many.

 * No, I wouldn't call that a myth. It's a false claim, not a story illustrating a category, form, or type.

I stand behind all my edits, although I am willing, at least for the time being to concede and let trinity escape the category, and to a lesser extent Rapture. In an ideal world, they would be labeled, but then again, this wiki is only striving to be an ideal world, and it is not there yet. I honestly do not see why anyone would complain about the these articles being placed into the mythology category, let alone into the specific subgroup that the most fit into. Thanks for being so reasonable on this issue, and not being a knee-jerk reactionist like some people. FestivalOfSouls 20:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If I have time, I'll look around for some scholarly work, maybe a paper, giving a clearer definition. I can't promise though, as I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll try. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * FYI, you seperated the text at the wrong places. When I said contemporary definition, the parts about the wiki, and the dictionary go with it, as int hats what I used for a definition. The parts about examples were where I checked the wiki for precidence, and went with it. Again, since the article on God was based on myths and included myths in it, it falls into the mythical category. FestivalOfSouls 20:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

My role
_ _ Well, i don't think i accomplished anything, but i've no regrets. _ _ Your situation was different from mine, and i'm unclear whether the arguement i was making (in vain) applied in yours. But i'm glad that what may be an equally good arrangement was put in effect, and you deserve significant credit for at the very least preventing the horrible result we both resisted. --Jerzy·t 22:00, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

Hi Festival. You seem to be arbitrarily (i.e. without discussion) adding 'mythology' categories to a number of articles on Biblical and theological matters. Doing so is likely to be perceived as not conforming to the Neutral point of view. Please discuss these changes on the appropriate talk page. DJ Clayworth 17:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The shear number of pages missing the categorization prevents that. Since the categorization is appropriate, and accurate, there should be no need. That is like saying that all greek mythology must have a discussion before being placed int he greek mythology category. There is nothing arbitrary going on, other than some religious people are attempting to bias the wiki by removing the category. They are not arguing the category, just that the word "mythology" not appear in a category name on there page. As soon as it came to light that some of the pages in discussion were categorized as subcategories od a mythology subcategory (that didnt have "mythology" in the name, they stopped fighting. FestivalOfSouls 17:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Which pages were those, and which categories? Anyway, you are most certainly making undiscussed changes. If this discussion has taken place and reached consensus on another page then you should make a link to it on the talk pages of the articles you change. I traced the talk pages of the articles you modified and failed to find a consensus for keeping this category. DJ Clayworth 17:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I have yet to make a change on any page that does not meet the requirements. So what if it is undisccussed? That doesn't mean it is unwarrented. The discussion does not need to be held on every single page. It is just repeated ad nausium. The only argument people have against the category is that the category has a slightly negative connotation it their view, but I have failed to find a more appropriate term, and that is an issue to take up on the category talk page, rather than each induvidual page. In an effort to compromise, I have proceded to use subcategories, which the original complaintants have decided was OK. Again, why should I need a concencus? does every page in the category:science need to be discussed before it is placed there? what about category:fiction? Give me one good reason why I should stop placing myths in the category:mythology and sub categories? A few biased religious nuts (notice, everysingle complaintant has a pro-religious POV on their user page) are oposed to a NPOV categorization is NOT enough of a reason. Personal bias of users is never a good reason to make or prevent edits on wikipedia. As soon as I see a real controversy over an article, I will discuss it. As yet, nothing has arisen. FestivalOfSouls 18:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The aim should be to avoid edit wars, which would make each article a battleground of contention. This is unnecessarily disruptive, and it is destructive of good will.  Please let articles on theology retain their most appropriate categorization, and do not abuse the Category feature for the purposes of promoting a point of view.  Categories should represent a neutral description of what the article is about, arrived at by the process of mutual consent, and should not hint at, let alone promote, a particular evaluation or characterization of the content. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The aim should be to avoid edit wars, which would make each article a battleground of contention.
 * Exactly, hence discussion on each page should be avoided.
 * This is unnecessarily disruptive, and it is destructive of good will. Please let articles on theology retain their most appropriate categorization, and do not abuse the Category feature for the purposes of promoting a point of view.
 * I plan on it. I intend to make sure that all mythological topics are labeled as such. Remember, leaving the category OFF can be POV too, such as on these pages.
 * Categories should represent a neutral description of what the article is about, arrived at by the process of mutual consent, and should not hint at, let alone promote, a particular evaluation or characterization of the content.
 * Based on said content, these articles can be categorized. You don't like it, remove the content that makes the category appropriate.FestivalOfSouls 18:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Taking Empty tomb as an example, what content do you feel should be a removed that necessitates the addition of the 'mythology' category? DJ Clayworth 18:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule
Festival, please have a read of the official Wikipedia policy at Three revert rule. It essentially means that if you make the same disputed change more than three times in on 24hr period you should receive an automatic ban on editing for 24hrs. You have already done this at Empty tomb, but I'm going to let you off on the grounds that you maybe didn't know. However you should not break this rule again. It is designed to make people talk to each other. DJ Clayworth 18:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am quite aware of that rule, and fully admit it. This awareness includes the fact that removing vandalism is an allowed exeption to that rule. Since removing valid content(such as appropriate, and correct) categorization would be vandalism, and all revisions done by me have been to revert to a pre-vandalized version, I have yet to break said rule. It is nice to know that you are watching and will be blocking said vandals shortly. Thank you for your concern. FestivalOfSouls 18:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You will appreciate I'm sure, that every violator of the three revert rule argues that they have met the criteria for this exception. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Fair enough, but in order for you to prove other wise, you would have to prove that the category is not appropriate on the articles I made more than 3 reverts to. Good luck at that. In this intire debacle, I have yet to see a single valid argument, let alone a convicing argument. FestivalOfSouls 18:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * See the points I make above? DJ Clayworth 18:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Festival, the exemption applies only to reversion of Simple vandalism, which means undisputed vandalism. The very fact that there are two of us here disputing with you means that what you are reverting is not simple vandalism. Once again, if your edits represent the consensus view, show us where this discussion took place. DJ Clayworth 18:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I concede that point. Because the vandals are insistant, it is not simple vandalism. However, I maintain that it is still vandalism. I was not aware that 3rr makes a distiction between the two, and am sorry for that. However, I still stand behind my actions fighting said vandalism. FestivalOfSouls 18:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The crux of the matter is not to convince you of our perspective, but to encourage you to work within the bounds of consent. That's the purpose of the 3r rule. Your implied definition of "valid argument" also raises issues for me. It seems that you mean, you are not persuaded - that much you've already made clear - but it would be helpful to discuss "validity". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * A user saying " I don't like you pointing out that my religion is based on myths" is not, in my eyes, a valid argument against doing so. I did not intend to say their was no opposition, just that their was no valid opposition, meaning those that oppose this do so for trivial, unimportant, and often irrelevent reasons. It is like me opposing a change YOU make because I have a cat. Irrelevent. FestivalOfSouls 18:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * What you don't seem to give weight, is that those who hold these beliefs do not agree with you that these stories would be true (to whatever extent they are perceived to be true) whether or not they actually happened. Their belief, and the interpretive meaningfulness of the story, is specifically vested in the factuality of the story.  The meaning is, first of all, that it is history.  If someone else believes in these stories, but not necessarily in their factuality, then to them it is a myth.  Your perspective is naturalism, and it is in that vein specifically that you are using the category.  Your correspondents understand this.  You also admit this, and this is why you are constantly labelling your correspondents "religious".  That is why you are being accused of pushing a POV by abuse of the Category feature. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Ironically, if you were to read the definition of myth from the mythology page, you will see that it is that very belief that you are touting that makes it a myth. Until that definition changes, I am not pushing POV, but pushing that definition. FestivalOfSouls 18:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * By 'myth' here do you mean the academic sense, which is the one you seem to imply we should use - i.e. that a myth is an explanatory story that may or may not be true? If so, how could anyone object?

