User talk:Cuchullain
|
Thank you to everyone who participated in my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of (61/1/1). I'll do my best to be a helpful and effective administrator. If there is anything you need, just ask.Cúchullain t/c 21:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC) |
 Archives |
|---|
Hello, I noticed that you had removed the bullets from the "Allusions" section of Lanval. Is there some sort of recommended format that I should be following with these articles about the various Lais of Marie de France that I've slowly been writing? I wrote the ones about Guigemar and Equitan, and contributed a little to the others, but so far I've been making up the format as I go along. Thanks. --Kyoko 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- You've been doing a great job by the way. The bulleted format is fine for (embedded) lists, in cases where those are appropriate, but generally prose is preferable. In this case I don't think the allusions are really a list, but rather a discussion of content, and as such prose works much better. Otherwise I think your format is working fine so far.--Cúchullain t/c 21:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
DYK
|
On 19 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Susanna Drury, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
--ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Melusine
On 23 March, you edited out the story of Elizabeth Woodville and Jean de Luxembourg from the Melusine article. The incident is a rather famous one, and the editor who added it did relate that it is mentioned in the annals of parliament, so it wasn't entirely unsourced, just not properly sourced. However, I can understand your reluctance to believe it coming upon it for the first time. Elizabeth Woodville was in fact tried, in 1483, by an ecclesiastical court for sorcery for alleged harm to Richard III. The historical novel The King's Grey Mare by Rosemary Hawley Jarman was based upon this story. See, e.g., this 1973 review. Maybe it should just be marked as needing better references. --Bejnar 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wondered about that. That same editor had been adding very dubious passages into other articles, and in this case he added lines like this: "she was a late medieval version of Aphrodite and associated with fish-tailed Venus or the Roman goddess of light, Lusinia (Juno Lucina="light") and therefore associated with Shamuramat or Semiramis, worshipped at the goddess cult center of Avalon identified with Glastonbury in Somerset." This, and the entire paragraph it's from, is bull. Not knowing what of the new material was good and what was false (it was all unsourced), I thought it best to remove it all, lest the whole article be damned. If you want to add the good material back in with proper sources (or at least cite needed tags), please do. If you have the inclination, you might check over that users contributions and see if anything is worth keeping; I've reverted most of it.--Cúchullain t/c 18:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Removal of "Trivia" section from Apocalypto
On March 25, 2007 you removed the Trivia & Goofs (discontinuity in the movie) section from the Wikipedia entry for Apocalypto. I understand that you took a bold step and the reason for removal of the section was that having a Trivia section is not encouraged. I also understand your reluctance in believing the Waldo frame. However, if it was true, don't you agree it is an important fact about the movie and it should be included? I encourage you to rent the DVD and please check for yourself if it exists or not. The guidelines in WP:TRIV asks to incorporate the trivia into the main story, or more targeted sections. Should we therefore not reinstate the facts in the Trivia section, probably putting some of them in more targeted sections like Easter Egg Frames or Discontinuities in the Movie? --Hirak 99 05:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I think it's important enough to include in the entry, but if it really is easily verifiable then my objection to including the Waldo trivia becomes much less strident. I'd personally prefer it was referenced with a mention in some secondary source, rather than simply instructions on where to view the frame, however. If it or any of the other trivia is included, it should be in another section, preferable one that already exists, rather than simply creating a new one with a title like "easter egg frames" or "discontinuities"; these would be essentially a trivia section under a new name. I'd suggest putting in the production section, perhaps with a sentance like, "The producers included a few humorous references to popular culture; such-and-such a character says "I'm walking here", a famous quote from Midnight Cowboy[source], while in such-and-such a scene, a single frame of a man dressed like Where's Waldo apears[source]..." As I said, though, I'd greatly prefer it if the facts were referenced to reliable secondary sources.--Cúchullain t/c 06:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are right, just after I wrote the message to you it came to my mind that the most suitable place to put presence of such frames would be in the production. It is however, rather unfortunate that there is no secondary source yet which indicates the presence of the frame (or, Mel's appearance in the trailer for that matter). I can understand because I myself will also feel reluctant in believing such a claim unless I verified it personally. Hopefully a reliable source will come out soon in the form of an interview regarding the movie.--Hirak 99 06:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Removal of Trivia from Caladbolg
Maybe instead of deleting and sending a link to a regulation, you could maybe follow that regulation and incorporate it into the article. Slayerofangels 20:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would have if it was sourced, but I'm not going to incorporate further unsourced material into the article. The burden's on the one adding it; if you want the Final Fantasy mention in there so badly, source it and then incorporate it (not in its own section). However, the mention in Phantasy Star Online claims it is rarely seen in the game, so I don't think it's notable enough to be included anyway (imagine if we had to list every singe mention of Excalibur that has ever appeared in pop culture).--Cúchullain t/c 20:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Excalibur
That is a fair use image that shouldn't have been removed. Also, why is it that you delete the Trivia sections in other articles but not in the Excalibur article? Is there something different about it? Also, I realized that I tagged the image wrong. It is fair use and is used in an article that would constitute fair use. Slayerofangels 20:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever the tag, if it's fair use, it can only be used to illustrate to object in question. The sword in the picture is not really Excalibur, it is a product supposed to look like it. If the article was about the product, we'd have a case for using it, but it's not. Thanks for removing it from my talk page. As to the trivia in Excalibur, basically I haven't gotten around to it yet (and neither has anyone else). The page needs a good round of general cleanup. But the section also is in a perferred format; it is arranged in prose rather than a bulleted list, so as to look less like a trivia section and more like a real paragraph.--Cúchullain t/c 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Tír na nÓg
Not trying to start any kind of wikipedia war with you, but why do you feel that the trivia I placed in the Tír na nÓg article shouldn't be included? -TheQuaker 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)