User talk:Bertaut/Archive 2013

Content removal in FF7:AC

Hi. How do you do?

I know you are an established editor and won't remove contents unless there is something wrong with it, but please say it. You know that content removal without an edit summary is wrong, don't you? In addition, the editor who added the contents is a newcomer and I think, per WP:BITE, an explanation is order. Finally, I can't think what was wrong with the contents removed. So, I think an edit summary is definitely required.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What JosephKnight84, an editor who has been editing since March 2012, added in the article unfortunately counts as WP:SPAM, so that is definitely a valid issue and it has been dealt with. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. How did you exactly figure that out? Please note that I am not asking "how did you figure that out in a way that prevented you from assuming good faith in a newcomer?" (although this might be good question at this time.) But for the time being, my question is simply "how did you figure that out?" Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Having been an established user for 6 years, I can conclude that external link is basically a clear violation of WP:ELNO and WP:SPAM. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. This not exactly what I asked. My question is "how?" Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, it's very obvious: After taking a closer look at that link, I saw that it was not a reliable, third-party source, but it was a fansite intending to promote something, which clearly violates the ELNO guideline and one of our fundamental policies: Wikipedia:Spam, which according to this section, indicates that "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." Spamming is never acceptable. I cannot emphasize that enough. Also, per the relevant policy WP:NOT#SOAPBOX: "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article", and this link also counts as non-notable. So, the best option on this was to remove the inappropriate link altogether. I hope this answer helps. And to Bertaut, I hope I did not mean to interfere in this conversation. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It appears I am not being clear enough because your replies are heavily focused on Wikipedia policy with which I have no problem at all. (Seriously, you don't possibly think I am an advocate of spam, do you?) Besides, something here seems to be very obvious to you. So let me clarify.

So, spam? Right now, I am examining the link and it seems it is a web page that provides translation for one of the subjects of the article that is only available in Japanese. The web page does not have a single bit of advertisement, the translations are offered free of charge, there is no hidden commercial offer and the contents do not seem to violate standing copyright laws. It is also not a generic link to a community website seeking for more members but a link to actual material. Finally, this links does not seem to be a case of one-of-the-million (a very common spam scenario). To conclude, it appears to me that this specific link is none of the forbidden things you mentioned above. Even if the hosting website itself qualifies as #10 of WP:ELNO, this link itself seems to correspond to WP:ELYES, items #2 and #3.

Now, what gave you the impression that contents in External links section should pass the reliable source criteria? Allowed external links are often links to official website, developer's blog, IMDB, SourceForge, various Wikis, statistic portals, meta-rating services, etc. Such items do not stand a chance of passing WP:RS criteria.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I know. I was only pointing out relevant guidelines and policies and I was clearly trying to answer your question for Bertaut. Unfortunately, I still think that the fan site is not notable enough to be included here as this website was previously spammed to another article by the same user. A useful link is WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer, which provides interesting advice. But in any case, I think we should wait until Bertaut provides a response here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Well, this is embarrassing; I forgot we are in his talk page. We should have got out of his talk page earlier since he did not revert the external link at all. My original issue was the article text that someone dropped by and explained to me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Just to clarify, that text was added by the same person who also added the link at the same time. As a talk page stalker, I provided a few answers to help solve this problem. The Lifestream, the link in question, is a blog, which cannot be used as a reliable source unless it is one owned by the subject and it's a non-notable link. To Bernaut, I did not mean to barge in like this, so I apologize. Regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys. Apologies about the very late reply, but I've been up to my tonsils in it recently. Feel free to have a discussion on my talk page, doesn't bother me in the slightest. And to address your original concerns Lisa, yes, I know I'm supposed to add an edit summary, I just forgot. And I deleted the paragraph for pretty much the exact reasons that Sjones23 has eloquently outlined. Again, sorry about the delay. Damn real life! Bertaut (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