 * See abouve. 18:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * However let me reiterate again, that that is not the popular usage of the word 'myth'. The popular usage implies untruth, which means that your edits are making a statement of your own point of view. Most importantly, what is true "in your eyes" is not necessarily important if other people disagree with it. Who is the judge of validity? Is it you and only you? DJ Clayworth 18:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Doesn't matter what the popular definition is, only the category definition, which happens to completly agree with the dictionary defintion. Until those two change, you have no legs to stand on with that argument. FestivalOfSouls 18:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Then maybe we should change the category. That's why this is a Wiki. DJ Clayworth 18:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, the definition in Mythology was wrong, and I fixed it. There is no need for a story to be believed for it to be a myth. In fact a quick look at Dictionary.com will show that fictions and half-truths are included. DJ Clayworth 19:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * There's no irony here, FOS. Wikipedia is a work in progress. The fact that the mythology article is not quite finished, and is not fully reflective of all scholarly perspectives is not a matter that causes me concern, even as much as it causes you to gloat. The problem here is that for a believer in naturalism, presumptively, there is no such thing as "scholarship" which does not share this view. And as "mythology" is a favorite category of believers in naturalism, by which Jesus can be listed somewhere above Santa Claus, the article will naturally attract the same disagreement as I am having with you right now. In short, it doesn't settle the issue to cite an encyclopedia or even a dictionary, if there are (for example) other encyclopedias and dictionaries that also can be cited to support the other views. The solution to this kind of deadlock, is consent. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Festival, you are not doing yourself any favours. Let me point out some facts to you. 1) You have now added your category to Transubstantiation four times today, which would count as a violation of the Three Revert rule. Any admin can block you for this. I won't because I prefer not to act as an admin in disputes that I have been involved with. But I will if you continue like this. 2) You have made these changes without any discussion as far as I can tell. You said that you preferred to talk on your talk page, or Category talk:Mythology yet you have not edited any of these today. 3) You keep stating that other users agree with your position on these categories. To back this up, please give the username of any editors who have agreed with your position. Then maybe we can arrive at a consensus instead of just having an edit war. DJ Clayworth 17:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

When I have a little free time I will go back and find the users that have also replaced the category. I prefer to talk on this page, rather than on every page that gets edited, because as past actions indicate, the 2-3 users I "upset" will post the same comments on every page I edit, requiring me to make the same response in multiple places. Since nothing I have done today should be controversial, there was no need to pre-emptivly post. If people post, I will responde, but like I have said before, since the category fits, there is no need to explain every single page I edit.FestivalOfSouls 18:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

(Garden of Eden needs to be included in Category Mythology no matter what we may individually believe) that is user:Wetman

This is off of the Noah's Ark talk page, "As'm't to Cat "Mythology" _ _ My edit summarized

(rv ed of Jayjg to last by Festival of Souls, since cat is defined "Mythology is the study of myths: stories of a particular culture that it believes to be true and which feature a specific religious..) restored the article to Category:Mythology, whose full description is

Mythology is the study of myths: stories of a particular culture that it believes to be true and which feature a specific religious or belief system. For more information, see the article about Mythology. _ _ In response, user:Codex Sinaiticus reverted, summarizing

(rv; pick a less offensive term) _ _ This talk page's article meets the Cat't criterion (which BTW is long-standing, see Category talk:Mythology), and the aspects that make it do so are significant aspects of the article, so it belongs in the Cat; in that light, removing it destroys an appropriate WP navigational facility, and constitutes vandalism. No single article (or group of articles for that matter) is an acceptable place to act on any complaint about the offensiveness of the word "mythology" in this context (or for that matter, the accuracy of the Cat's description): if there is any problem, it is a problem with the Cat and must be addressed on it or its talk page; in view of the already evident controversiality of the desire to remove the Cat tag, it would be foolish to start with the Cat page rather than its talk page. --Jerzy·t 21:43, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

The following material is being deprecated here by strikethru, with the contents copied to the various talk pages where they are pertinent:

The first sentence to User talk:Jerzy/Codex Sinaiticus & Jerzy; The second sentence to User talk:Codex Sinaiticus#Formal Warning; The remainder to Category talk:Mythology. --Jerzy·t 19:40, 2005 August 3 (UTC) "

Dear Festival:

There is something wrong with your definition of "mythology" if it includes subjects such as "Resurrection of the dead", etc., because that is not mythology. It may be "mythology" from your point of view, but that is just your point of view. Consensus has not been established for this point of view. Tweaking the definition of "mythology" so that it does include this is a somewhat disingenuous method. Generally, the belief systems and doctrines of ANY of the world's currently practised major religions (This includes Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism) should not be labeled as "mythology", because of the offensive nature of such a term. Now ideologies that no people has seriously believed in for 1700 years, like Apollo and Hercules, that's a different story. If there were a nation today where the majority of people still believed in Hercules and Apollo, we might refrain from use of the term "Mythology". See the difference? Cordially yours, Codex Sinaiticus 18:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, I'm sorry, but the dictionary does not say ANYTHING about "it is not mythology if it offends some one to call it mythology" I will give you a dollar to find a real dictionary (as opposed to urban dictionary) that says anything even close to that. Nor did it have any sort of minimum time span for the most recent believers on it. The only time reference was the words "typically ancient", but, even using your number, 1700 years ago these stories were around, for the most part. I find it offensive that Creationism Science uses the word science when it is anything but. Does that mean I can demand that the word stop being used on the page at all? Your argument just doesn't hold water, as I have said repeatedly. FestivalOfSouls 18:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * my·thol·o·gy: "A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes. " Gee, sounds like religion is pretty darn close to that, and might have a little overlap.... FestivalOfSouls 19:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, there are ways to express ANY viewpoint in an article from a NPOV, but you aren't doing it. You can certainly write: "Many people today consider this to be mythology".  But you cannot write: "This IS mythology", because that is favoring one pov to the exclusion of the other.  Codex Sinaiticus 19:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Are you REALLY that obtuse? It is NOT POV to state that something is "x" if it fits the dictionary defintion of "x" exactly. It would be POV for me to say "a rose smells bad", as that is a point of view. To say "this is a rose" is NOT POV if it is infact a rose. Let me try a different approach. If you were born, say 15 years ago, you cannot accuse me of favoring a point of view to state that you are 15 years old. I am not, due to the fact that you would be 15 years old. It would be a point of view if i said "you are just a kid", due to the fact that it doesn't quite fit that definition. Is it POV to say that water is wet? or that the sun is hot? I think not. Again, grasping at straws here, and you still do not really have an argument to stand on. FestivalOfSouls 19:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Furthermore, the definition you provided above for "mythology" only refers back to the definition for "myth", which is in itself quite controversial... You might label these as "myths", bu there is no consensus, and that's really how wikipedia operates, bottom line... Codex Sinaiticus 19:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Try again. "my·thol·o·gy   ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (m-thl-j) n. pl. my·thol·o·gies

A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes. A body of myths associated with an event, individual, or institution: “A new mythology, essential to the... American funeral rite, has grown up” (Jessica Mitford). The field of scholarship dealing with the systematic collection and study of myths. " I just provided the link to a search for myth as it returned both "mythology" which has a definition "the study of myths" and "myth" that which is studied, for completness. Take a look again. I am sorry If you find the dictionary controversial. That must be a petty and sad life you live. FestivalOfSouls 19:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Myths
I personally agree with your stand that the Garden of Eden, for example, is a "myth"...which doesn't of course mean there is no truth in the story, just that it is, technically, myth. I see your point and affirm it. But I was a little perplexed that you wanted to put a doctrine like Transubstantiation in the myth category. There is a big difference between doctrine (which may be in part based on myth) and myth. The two are not synonomous. Please consider this in your editing. Thanks! KHM03 19:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * "Transubstantiation is the belief held by many Christian denominations that the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus during Consecration." Take that, plus the story about why, which is in the article means that the article fits the definition of a myth. Any way, thanks for your help. FestivalOfSouls 19:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The story behind transubstantiation might be a myth; transubstantiation itself is not...it is a doctrine (one I happen to disagree with). A myth is a story...a doctrine is an explanation. There is a difference! See Category_talk:Christian_mythology for a further explanation. Thanks! KHM03 20:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Many of your edit comments could be construed as personal attacks, and a hostile bias toward religious people and perpectives. Please refrain.

 * I'm sorry, which one would that be? how could it be misconstrued that way? The only thing that comes close is when I inform users about Codex's tricks.

I'm sorry that you have not found the discussion of alternatives helpful, however, this method of resolving differences is endorsed by the official policy of this project. You labelled this collaborative process "fillibustering" - unfairly, I think, since except for you there seemed to have been a convergence beginning between various perspectives. Without requiring anyone to change their point of view, a consensus has been partially formed; and although it is a slow and on-going process, in the long-run it is the only approach that will succeed.

 * The reason I have a problem is that rather than even attempting to compromise, people have latched onto irrelevent topics (it might possibly offend someone too stupid to read a dictionary, or understand common parlancce of a word) and refuse to budge. They seem to think that by not cooperating, since no concensus will be reached (how can it when one side refuses to compromise in any way). Since I have already made compromises, and since the discussion is not procedining in good faith, it would basically be filibustering. I am more than willing to use a different category, or re-name this one, but after a few suggestions, which were shot down, all discussion stopped.