William Shakespeare's first historical tetralogy

Hi, Just wondering why you removed Five Kings from the template since it does relate directly to the subject and is fully sourced?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I deleted it because it's not relevant to the first historical tetralogy; the second yes, but the performances never incorporated any material from the first. To the best of my knowledge anyway. Bertaut (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I guess it is iffy. Five Kings, Part 2 was only rehearsed and never actually performed, but it was also a legitimate work that included the tetralogy. I'll leave it up to you.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Refs

Bertaut, why do you format the refs at Chronology of William Shakespeare's plays with the given names first? Is there some reason for that? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really. That's how they were before I started editing the page, so I just used the same format. As it's not a bibliography, it doesn't really matter how the name is formatted as long as there's internal consistency. I've used the same format on every page I've worked on here on Wikipedia, but there's no real reason for it, it's just the one I'm most used to using both on here and in hard print stuff I've written. Bertaut (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well references are universally started with the surname of the author, and it's house style for WP. See WP:REF The reason I asked is because I had reformatted some refs on that same article and you followed me and put them back with the given name first. When I find inconsistent formatting I usually just go ahead and put new ones in house style because eventually someone will come along and properly format them. I know for a fact that Chronology of William Shakespeare's plays will never be promoted to FA or even G status with the refs formatted that way. I'm not that I'm pushing for that, I'm just saying that there's no sense in doing it contrary to house style for the sake of consistency if they're consistently wrong.

Also that formatting at The Taming of the Shrew is inconsistent with the rest of the article. From what I understand that article is on the to-do list of bringing it up to G status. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:The Comedy of Errors

I didn't understand some of your changes to Template:The Comedy of Errors.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Well they were fairly self explanatory. I fixed an inaccurate date, added a missing date, added some filmic adaptations (which you've removed for some strange reason) and deleted an adaptation which has no source whatsoever (which you've added back for some reason). Do Dooni Char and Bhrantibilas are both perfectly legitimate entries. Just cause they don't have wiki entries doesn't make them invalid for a template; you can find reliable sources for both of them on my sandbox. As for Dam Dama Dam, I can't find a single reference anywhere that it's based on Errors other than on Wikipedia. And the 2013 remake of Angoor has been cancelled. Even the page it links to doesn't mention it. Bertaut (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, you haven't added Dam Dama Dam back, sorry, I misread it. But the Angoor remake has definitely been cancelled, and like I say, there's nothing wrong with having unlinked items in a template. Unless you want to red link them. It doesn't really bother me one way or the other, but my feeling is that the template should be relatively complete. There's several unlinked items in the two historical tetralogy templates. Bertaut (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Bertaut. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

• It looks like some things have moved on in a positive fashion so poarts of my email may no,longer be relevant. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Do Dooni Char, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asit Sen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Operas that may need to be in templates

I have come across the following operas: Pyramus and Thisbe (opera), The Enchanted Island (opera) and Amleto. I am not sure if they belong in templates at Category:Shakespeare templates. You are the expert. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Also Giulio Cesare--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you concur with this edit?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey. Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I wasn't online at all yesterday. Opera wouldn't be my forte at all, but I would say yes to Pyramus and Thisbe (opera) and The Enchanted Island (opera) and no to Amleto and Giulio Cesare. From what little I know about them, they don't have a great deal to do with the plays. Regarding your edits to the Romeo and Juliet template, I see that someone has already been in touch with you on that score. And about Template:The Merry Wives of Windsor, it looks fine, except I wouldn't bother linking Mistress Quickly (in fact, I think I'll nominate that page for deletion while I think of it), and I'd add some of the characters who don't have articles on here (Mistress Page, Bardolph etc). Bertaut (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't Mistress Quickly stay in the template until the page is actually deleted (in case the deletion is opposed).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

As it appears it won't be getting deleted, yeah, probably best to just leave it there.Bertaut (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

New template

I have created {{The Merry Wives of Windsor}}--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Reflections on your work