In the meantime, it has been strongly disputed whether "Myth" is a NPOV category for describing narratives in the Tanakh and the New Testament, because of the obvious ambiguity of the term. Please be patient and work through the process. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * As long as the process is working, I will work through it. When one side stonewalls and refuses to compromise, or bring up any relevent, valid arguments, no "working through the process" is needed, since no real issue exists. FestivalOfSouls 16:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You don't get the choice to say, "The process is not working, so I will ram my changes through, anyway." Your choices are to follow Wikipedia's processes or leave. You are not allowed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, nor are you allowed to put something into a category if it is controversial (Categorization). Work with the rules, or leave. Eventually this can be resolved in a way satisfactory to all parties. Quit trying to ram your changes through when you know you don't have consensus. Quit breaking rules like making personal attacks in your edit summaries. Quit repeatedly reverting changes without consensus. As Mark said, you are the only one who thinks this is an urgent manner. If you are too impatient to wait for Wikipedia's process to work, then you need to leave until you cool down. Jdavidb 17:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know how to satisfy your concern, here. "Common parlance" is exactly what raised this issue in the first place.  In common parlance, "myth" means (and likely will always mean) "false".  The fact that academics speak of "myth" differently does not change the issue of common parlance - and even for that matter, they use the word ambiguously.  Your insistence is exactly the same as Codex's; only from the other point of view.  Just as he is taking one half of the definition, you also are taking one half of the definition.  Both definitions - need to be taken into account, and this is not easy to do since they are essentially antithetical to one another.

 * Discussion stops only because the problem is not easy, and because no one except for you really thinks that this is an urgent matter. But I don't understand your grounds for saying that the discussion has not proceeded on "good faith", just as I don't understand why you can't recognize the validity of the arguments on the "other side".  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I say they have no valid arguments, because they don't. Wikipedia is about facts. Just because people might be offended by a fact, makes it no less true. It is a fact that the definition of mythology is such that these articles fit into it. It is a fact that the articles may or may not be true, and that even assuming that they were true, you would be hard pressed to prove it, and that the fac that the may be true makes no relevence to their status as a myth. People were offended that the earth was said to be round, or that the earth went around the sun and not vice versa. Try arguing that those facts should be left out of a science book because someones feelings might be hurt, and you will be laughed out of the room. All I am doing is insisting that we be factually honest, and accurate on wikipedia. It is not even that we are taking seperate halves of the definition, in order for that to be the case, Codex would be required to prove that since his argument is that they are facts and thus cannot be myths, he would have to prove that they are true, and that that truth invalidates the dictionary. All I have to "prove" is that the factuality is unimportant and they are myths regardless, and that is quite easy, open a dictionary for yourself. FestivalOfSouls 17:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is about a neutral presentation of facts. When people are offended by the perspective in which the facts are presented (as they are by your misuse of the "Mythology" categories), it's an indication that their point of view is not being taken into account. What is easy to prove is that your partial citation of the dictionary definition is no less biased than Codex's - you are mirror images of one another.  That's why the revert wars in which you are engaged cannot succeed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry but I would think facts trumps the "you hurt my feelings" argument. I am offended that the infantile, emotional opinions get as much weight as does factual definitions and honest representations, but you rarely see me use that as an argument, and even then only in jest. I am offended by you saying I "misused" the word "mythology". Read the definition of the word, all of it, and then try and claim that. If you track back my "partial" citation it is most commonly used in reference to Codex's attempts to lie to the wiki users to drum up sopport. Unlike him, I never pretended that the rest of the definition does not exist. Looking at the definition as a whole you see that it still applies and is still accurate, and to say it doesn't shows your inability to read a dictionary, your refusal to read it, or the biased stonwalling of a user. Until a better category exists, which I fully support, it is all we have. Eventually people will notice, and find out the definition of mythology, and see Codex for what he is. I can only hope that in the meantime his efforts do not smear mud on the wiki's face, or generate even more bad reputations of bias. I am doing my part. Will you? FestivalOfSouls 18:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Quit discussing in your edit summaries. Start using clear and unequivocal edit summaries. If you added Category:Christian mythology, just say "added category Christian mythology" in your edit summary. Don't say "fix omission" (btw, you misspelled omission) like you think all the editors before you were stupid. Just say what you did. If you need to discuss, use the talk page. That is what it is there for. Jdavidb 17:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I DID just state what i did, since I did fix the omission (meh, typos) but next time I will be more clear. 17:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (silly kiosks)

 * I am trying to do my part, by trying to de-fuse the controversy, foster a collaborative venue, and discouraging revert-wars. I did not say that "you hurt my feelings" is an argument.  I said that it is an indication that you are not being neutral.  The argument is that the terminology you are using is ambiguous, and because "Common parlance" more typically defines "myth" as "false", it is not preferrable terminology (because it is not "neutral") — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

While a few people might argue that it is not neutral, we are seriously lacking a better term, and unless they can come up with a better argument than " I don't understand how to use a dictionary" there should be no need to cave to them. FestivalOfSouls 20:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Signatures and Format in comments
Hey, there, FOS. Just a quick request to be a little more careful when adding comments. A recent comment of yours ended up looking like it was coming from me; see | your original comment as compared to | my reformatted version (I'm sorry, you'll have to scroll to the bottom to see the difference). Also, for the same reason, please don't forget to add your signature. Thanks! JHCC (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, there. There were a couple of edits to Category talk:Christian mythology/Proposed compromises that were signed 134.161.244.59 but looked like they were from you. Might want to change 134.161.244.59 to FestivalOfSouls if they were. Best, JHCC (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that. Stupid cookies, indeed.  JHCC (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

More Christian mythology
There is a new proposal at Category_talk:Christian_mythology/Proposed_compromises. Please read and comment. JHCC (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:FestivalOfSouls


text:
Répétiteur

A répétiteur (from the French verb répéter meaning 'to repeat, to go over, to learn, to rehearse') is an accompanist, tutor or coach of ballet dancers or opera singers. The feminine form is répétiteuse.

Opera
In opera, a répétiteur is the person responsible for coaching singers and playing the piano for music and production rehearsals. When coaching solo singers or choir members, the répétiteur will take on a number of the roles of a vocal coach: advising singers on how to improve their pitch and pronunciation, and correcting note or phrasing errors.

Répétiteurs are skilled musicians who have strong sight-reading and score reading skills. In addition to being able to sight read piano parts, a répétiteur can play on the piano an orchestral score reducing it in real-time (orchestral reduction), by reading from a large open score of all of the instruments and voice parts. Répétiteurs are also skilled in following the directions of a conductor, in terms of changing the tempo, pausing, or adding other nuances.

Ballet
In ballet, a répétiteur teaches the steps and interpretation of the roles to some or all of the company performing a dance. Several late 20th-century choreographers, such as George Balanchine, Jerome Robbins, Gerald Arpino and Twyla Tharp, have established trusts and appointed conservators—hand-picked dancers who have intimate knowledge of particular ballets—as répétiteurs of their works.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Répétiteur


text:
Joseph Perella

Joseph R. Perella (born September 20, 1941) is an American financier.

Early life
Perella was born in Newark, New Jersey, to an accountant. Perella attended Lehigh University on a full scholarship. During his time at Lehigh, Perella was a member of Phi Kappa Theta, Fraternity for men. Following his sophomore year at Lehigh, Perella took several years off before returning and graduating from the university in 1964 with a degree in accounting. After serving in the United States Air Force and the New Jersey Air National Guard from 1964 to 1970, he attended and graduated from Harvard Business School in May 1972 with a Masters in Business Administration.

Career
In the fall of 1972, he was hired as an associate at First Boston, where he worked in the mergers and acquisitions department. He remained with First Boston until 1988 when he teamed up with associate Bruce Wasserstein to create their own mergers and acquisitions advisory business as Wasserstein Perella & Co. Their company was at the forefront of the 1980s/90s boom in corporate takeovers.

Joseph Perella left Wasserstein Perella in 1992/1993 to join Morgan Stanley, where he was first head of mergers and acquisitions, and then the chairman of the Institutional Securities and Investment Banking Group. In 2005, Perella and other top executives resigned from Morgan Stanley in the wake of policy disagreements with Chairman Philip J. Purcell. Purcell soon resigned following more high level departures from Morgan Stanley.

One of the deals Perella advised on following his departure from Morgan Stanley was advising on the Bank of America takeover of credit card company MBNA. In November 2005, Perella and former Morgan Stanley banker Terry Meguid announced that they were opening an investment banking boutique. On June 15, 2006, Perella announced the formation of a new financial services firm, Perella Weinberg Partners, based in New York and London.

Philanthropy
Perella is a Lehigh University trustee. In 2003, he and his wife Amy, a survivor of Hodgkin's disease, donated $10 million to the College of Business and Economics to endow the "Perella Department of Finance" and several faculty positions. They have also an endowed scholarship fund for Lehigh students from the Newark, N.J. area, where Perella grew up. They also supported the construction of Rauch Business Center. In addition, the couple created "The Amy and Joseph Perella Professor of Medicine" at Yale University. He is also a member of the National Italian American Federation.

title: Joseph Perella


text:
Baker Street (song)

"Baker Street" is a song written by Scottish singer-songwriter Gerry Rafferty and issued as a single by him in February 1978. It won the 1979 Ivor Novello Award for Best Song Musically and Lyrically and reached the top three in the UK, US and elsewhere. The arrangement is known for its saxophone riff.

Origins
Named after Baker Street in London, the song was included on Rafferty's second solo album, City to City (1978), which was his first release after the resolution of legal problems surrounding the break-up of his old band, Stealers Wheel, in 1975. In the intervening three years, Rafferty had been unable to release any material because of disputes about the band's remaining contractual recording obligations.

Rafferty wrote the song during the period when he was trying to extricate himself from his Stealers Wheel contracts. He was regularly travelling between his Scottish family home in Paisley and London, where he recalled often staying at a friend's flat on Baker Street: "Everybody was suing each other, so I spent a lot of time on the overnight train from Glasgow to London for meetings with lawyers. I knew a guy who lived in a little flat off Baker Street. We'd sit and chat or play guitar there through the night."

The resolution of Rafferty's legal and financial frustrations may have accounted for the exhilaration of the song's final verse: When you wake up it's a new morning The sun is shining, it's a new morning You're going, you're going home.

Rafferty's daughter Martha suggested in 2012 that he could also have taken inspiration from a book he was reading while he was travelling between the two cities, Colin Wilson's The Outsider (1956), which explores ideas of alienation and creativity and a longing to be connected.

Studio
"Baker Street" was recorded in 1977 at Mike and Richard Vernon's Chipping Norton Studios, Oxfordshire, during the sessions for City to City. The album City to City (1978), including "Baker Street", was co-produced by Rafferty and Hugh Murphy.

Saxophone riff
In addition to a guitar solo, played by Hugh Burns, "Baker Street" featured a prominent eight-bar saxophone riff by session musician Raphael Ravenscroft, played as a break between verses.

Ravenscroft came to the studio to record a soprano saxophone part on the finished track, and suggested that he use instead his alto saxophone. The distinctive wailing, bluesy sound of the sax riff on "Baker Street" was a result of the alto being tuned slightly flat, and Ravenscroft later considered this to have been a mistake. He said, in an interview in 2011, that listening to the song irritated him because he was out of tune. His contribution to "Baker Street" was termed by one writer as "the most recognizable sax riff in pop music history", and it was said to have been responsible for a resurgence in the sales of saxophones and their use in mainstream pop music and television advertising.

In his interview with Colin Irwin, Rafferty stated that Ravenscroft had been his second choice to play the saxophone solo, after Pete Zorn, who was unavailable: "The only confusion at the time that I didn't enjoy too much was the fact that a lot of people believed that the line was written by Raphael Ravenscroft, the sax player, but it was my line. I sang it to him." When a remastered version of City to City was released in 2011, it included the original, electric guitar demo version of the song as a bonus track, confirming Rafferty's authorship of the riff (which appears in the demo note-for-note, as an electric guitar solo). In the liner notes to the album, Rafferty's long-time friend and collaborator Rab Noakes commented: "Let's hope [the Baker Street demo] will, at last, silence all who keep on asserting that the saxophone player came up with the melody line. He didn't. He just blew what he was told by the person who did write it, Gerry Rafferty." Michael Gray, Rafferty's former manager, agreed: "The audible proof is there from the demos that Rafferty himself created the riff and placed it within the song's structure exactly where it ended up."

The 2011 reissue of City to City included the demo of "Baker Street" with the saxophone part played on electric guitar by Rafferty. A very similar sax line was originally played by saxophonist Steve Marcus for a song called "Half a Heart", credited to vibraphonist Gary Burton, that appeared on Marcus's 1968 album Tomorrow Never Knows.

Ravenscroft said that he was presented with a song that contained "several gaps". "In fact, most of what I played was an old blues riff," Ravenscroft said. "If you're asking me: 'Did Gerry hand me a piece of music to play?' then no, he didn't."

Urban myths
According to one story, Ravenscroft received no payment for a song that earned Rafferty an income of £80,000 per annum. A session fee cheque for £27 given to Ravenscroft was said to have bounced, and been framed and hung on his solicitor's wall. The bouncing cheque story was denied by Ravenscroft during an interview on BBC Radio 2's Simon Mayo Drivetime show on 9 February 2012.

The saxophone riff was also the subject of another urban legend in the UK, created in the 1980s by British writer and broadcaster Stuart Maconie. As one of the spoof facts invented for the regular "Would You Believe It?" section in the NME, Maconie falsely claimed that British radio and television presenter Bob Holness had played the saxophone part on the recording, and this claim was widely repeated.

Personnel

 * Gerry Rafferty – lead vocals, rhythm guitar
 * Raphael Ravenscroft – alto and soprano saxophones
 * Hugh Burns – lead guitar
 * Nigel Jenkins – rhythm guitar
 * Tommy Eyre – synthesizer, electric and acoustic piano
 * Gary Taylor – bass
 * Henry Spinetti – drums
 * Glen Le Fleur – congas
 * Graham Preskett – string arrangements

Chart performance
Released as a single in 1978, "Baker Street" reached No. 3 in the UK and No. 2 for six consecutive weeks in the US. It reached number one in Cash Box and number two on the Billboard Hot 100 where it held its Billboard position for six weeks, kept out of the number one spot by Andy Gibb's "Shadow Dancing". The song spent four weeks at number one in Canada, reached number one in Australia, and made it into the top 10 in seven European countries in addition to the UK. In October 2010, "Baker Street" was recognised by BMI for surpassing five million performances worldwide.

Another urban myth has claimed that "Baker Street" did overtake "Shadow Dancing" on the Billboard Hot 100 during one of its seven weeks on top in the summer of 1978, with Casey Kasem recording his American Top 40 countdown placing it at #1. However, at a dinner with Gibb's managers, then-Billboard chart director Bill Wardlow was allegedly told that if "Shadow Dancing" did not remain at #1, Gibb would be pulled from the lineup of an upcoming Billboard-organized concert. Wardlow then supposedly asked the magazine to leave the song at the top, and Kasem was told to re-record his countdown.

Legacy
The song was cited by guitarist Slash in 1987 as an influence on his guitar solo in "Sweet Child o' Mine".

Canadian rock musician A.C. Newman cited the song as an inspiration for his album Shut Down the Streets (2012).

The song is featured in the video game Grand Theft Auto V, as part of Los Santos Rock Radio.

It is also heard in the Happy Endings episode "Cocktails and Dreams", (S02E16) in which Penny's dream involves a fingerpicked-guitar version of the saxophone riff., as well as in the closing scene of "Lisa's Sax" (S09E04), an episode of The Simpsons in which Lisa Simpson performs a brief rendition of the hook on a saxophone before the music segues into Rafferty's recording.

The song also features prominently in episodes of Rick and Morty and A.P. Bio.

Beginning in the 2023-24 Scottish Premiership season, St. Mirren F.C. (based in Rafferty's hometown of Paisley) play the song pre-game.

Undercover version
British dance group Undercover covered the song on their 1992 album Check Out the Groove. This version was released in August 1992 by PWL and produced by Steve Mac. It reached No. 2 on the UK Singles Chart and became a top-three hit in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. A music video was produced to promote the single, shot in black-and-white.

Critical reception
A writer for Lennox Herald named the song a "stand out" from the Undercover album. Pan-European magazine Music & Media wrote, "Gerry Rafferty's rainy days anthem is now transferred from the comfortable living room to the heat of clubland. The typical saxophone hook is on acid as well." Mark Frith from Smash Hits commented, "This one's quite good actually. Transformed from a hoary old late '70s epic into a PWL rave anthem for the '90s, "Baker Street" has tootling sax, great vocals and is probably the most unusual record turned into a rave tune ever."

Track listing

 * 1) "Baker Street" (edit) – 4:04
 * 2) "Baker Street" (extended mix) – 5:10
 * 3) "Sha-Bang" (extended mix) – 5:49

Other versions
Country musician Waylon Jennings covered the song to open his 1987 album Hangin' Tough.