When I think of where the BBC TV Shakespeare article was when I first saw it over eight years ago - well all I can say is that I am in awe of your work. It was an immense pleasure to learn severl things that I didn't know about the series before. I know I mentioned last year that the "Shakespeare on the BBC" could be spun off into its own article and your additions only make that easier to recommend. I feel sure that you have some knowledge of how PBS works - ie some programs are shown nationwide and some are regional - I mention that because, to the best of my recollection Shakespeare in Perspective did not show in Colorado. My thirst for learning was such I feel sure that I would have watched it had the Denver PBS station showed it. I don;t think there is anything to change in the article I only mention it FYI. I hope that you were able to see this series [1] last summer. My PBS station failed to air all of the episodes so I am looking forward to its coming our on DVD later this month. The one suggestion that I can make - and it is only an aesthetic one - is that you might want put the cast lists into columns. There are several different ways to do that but I think that the easiest one is to put this command at the beginning of each list {{div col|cols=2}} and this one at the end {{div col end}}. It would bring the "Behind the Scenes" sections closer to the plays title. If you have any rpoblems using it let me know and I will have a try and, of course, if you don't like the look please leave things as they are. Lastly, let me say that I wish that I could bestow a doctorate of some kind for your work on this and numerous other articles. Sadly my powers are limited to I will simply leave a new award below. Many thanks for all your work and even more thanks for making sure that I get to read it. MarnetteD | Talk 04:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that, I really appreciate your feedback. That's a good idea about putting the cast into columns, I'll mess around with it when I get the chance. And, yeah, I did see that series. Really excellent. All this working on the BBC Series has made me wonder would any film company ever try something similar. With digitial technology the way it is, many of the plays could be done as theatrical pieces for next to nothing (look at Josh Whedon's Much Ado (which I haven't seen yet)), so if an overall budget was assigned to the project, money could be held over for the history plays and pieces like Lear and Hamlet. Imagaine having, say, Kenneth Branagh as executive producer of the whole thing and bringing in an eclectic bunch of directors to do the plays. Think about what a Terrence Malick Shakespeare adaptation would be like, or P.T. Anderson, or David Lynch, or someone like Michael Mann doing Pericles on digital. I'm getting goosebumps! Sadly, it'll never happen. The box office returns just wouldn't be there. When was the last time there was a big smash Shakespeare film? Lurhman's Romeo + Juliet? Taymor's Tempest flopped, Fiennes' Coriolanus didn't do much, Branagh's Love's Labour's and As You Like It underperformed. Basically, you'd be asking a company to finanace 38 (or 39, or 40!) films, about 5 of which (might) be box office hits (and maybe the history plays if Robert Pattinson appeared!) Can't see it. Ah well, it's nice to dream! But again, thank you for your feeback, and for the barnstar below, I really do appreciate it. Bertaut (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well deserved

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your continuing efforts in making various Wikipedia articles as informative as possible. MarnetteD | Talk 04:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

BBC Television Shakespeare

Hi there. I made a couple of comments at Talk:BBC Television Shakespeare but I wanted it to be clear that I'm actually very admiring of the piece and your work on it, and they are meant to be helpful - I'm not trying to be some driveby pain in the ****! Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

PS I've stopped fiddling with it now! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, no need to explain yourself at all. I appreciate your comments and input. I'll respond to you on the article talk page. Bertaut (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bertaut. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Bertaut; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have a moment

Hi B. You may have noticed that we have a WP:SPA who is hopping around on various IPs regarding one sentence in the Taming of the Shrew article as can be seen here [2]. IMO the section goes into all aspects of the controversy and a citation for that one sentence is not needed. If you have moment to look at the situation I would appreciate it. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at things. If you are inclined you may want to leave a brief note on the talk page for the play at the thread I started today. As ever your time and efforts are much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 21:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I just this second emailed you! Bertaut (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hahahah. I was just looking at your talk page history. I'm a sock puppet. I'm your sock puppet. No wonder it's been so uncomfortable sitting down of late! I'm kind of offended though. Getting accused of being a sock puppet before I've ever been accused of having one, surely that's not how it's supposed to work! Bertaut (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Shakespeare tetralogy