American rock band Foo Fighters covered the song on their 1998 "My Hero" UK CD single release, on the Australian tour pack (grey cover) release, on the limited-edition European bonus EP and as one of several bonus tracks added to the remastered tenth anniversary release of their second studio album, The Colour and the Shape, reissued in 2007. The Foo Fighters cover does not include the saxophone riff, which is played instead on electric guitar.

title: Baker Street (song)


text:
Samuel Vestey, 3rd Baron Vestey

Samuel George Armstrong Vestey, 3rd Baron Vestey, (19 March 1941 – 4 February 2021), was a British peer, landowner, and businessman. He served as Master of the Horse to Queen Elizabeth II from 1999 to 2018. Lord Vestey was part of the family dynasty that founded and still runs the Vestey Holdings multinational corporation.

Early life and education
Vestey was born on 19 March 1941 as the son of Captain The Hon. William Howarth Vestey, a Scots Guards officer who was killed in action in 1944 during the Second World War, and Pamela Vestey (née Armstrong; 1918–2011). He was a great-grandson of the celebrated opera singer Dame Nellie Melba on his mother's side. He was educated at Eton College before attending Sandhurst and serving as a Lieutenant in the Scots Guards.

Business career
Vestey was the chairman of the Meat Training Council from 1991 to 1995, before becoming chairman of the Vestey Group (now Vestey Holdings) in 1995. He was also a liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Butchers. In 1980, A Sunday Times investigation revealed that he and his cousin Edmund were found to have paid just £10 in tax on the family business's £2.3m profit made by the Dewhurst chain.

The Wave Hill walk-off
Vestey, through his family company, owned the Wave Hill Station in Australia at the time of the Gurindji strike (also known as the Wave Hill walk-off) which ran for nine years from 1966, after 200 Aboriginal Australian workers staged a strike against poor working conditions and pay, and land dispossession.

His role in the strike was mentioned by Ted Egan's song "Gurindji Blues", written in 1969 with Lingiari, and later popularised in the 1991 song by Paul Kelly and Kev Carmody, "From Little Things Big Things Grow". He also gets a mention in Irish folk musician Damien Dempsey's song "Wave Hill Walk Off", on his 2016 album No Force on Earth.

Public service
In 1954, Vestey succeeded his grandfather in the peerage title at the age of thirteen. His family seat is Stowell Park Estate in Gloucestershire, where his father is buried.

He was Chancellor (1988–1991) and then Lord Prior (1991–2002) of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, having been appointed Bailiff Grand Cross (GCStJ) in 1987. He became a Deputy Lieutenant of Gloucestershire in 1982.

From 1999 to 2018, Vestey served as Master of the Horse to the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth II, who appointed him Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (KCVO) in the 2009 Birthday Honours.

The Queen promoted Vestey to Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO) in December 2018, on the occasion of him relinquishing his appointment as Master of the Horse. He was appointed as a permanent Lord-in-waiting to The Queen in August 2019.

Personal life
Vestey married Kathryn Eccles (died 13 December 2017) on 11 September 1970, and they were divorced in 1981. They have two daughters and four grandchildren: He married Celia Elizabeth Knight (1949 – 28 November 2020) on 22 December 1981. Celia Vestey was a godmother of the Duke of Sussex. They have three children:
 * The Honourable Saffron Alexandra Vestey (27 August 1971). She married Matthew Charles Idiens and they were divorced in 2001. They have two children. She married Charles Foster in 2008.
 * Alfred John Simon Idiens (1 April 1996)
 * Megan Rose Idiens (27 July 1998)
 * Evelyn Grace Foster (6 March 2009)
 * William George Foster (7 November 2011)
 * The Honourable Flora Grace Vestey (22 September 1978). She married Laurence J. Kilby and they were divorced in 2010. She married James Hall in 2011.
 * William Vestey, 4th Baron Vestey (27 August 1983). He married Violet Gweneth Henderson on 29 September 2012. They have two children:
 * Ella Victoria Vestey (13 July 2015)
 * Samuel Oscar Mark Vestey (7 November 2018)
 * The Honourable Arthur George Vestey (1985). He married Hon. Martha Beaumont in June 2015. They have three children:
 * Frank William Vestey (25 July 2016)
 * Cosima Dora Vestey (30 November 2018)
 * Daisy Celia Vestey (12 January 2021)
 * The Honourable Mary Henrietta Vestey (1992). She married Edward Cookson in May 2019.
 * Lyra Celia Cookson (18 November 2021)

His elder son, William, served as a Page of Honour to Queen Elizabeth II from 1995 to 1998.

The Vestey family's combined wealth (Lord Vestey with his cousin, Edmund Hoyle Vestey) amounts to approximately £1.2 billion, according to the Sunday Times Rich List 2013.

Honours

 * Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order
 * Baronet, 3rd Baronet Vestey of Bessémer House
 * Grand Bailiff of the Order of St John
 * Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal
 * Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal
 * Service Medal of the Order of St John

title: Samuel Vestey, 3rd Baron Vestey


text:
Talk:Pictogram

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gkleiman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

kind and usses of thise

 * rock painting as distinguished from petroglyphs;
 * a chart which represents numeric data by pictures.

This page does not really apply to the "as distinguished from petroglyphs" meaning, so either that should be at the top of the page, or there should be a separate "pictograph" page for the "rock painting" definition, since the definition on the main page includes both forms of rock art.Mk421 (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Public toilets
Is the "Pictogram for public toilets" used internationally? Hyacinth 08:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC) yes.

Is the "pictogram for public toilets" actually a pictogram? Whilst the signs represents a man / woman - they aren't used to actually mean "man" / "woman", but rather male-toilet / female-toilet - which makes them ideograms rather than pictograms --Davémon 11:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And I think 'yes' should probably be qualified. Uncited, I may go as far as "it's generally accepted as an 'internationally recognized' symbol", but I can think of a few places in the world where the representation of a woman in a short dress would be bordering on pornographic to local norms. Thoughts/Examples? Fracture98 15:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)it is a great tupe of gram

Traffic signs as pictograms
In countries or regions where two or more languages are used, the typical traffic sign is very often a symbol with no writing on it. This is the case for much of Europe and several parts of Canada. Many of these signs, however, offer an abstract symbol instead of a picture, and they cannot be considered true pictograms.

ideogram v. pictogram
Please see my recent post at Talk:Chinese_character_classification.

Self-Promotion
I'm about to delete the section promoting the Book of the Ground wiki, for obvious reasons. Not that it isn't interesting. Tdimhcs (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Historical
The historical facts are referenced without citation. The first paragraph presents several specific ideas and is completely without citations.

Modern Uses
There should be a link or citation to the London map referenced Gkleiman (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkleiman (talk • contribs) 03:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Piktograf1.png

Relation to emojis and hieroglyphs
It would be good if the article stated the relation to emojis and hieroglyphs. Bjornte (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The medical nurse did not inform the FM team of the incident.
The medical nurse did not inform the FM team of the incident. 15.248.4.127 (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pictogram


text: User talk:69.76.0.27

title: User talk:69.76.0.27


text:
The 10 Year Limited Edition Anniversary Box Set

The 10 Year Limited Edition Anniversary Box Set is a box set by the band Blur released in limited quantities on 17 August 1999. It contains 22 CDs with 126 tracks featuring all official UK singles from their debut album, Leisure, to their 1999 album, 13, and the b-sides, with the exception of three of the b-sides featured on the single No Distance Left to Run (this is due to the single being released after the boxset). Fanclub singles, promotional singles, and singles released in other countries are not included.

Track listing
Disc one
 * 1) "She's So High (Edit)" – 3:49
 * 2) "I Know" – 3:31
 * 3) "Down" – 5:56
 * 4) "Sing" – 6:00
 * 5) "I Know (Extended Version)" – 6:29

Disc two
 * 1) "There's No Other Way" – 3:14
 * 2) "Inertia" – 3:51
 * 3) "Mr Briggs" – 3:59
 * 4) "I'm All Over" – 2:00
 * 5) "There's No Other Way (The Blur Remix)" – 5:04
 * 6) "Won't Do It" – 3:19
 * 7) "Day upon Day (Live)" – 4:01
 * 8) "There's No Other Way (Extended Version)" – 4:04

Disc three
 * 1) "Bang" – 3:34
 * 2) "Explain" – 2:44
 * 3) "Luminous" – 3:13
 * 4) "Berserk" – 6:52
 * 5) "Bang (Extended Version)" – 4:27
 * 6) "Uncle Love" – 2:30

Disc four
 * 1) "Popscene" – 3:12
 * 2) "Mace" – 3:24
 * 3) "Badgeman Brown" – 4:47
 * 4) "I'm Fine" – 3:01
 * 5) "Garden Central" – 5:58

Disc five
 * 1) "For Tomorrow (Single Version)" – 4:20
 * 2) "Into Another" – 3:54
 * 3) "Hanging Over" – 4:27
 * 4) "Peach" – 3:57
 * 5) "Bone Bag" – 4:03
 * 6) "When The Cows Come Home" – 3:49
 * 7) "Beachcoma" – 3:37
 * 8) "For Tomorrow (Acoustic Version)" – 4:41
 * 9) "For Tomorrow (Visit To Primrose Hill Extended)" – 6:00

Disc six
 * 1) "Chemical World (Single Edit)" – 3:54
 * 2) "Young & Lovely" – 5:04
 * 3) "Es Schmecht" – 3:38
 * 4) "My Ark" – 5:58
 * 5) "Maggie May" – 4:05
 * 6) "Chemical World (Reworked)" – 3:46
 * 7) "Never Clever (Live)" – 2:28
 * 8) "Pressure on Julian (Live)" – 5:00
 * 9) "Come Together (Live)" – 3:30

Disc seven
 * 1) "Sunday Sunday" – 2:37
 * 2) "Dizzy" – 3:24
 * 3) "Fried" – 2:34
 * 4) "Shimmer" – 4:40
 * 5) "Long Legged" – 2:23
 * 6) "Mixed Up" – 3:01
 * 7) "Tell Me Tell Me" – 3:37
 * 8) "Daisy Bell (A Bicycle Made For Two)" – 2:48
 * 9) "Let's All Go Down The Strand" – 3:42

Disc eight
 * 1) "Girls & Boys (Edit)" – 4:20
 * 2) "Magpie" – 4:15
 * 3) "Anniversary Waltz" – 1:23
 * 4) "People in Europe" – 3:28
 * 5) "Peter Panic" – 4:22

Disc nine
 * 1) "To the End (Edit)" – 3:52
 * 2) "Girls & Boys" (Pet Shop Boys 7" Mix)" – 4:04
 * 3) "Girls & Boys" (Pet Shop Boys 12" Mix)" – 7:16
 * 4) "Threadneedle Street" – 3:19
 * 5) "Got Yer!" – 1:48

Disc ten
 * 1) "Parklife feat. Phil Daniels" – 3:06
 * 2) "Beard" – 1:46
 * 3) "To The End (French Version)" – 4:06
 * 4) "Supa Shoppa" – 3:02
 * 5) "Theme From An Imaginary Film" – 3:35

Disc eleven
 * 1) "End of a Century" – 2:47
 * 2) "Rednecks" – 3:04
 * 3) "Alex's Song" – 2:42

Disc twelve
 * 1) "Country House" – 3:58
 * 2) "One Born Every Minute" – 2:18
 * 3) "To The End (La Comedie) feat. Françoise Hardy" – 5:06
 * 4) "Country House (Live)" – 5:01
 * 5) "Girls & Boys (Live)" – 5:08
 * 6) "Parklife (Live)" – 4:13
 * 7) "For Tomorrow (Live)" – 7:35

Disc thirteen
 * 1) "The Universal" – 4:00
 * 2) "Ultranol" – 2:42
 * 3) "No Monsters in Me" – 3:38
 * 4) "Entertain Me (The Live It! Remix)" – 7:19
 * 5) "The Universal (Live at the BBC)" – 4:11
 * 6) "Mr Robinson's Quango (Live at the BBC)" – 4:17
 * 7) "It Could Be You (Live at the BBC)" – 3:17
 * 8) "Stereotypes (Live at the BBC)" – 3:12

Disc fourteen
 * 1) "Stereotypes" – 3:11
 * 2) "The Man Who Left Himself" – 3:21
 * 3) "Tame" – 4:47
 * 4) "Ludwig" – 2:24

Disc fifteen
 * 1) "Charmless Man" – 3:33
 * 2) "The Horrors" – 3:18
 * 3) "A Song" – 1:44
 * 4) "St. Louis" – 3:12

Disc sixteen
 * 1) "Beetlebum" – 5:05
 * 2) "All Your Life" – 4:11
 * 3) "A Spell For Money" – 3:31
 * 4) "Beetlebum (Mario Caldato Jr. Mix)" – 5:04
 * 5) "Woodpigeon Song" – 1:41
 * 6) "Dancehall" – 3:11

Disc seventeen
 * 1) "Song 2" – 2:02
 * 2) "Bustin' + Dronin'" – 6:13
 * 3) "Country Sad Ballad Man (Live Acoustic Version)" – 4:59
 * 4) "Get Out of Cities" – 4:02
 * 5) "Polished Stone" – 2:42

Disc eighteen
 * 1) "On Your Own" – 4:27
 * 2) "Chinese Bombs (Live at Peel Acres)" – 1:14
 * 3) "Movin' On (Live at Peel Acres)" – 3:20
 * 4) "M.O.R. (Live at Peel Acres)" – 2:59
 * 5) "Popscene (Live at Peel Acres)" – 3:04
 * 6) "Song 2 (Live at Peel Acres)" – 1:50
 * 7) "On Your Own" (Live at Peel Acres)" – 4:46

Disc nineteen
 * 1) "M.O.R. (Road Version)" – 3:14
 * 2) "Swallows in the Heatwave" – 2:33
 * 3) "Movin' On (William Orbit Remix)" – 8:00
 * 4) "Beetlebum (Moby's Minimal House Mix)" – 6:16

Disc twenty
 * 1) "Tender" – 7:41
 * 2) "All We Want" – 4:33
 * 3) "Mellow Jam" – 3:55
 * 4) "French Song" – 8:19
 * 5) "Song 2" [Same as single version ] – 2:02

Disc twenty one
 * 1) "Coffee & TV (Radio Edit)" – 5:19
 * 2) "Trade Stylee (Alex's Bugman Remix)" – 5:59
 * 3) "Metal Hip Slop (Graham's Bugman Remix)" – 4:27
 * 4) "X"-Offender (Damon/Control Freak's Bugman Remix)" – 5:42
 * 5) "Coyote (Dave's Bugman Remix)" – 3:48

Disc twenty two
 * 1) "No Distance Left to Run" – 3:28
 * 2) "Tender (Cornelius Remix)" – 5:23


text:
User talk:Mimimosa

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics!

You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some helpful links:
 * Merge, for information about merging, renaming and moving pages.
 * Wikipedia directory is also quite useful.
 * Meet other new users You may want to add yourself to the Wikipedia new user log.
 * Assign edits to your username from before you registered.
 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you
 * How to upload files and image copyright tags.

By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

Hope to see you around the Wiki! If you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page! ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 08:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mimimosa


text:
Cox and Box

Cox and Box; or, The Long-Lost Brothers, is a one-act comic opera with a libretto by F. C. Burnand and music by Arthur Sullivan, based on the 1847 farce Box and Cox by John Maddison Morton. It was Sullivan's first successful comic opera. The story concerns a landlord who lets a room to two lodgers, one who works at night and one who works during the day. When one of them has the day off, they meet each other in the room and tempers flare. Sullivan wrote this piece five years before his first opera with W. S. Gilbert, Thespis.

The piece premiered in 1866 and was seen a few times at charity benefits in 1867. Once given a professional production in 1869, it became popular, running for 264 performances and enjoying many revivals and further charity performances. During the 20th century, it was frequently played by the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company in an abridged version, as a curtain raiser for the shorter Gilbert and Sullivan operas. It has been played by numerous professional and amateur companies throughout the world and continues to be frequently produced.

Background
The Moray Minstrels were an informal gathering of notable men involved in London society and the arts, including painters, actors and writers, who were mostly amateur musicians. They would meet for musical evenings at Moray Lodge, in Kensington, the home of Arthur James Lewis (1824–1901), a haberdasher and silk merchant (of the firm Lewis & Allenby), who married the actress Kate Terry in 1867. The Minstrels would discuss the arts, smoke and sing part-songs and other popular music at monthly gatherings of more than 150 lovers of the arts; their conductor was John Foster. Foster, as well as the dramatist F. C. Burnand and many other members were friendly with young Arthur Sullivan, who joined the group. On one occasion in early 1865, they heard a performance of Offenbach's short two-man operetta Les deux aveugles ("The Two Blind Men"). After seeing another operetta at Moray Lodge the following winter, Burnand asked Sullivan to collaborate on a new piece to be performed for the Minstrels.