I saw this edit. Should the template be on these pages?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Yeah, I don't see any reason why not. One is a possible source and the other an adaptation of Richard III. I also added Thomas of Woodstock (play) to the Henriad template, so perhaps that template should be added to that page as well. Bertaut (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I am counting on you to make these decisions for two reasons. 1.) I should not have to run around and clean up your work and 2.) You know Shakespeare better than I. Please decide one way or the other and do it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll get right on that boss. Sorry boss. Anything else boss? Bertaut (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I am just saying that I have created about 1000 naveboxes and the fewer that I have to eyeball closely the better. It would take me time to become familiar with each article that you are adding because you are familiar with it. It is just easiest if you complete the steps together.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Fair enough. I'll be more thorough in the future. I won't be doing anything template related for a while now anyway, so I'll be out of your hair for now! I'll add the templates later, I'm in my phone at the moment. Bertaut (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

All done! Bertaut (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

My Own Private Idaho

Is My Own Private Idaho suppose to be in {{Henriad}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, now that I mention it, I was going to add it to 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV and Henry V some time ago, but never got around to it for some reason. So yeah, by all means. Bertaut (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:Blake!

Hello! I wanted to thank you for signing up for William Blake Task Force. This new task force will help organizes and coordinates Wikipedia's coverage of Romantic poet and artist William Blake. In Late Sumemr and Fall 2013, I, User:Sadads, will be having a WP:GLAM internship with The William Blake Archive, and have started the project to organize and support efforts to improve content related to William Blake, the collection of The William Blake Archive and other topics related to Blake's contributions to both literary and visual culture. I have already started a list of Agenda items for the cooperation with the archive, and a to do list that could always use some support. Or if you have a little bit of extra time, I would appreciate help with article assessment so that I can produce some initial statistics. I look forward to working with you over the upcoming months, Sadads (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. First of all, let me say, it's great that there's a proper William Blake group now. When I first came on here, I was really surprised that there was no dedicated core group, so it's awesome that there's now a centralised unit. My Blake related activity has been fairly limited. I created All Religions are One and There is No Natural Religion, did extensive overhauls of Poetical Sketches, An Island in the Moon and Tiriel, and redeisgned the Blake template box. I was planning on doing more, moving on through his work chronologically, but life got in the way and I haven't been doing much Blake related material at all of late. I've got drafts of new versions of The Book of Thel and The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, but they're nowhere near ready to go live yet. In fact, at this precise moment in time, I'm very busy in real life, and haven't been able to do much of anything Wikipedia related. I'm always around for advice and discussion, but unfortunately, at the moment, getting into anything too heavy just isn't any option. Having said that though, if you'd like me to do anything specific, please, just drop me a line and it shall be done. All the best. Bertaut (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Shakespeare sidebar discussion

I have started a discussion here about the Shakespeare sidebar template that has been added to several articles. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: The Fallen

Just to let you know, I've nominated your recent article improvement for Did You Know at Did you know nominations/Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: The Fallen. Once it's appeared on the main page, we'll be able to add it to the same section at Portal:Star Trek too. Miyagawa (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay cool, thanks for letting me know. Bertaut (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Blake Update 1

Naomi entreating Ruth and Orpah to return to the land of Moab.

William Blake Archive GLAM Update #1 Check out the first update on the GLAM-Wiki cooperation with William Blake Archive and the William Blake Task Force, Sadads (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC) This is a transclusion from Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry/William Blake/Updates/Update 1/Announce. If you would not like to receive future messages about Blake GLAM-Wiki, please remove yourself from Wikipedia:Blake#Members. This update was distributed by User:Sadads

Blake's illustration from For Children The Gates of Paradise

DYK for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: The Fallen

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For all the "useless information" you've added to iOS articles, and more. Sociallyacceptable (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Haha. Thanks very much. Very much appreciated. Bertaut (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bertaut. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You've got mail

Hello, Bertaut. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sociallyacceptable (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I tried merging but I failed so can you do it?