Burnand adapted the libretto for this "triumviretta" from John Maddison Morton's famous farce, Box and Cox, which had premiered in London in 1847, starring J. B. Buckstone. The text follows Morton's play closely, differing in only two notable respects. First, in the play the protagonists lodge with Mrs Bouncer; in Burnand's version the character is Sergeant Bouncer. This change was necessitated by the intention of performing the piece for the all-male gathering of the Moray Minstrels. Secondly, Burnand wrote original lyrics to be set to music by the 24-year-old Sullivan. The date and venue of the first performance was much disputed, starting in 1890, in duelling letters to The World, with Burnand and Lewis each claiming to have hosted it. Andrew Lamb has concluded that the run-through at Burnand's home on 23 May 1866, without costumes or sets, was a rehearsal before a small group of invited friends, followed by the first performance at Lewis's home on 26 May 1866. A printed programme dated 23 May later surfaced, suggesting more than a mere rehearsal, but the composer himself supported the later date, writing to The World: "I feel bound to say that Burnand's version came upon me with the freshness of a novel. My own recollection of the business is perfectly distinct". John Foster, who played Bouncer in the production, called the run-through at Burnand's house a rehearsal. The original cast also included George du Maurier as Box and Harold Power as Cox, with Sullivan improvising the accompaniment at the piano.

Another performance at Moray Lodge took place eleven months later on 26 April 1867. This was followed by the first public performance, which was given as part of a charity benefit by the Moray Minstrels (along with Kate, Florence and Ellen Terry and others) for the widow and children of C. H. Bennett, on 11 May 1867 at the Adelphi Theatre, with du Maurier as Box, Quintin Twiss as Cox and Arthur Cecil as Bouncer, performing as an amateur under his birth name, Arthur Blunt. A review in The Times commented that Burnand had adapted Morton's libretto well, and that Sullivan's music was "full of sparking tune and real comic humour". The rest of the evening's entertainment included a musicale by the Moray Minstrels, the play A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing and Les deux aveugles. The opera was heard with a full orchestra for the first time on that occasion, with Sullivan completing the orchestration a matter of hours before the first rehearsal. The Musical World praised both author and composer, suggesting that the piece would gain success if presented professionally. It was repeated on 18 May 1867 at the Royal Gallery of Illustration in Regent Street. The critic for the magazine Fun, W. S. Gilbert, wrote of the 11 May performance:

"Mr. Burnand's version of Box and Cox ... is capitally written, and Mr. Sullivan's music is charming throughout. The faults of the piece, as it stands, are twain. Firstly: Mr. Burnand should have operatized the whole farce, condensing it, at the same time, into the smallest compass, consistent with an intelligible reading of the plot. ... Secondly, Mr. Sullivan's music is, in many places, of too high a class for the grotesquely absurd plot to which it is wedded. It is very funny, here and there, and grand or graceful where it is not funny; but the grand and the graceful have, we think, too large a share of the honours to themselves. The music was capitally sung by Messrs. Du Maurier, Quintin, and Blunt"

At yet another charity performance, at the Theatre Royal, Manchester, on 29 July 1867, the overture was heard for the first time. The autograph full score is inscribed, ''Ouverture à la Triumvirette musicale 'Cox et Boxe' et 'Bouncer' composée par Arthur S. Sullivan, Paris, 23 Juillet 1867. Hotel Meurice''. The duet "Stay, Bouncer, stay!" was probably first heard in this revival.

There were discussions about an 1867 professional production under the management of Thomas German Reed, but instead Reed commissioned Sullivan and Burnand to write a two-act comic opera, The Contrabandista, which was less well received. Cox and Box had its first professional production under Reed's management, at the Royal Gallery of Illustration, opening on Easter Monday, 29 March 1869, with Gilbert and Frederic Clay's No Cards preceding it on the bill. The occasion marked the professional debut of Arthur Cecil, who played Box. German Reed played Cox and F. Seymour played Bouncer. Cox and Box ran until 20 March 1870, a total of 264 performances, with a further 23 performances on tour. The production was a hit, although critics lamented the loss of Sullivan's orchestration (the Gallery of Illustration was too small for an orchestra): "The operetta loses something by the substitution ... of a piano and harmonium accompaniment for the orchestral parts which Mr. Sullivan knows so well how to write; but the music is nevertheless welcome in any shape."

Subsequent productions
Cox and Box quickly became a Victorian staple, with additional productions in Manchester in 1869 and on tour in 1871 (conducted by Richard D'Oyly Carte, with the composer's brother Fred playing Cox), at London's Alhambra Theatre in 1871, with Fred as Cox, and at the Gaiety Theatre in 1872, 1873, and 1874 (the last of these again starring Fred as Cox and Cecil as Box), and Manchester again in 1874 (paired with The Contrabandista). There were also numerous charity performances beginning in 1867, including two at the Gaiety during the run of Thespis, and another in Switzerland in 1879 with Sullivan himself as Cox and Cecil as Box. Sullivan sometimes accompanied these performances. The cast for a performance at the Gaiety in 1880 included Cecil as Box, George Grossmith as Cox and Corney Grain as Bouncer. The first documented American production opened on 14 April 1879 at the Standard Theatre, in New York, as a curtain raiser to a "pirated" production of H.M.S. Pinafore. In an 1884 production at the Court Theatre, the piece played together with Gilbert's Dan'l Druce, Blacksmith (but later in the year with other pieces), with Richard Temple as Cox, Cecil as Box, and Furneaux Cook as Bouncer. This production was revived in 1888, with Cecil, Eric Lewis and William Lugg playing Box, Cox and Bouncer.

The first D'Oyly Carte Opera Company performance of the piece was on 31 December 1894, to accompany another Sullivan–Burnand opera, The Chieftain, which had opened on 12 December at the Savoy Theatre. For this production Sullivan cut the "Sixes" duet and verses from several other numbers, and dialogue cuts were also made. Temple played Bouncer and Scott Russell was Cox. It then was played by several D'Oyly Carte touring companies in 1895 and 1896. In 1900, the piece was presented at the Coronet Theatre with Courtice Pounds as Box. In 1921, Rupert D'Oyly Carte introduced Cox and Box as a curtain raiser to The Sorcerer, with additional cuts prepared by J. M. Gordon and Harry Norris. This slimmed-down "Savoy Version" remained in the company's repertory as curtain raiser for the shorter Savoy Operas. By the 1960s, Cox and Box was the usual companion piece to The Pirates of Penzance. It received its final D'Oyly Carte performance on 16 February 1977.

Many amateur theatre companies have also staged Cox and Box – either alone or together with one of the shorter Savoy Operas. In recent years, after the rediscovery of the one-act Sullivan and B. C. Stephenson opera, The Zoo, Cox and Box has sometimes been presented as part of an evening of the three Sullivan one-act operas, sharing a bill with The Zoo and Trial by Jury.

Roles

 * James John Cox, A Journeyman Hatter (baritone)
 * John James Box, A Journeyman Printer (tenor)
 * Sergeant Bouncer, Late of the Dampshire Yeomanry, with military reminiscences (Baritone, later bass-baritone) [See "Versions" below]

Synopsis

 * Note: The following synopsis describes the original version. For other versions, see the discussion below.

After a brisk overture, the scene opens on a room with a bed, a chest of drawers, a table and chairs, a fireplace, and three doors. Cox is rushing to dress for the day. His landlord, Sergeant Bouncer, helps him get ready, while Cox complains about an uncomfortable pillow and an excessively short haircut, which makes him look like as though he is in the army. Any mention of the army sends Bouncer into a reverie about his own military career. The irritated Cox goes into his dressing room, while Bouncer sings a mock-Handelian aria about his days in the militia, ending with his favourite catch-phrase, "Rataplan! Rataplan!" Cox asks Bouncer why the room always reeks of tobacco smoke. Bouncer suggests that it must be from the tenant in the attic, but Cox observes that smoke always travels up, not down. Cox also wonders why his supplies of coals, matches, candles, tea, sugar, etc., seem to be disappearing. Bouncer suggests it was the cat. When Cox will not accept this explanation, Bouncer launches into another reprise of "Rataplan! Rataplan!" Cox, at last, is late for work and leaves without resolving the mystery.

Left on his own, Bouncer admits that Cox has left in the nick of time, for the room is let to two lodgers, neither of whom knows about the other. Cox, a hatter, works all day; Box, a printer, works all night; so they never come in contact, except that they occasionally pass on the staircase. Bouncer hurriedly re-arranges the room, hiding Cox's possessions and putting out Box's.

Box enters, after a brief offstage altercation with Cox on the staircase. After dismissing Bouncer, he takes out a bread roll, lights the fire, and puts a rasher of bacon on the gridiron. Overcome with exhaustion, he lies down on the bed for a catnap. Cox re-enters, having unexpectedly secured a day off from his employer. He is delighted to find a roll on the table, but surprised to find the fire already lit. Assuming that Bouncer has been using the room in his absence, he takes the bacon off the gridiron, replaces it with a mutton chop, and heads off to his dressing room to retrieve his breakfast utensils.