I did try merging Guy (Street Fighter) into Guy (Final Fight). But my previous attempts by using the merge template seem to fall flat so can you do it please?Dwanyewest (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dwayne. Are you sure you have the right person? I've never done any work on either of those articles. Bertaut (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Video game reviews

Hello, Bertaut. You have new messages at Cky2250's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—CKY2250 ^ταικ 01:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)

Books & Bytes

Sign up for monthly delivery

Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.

Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...

Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...

Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...

Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...

Read Books & Bytes

The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering...

...but have I broken anything in my edit to Temple Run? George8211 02:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. The only thing you did was adding a </ref> before the cite web template broke all of the "AboutImangi" references. If you look, you'll see that the </ref> comes after the template not before it. It's not a big deal, easy mistake to make, and fix. Which I did! Thanks for taking the time to ask. Bertaut (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Seasons Greeting to you and yours

MarnetteD | Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

A Boy was Born

I read with interest what you just mentioned about Blake and his works. Do you think it is relevant to A Boy was Born? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Well, the thing with Blake is that, by modern standards, both his punctuation and capitalisation are really all over the place, far more than 99% of other authors of the period, so it was agreed amongst Blake editors long before I arrived on the scene to maintain his stylistic nuances, as to "modernise" everything would distort his work far too much. That's why modern editions of his poetry maintain his style (as opposed to modern editions of his contemporaries, which tend to use modern punctuation/capitalisation). A good comparison is Shakespeare. If we take, say, Richard II. It was originally published as "The Tragedie of King Richard the second", and then published as "The life and death of King Richard the Second". However, unlike with Blake, these were publishing conventions, not authorial choices (Blake published most of his own material himself), and I think that is a key point. With A Boy was Born, my feeling would be that "was" shouldn't be capitalised, as that seems to have been the author's own preference, but I don't think it's as clear-cut a case as we tend to see with Blake. Bertaut (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that I don't even care (any more) so much about how our article is named, but what is said in the text, where attempts have been made to eliminate the composer's version as undue weight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I certainly think noting that it was published as A Boy was Born is justified if the title of the article is A Boy Was Born. To again use Shakespeare as an example, the vast majority of articles that I know of include title variants somewhere in the article. In the ones I've worked on, I usually put them in the "Date and text" section (see for example Titus Andronicus#Date and text or Henry VI, Part 3#Date and text). However, if you look at the lede of the three Henry VI plays, you'll see all three include "often written as "X Henry VI" right in the first sentence. The long and short of it is this: if the piece was originally published as "A Boy was Born", if that was the authorial preference, and the article is using the form "A Boy Was Born", I think it's perfectly reasonable to mention this in the lede, especially given the fact that there are two references. Bertaut (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Taming of the Shrew

Why did you undo this edit? There are no citations in the passage suggesting an earlier than 1593. 175.38.214.104 (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I undid it for a couple of reasons. Firstly, we're using the Oxford Chronology in the article, and limiting the date to 1593-1594 would throw the chronology out of whack, as we know for pretty much a certainty that the Henry VI plays were written in 1591/1592. Secondly, Taming of the Shrew is arguably the most difficult play in the canon to date, which is why we've gone with a four year time-span as opposed to a narrower period. However, if we were to narrow the date down, it would be earlier rather than later. The main problem, besides the existence of A Shrew, is the difficulty of establishing a terminus post quem. However, if you look here, you'll see Kier Elam posits 1591 as such a date. Ann Thompson and H.J. Oliver both also date the play to 1591/1592. Stephen Roy Miller on the other hand dates it 1591-1594. I haven't read the 2012 Barbara Hodgdon Arden edition, but from what I hear, she doesn't say a great deal on the issue of date. But you're quite right about the lack of citations. The references to Olivier (note 18) and Miller (note 21) do cover the dating issue, but you're correct, there needs to be something more specific in the passage. I'll add something as soon as I get a chance. Bertaut (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)