The slam of Cox's dressing room door awakens Box, who suddenly remembers his bacon. When he sees a mutton chop on the gridiron, he assumes it is Bouncer's, and throws it out the window, hitting a pedestrian outside. He once again puts the bacon on the fire, and goes to his dressing room to retrieve his breakfast utensils. The slam of Box's dressing room door sends Cox scurrying back in, assuming it is the sound of someone knocking. Seeing the bacon on the gridiron once again, he tosses it out the window, hitting the pedestrian for a second time.

Box re-enters from his dressing room, and they confront each other for the first time. Each orders the other to leave. Cox produces his receipt for rent, to prove the room is his, and Box does likewise. Realising they have been duped, they call for Bouncer, who arrives and promptly tries to change the subject with yet another reprise of "Rataplan! Rataplan!" Finally cornered, he admits that the room belongs to both of them, but he says that he will have his little back second floor room ready later the same day. Both lodgers say they will take it, which Bouncer quickly points out makes no sense whatsoever. He leaves them to decide which will vacate the current room. Each suggests the other should leave, but neither will budge. Finally, they realise that it is all Bouncer's fault, and they may as well be friends. They serenade each other on the guitar.

In the course of conversation, Cox admits he has a fiancée, but as she is the proprietor of bathing machines some distance away, she is unlikely to make an appearance. Box says that he is neither single nor married nor widowed, but has been "defunct for the last three years." Cox admits that he would not mind being defunct himself, if it would allow him to escape from unwanted matrimony. Box explains that he was in exactly the same predicament several years ago. On the eve of marriage, he left his possessions at the edge of a cliff with a suicide note. Everyone assumed he had jumped, and so he was free of his intended bride, Penelope Ann. At the mention of that name, Cox realises that his present intended is the same fiancée whom Box had eluded. Cox now declares that he will restore Box to Penelope Ann, while Box says that he would not dream of taking her away from Cox.

Unable to resolve the matter, they at first suggest duelling, but decide on a gentler solution. At first, they throw dice, but each man has a trick die that only throws sixes. Then they try tossing coins, but each one keeps throwing only "heads". At last, Bouncer arrives with a letter from Margate, which they assume must be from Penelope Ann. However, the letter informs them that Penelope Ann was lost in a sailing accident and has left her entire estate to "my intended husband." The two men try to resolve which of them is the beneficiary, but Bouncer arrives with a second letter, informing them that Penelope Ann survived after all, and will be arriving later that day.

They both try to leave, but Bouncer arrives with a third letter: "Being convinced that our feelings, like our ages, do not reciprocate, I hasten to apprise you of my immediate union with Mr. Knox." They rejoice that Penelope Ann is out of the way. Suddenly, Box observes that Cox must surely be his long-lost brother, and Cox says that he was about to make the same observation: Box asks if Cox has a strawberry mark on his left arm. Cox replies that he does not. That settles it: they are long-lost brothers. In a brief finale, they agree that they will remain in the room for good, with Bouncer adding a "Rataplan!" reprise. The curtain falls on general rejoicing.

Musical numbers

 * 1) Overture
 * 2) Song, "Rataplan" (Bouncer)
 * 3) Duet, "Stay, Bouncer, Stay" (Cox, Bouncer)
 * 4) Lullaby, "Hush-a-bye, Bacon" (Box)
 * 5) Song and Dance, "My Master is Punctual" (Cox)
 * 6) Trio, "Who are You, Sir?" (Box, Cox, Bouncer)
 * 7) Serenade, "The Buttercup" (Box, Cox)
 * 8) Romance, "Not Long Ago" (Box, with Cox)
 * 9) Gambling Duet, "Sixes!" (Box, Cox)
 * 10) Finale, "My Hand upon It" (Box, Cox, Bouncer)

Versions
The original domestic version is scored for the three voices (Box, tenor; Cox, baritone; and Bouncer, mostly baritone and partly counter-tenor) and piano. Sullivan wrote the role of Bouncer partly in the alto range for Foster, a counter-tenor (including the high line in the "Rataplan trio"), but subsequently the role was played by a bass-baritone. For the theatre, Sullivan rescored the piece for his usual small orchestra of about 30 players. He added a short overture and some additional music in the main piece, including the extended duet, "Stay, Bouncer, Stay!". This version plays for just under an hour. For the 1894 revival by the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, Sullivan cut the "Sixes" duet (No. 9) in which Box and Cox each try to lose (the stake being the unwanted Penelope Ann). He also cut verses from numbers 2 (first verse); 3 (Cox's first verse, "That two are two" and a repeat of the "Rataplan" duet); 4 (second verse); 6 (a repeat of the "Rataplan" trio) and the vocal sections of 10 (finale). Dialogue cuts were also made.

In 1921 the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company prepared the "Savoy Edition", which they presented thereafter as a curtain raiser. It made further minor cuts throughout the score, but restored the finale (except for Bouncer's reprise). Box's verse in No.7, "The Buttercup", was also omitted, and further dialogue cuts were made. The keys of some of the numbers are lower in the Savoy Version, so that Bouncer is best sung by a bass-baritone. The key changes, however, may have been first made by Sullivan for the 1894 revival. The Savoy Edition runs about half an hour. The changes were made by D'Oyly Carte musical director Harry Norris. Additional orchestrations were added at various places by Geoffrey Toye, the conductor of the company's 1920–21 London season. According to the musicologist Roger Harris, "taken all together, the tamperings of the 1921 version amount to a considerable vandalization of Sullivan's original score, and it is a matter for regret that this version should have been presented to successive generations as the genuine article."

Discography
The first commercial recording of Cox & Box was not made until 1961. Both D'Oyly Carte recordings use the heavily cut "Savoy Version" of the score that the company performed as a curtain raiser to other operas, whereas the more recent recordings use a less heavily pruned score. All the recordings listed below except the Chandos set include dialogue.

 * 1961 D'Oyly Carte (with The Gondoliers) – Conductor, Isidore Godfrey; Joseph Riordan (Box), Alan Styler (Cox) and Donald Adams (Bouncer).
 * 1972 Gilbert and Sullivan for All (with Trial by Jury) – Piano accompaniment by John Burrows; Thomas Round (Box), Adams (Cox) and Thomas Lawlor (Bouncer).
 * 1978 D'Oyly Carte (with The Zoo) – Conductor, Royston Nash; Geoffrey Shovelton (Box), Gareth Jones (Cox) and Michael Rayner (Bouncer).
 * 1984 Sir Arthur Sullivan Society – Piano accompaniment by Kenneth Barclay; Ian Kennedy (Box), Leon Berger (Cox) and Donald Francke (Bouncer).
 * 2004 BBC National Orchestra of Wales (with Trial by Jury) – Conductor, Richard Hickox; James Gilchrist (Box), Neal Davies (Cox) and Donald Maxwell (Bouncer); issued on the Chandos label. Dialogue is omitted and replaced by a narration written by Maxwell and delivered by him in the character of Bouncer.

For a nearly complete orchestral version with all the numbers that Sullivan composed, there is a video recording produced in 1982 as part of the Brent Walker series of Gilbert and Sullivan videos, together with Trial by Jury. Conductor, Alexander Faris; John Fryatt (Box), Russell Smythe (Cox) Thomas Lawlor (Bouncer). The Gilbert and Sullivan Discography considers this video to be the best of the series.

Notes and references

 * Notes

 * References

title: Cox and Box


text:
Talk:The 10 Year Limited Edition Anniversary Box Set

Is this real because I've been on tons of music sites and I have yet to see this, and 22 cds seems a little far fetched to me... hoax anyone?

 * Er ... yes, it's real. The reason it's so many CDs is because that's how many singles they'd released at the time ... - 211.28.136.87 09:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TenderCD1.jpg
Image:TenderCD1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The 10 Year Limited Edition Anniversary Box Set. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080618001940/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com:80/article/record_review/15567/Blur_10_Year_Limited_Edition_Anniversary_Box_Set to http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/15567/Blur_10_Year_Limited_Edition_Anniversary_Box_Set

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

lacking
Having been a Blur fan, I came here to find out why this large set has its particular format structure, namely that the CDs can be quite brief, two less than nine minutes. This is not even acknowledged here, much less explained.

And a footnote really cries out for explanation: …one of the three audio tracks also had to be "Song 2", to avoid breaking chart rules – otherwise the CD would have contained four different songs, and chart rules stated that CDs could contain no more than three different songs. Anyone care to explain what "chart" has such byzantine rules? or at least point me to such an explanation? Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)