User talk:Wrad/Archive 7

Heroic section and undue weight

Wrad!

Thanks, that's excellent advice. I have added the Heroic interpretation, (along with Mack's meta-interpretation) to the Hamlet criticism page (assuming that they aren't already there in some form or another). Just tell me if they need to be modified and I could happily do so. Or if you want to do it yourself, just go for it... I really don't know the protocol around here.

-mark.

PS: I entered the two interpretations at the bottom under 'other interpretations' but once i've saved the changes it seems to make them their own sections, outside of 'other interpretations'... I'm not sure how to fix this.

Taming of the Shrew

Hi Wrad,

Thanks for the offer of help and I will gladly take you up on it. I don't really have an attack plan per se, I've just been going through making things a little more readable. You're far more experienced on editing Shakespeare and Wiki articles than I am (nice work by the way!), so I'll gladly follow your lead.

On a tangent, I've noticed an awful lot of mentioning of an authorship debate. I'm pretty new to the world of Wikipedia, though not to Shakespeare, and I can't quite work out how such, erm, fringe theories get so much attention relative to their merits. The authorship article is even on the Wikipedia for schools. I don't really have a question, it's just been puzzling me.

Anyway, thanks for the interest. I am working on a little addition to the Shrew Sources section but how shall we first tackle the bits underneath.

Cheers!--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just merged all the subsections in the LANGUAGE section and done some chopping and changing. I think it reads a little better and is a little more flowing--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet FAC

Wahoo! Finally. :D Should I not vote, and just stalk the nomination? (Because I contributed a lot to the Themes section) -Malkinann (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• IMO you should co-nominate. It acknowledges your contribution. AndyJones (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• But, yes, I think it's wiser for substantial contributors like ourselves not to vote. AndyJones (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

While I've got your ear, Wrad... I've been humming and hahing for some time now as to whether I should formally join WP:BARD. My main interests are in the plays I studied at school - Midsummer Night's Dream, King Lear, R&J, Merchant of Venice. I've got a minor interest in the ones I've seen through the movies, but I don't consider myself to be a serious Shakespeare buff. I know that my prose often leaves something to be desired, but I prefer finding references anyway. Given that my interest in Shakespeare is so limited, do you think there is a place for me in WP:BARD? I'm worried I might feel out of my depth, so to speak. -Malkinann (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel that way too, sometimes, to be honest. I just enjoy working together on things and depending on others to fill in where I am lacking. I'd invite you to help out with character articles, one of my favorite areas. Wrad (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Phew! :) I'm glad I'm not the only one who sometimes feels out of their depth. I think I will join - there's no rule that says that you have to be an absolute buff to join a wikiproject, just that you should be interested. I made a start on Edmund (King Lear) earlier this year, as he seemed to feature in assignment topics. It's just a stub atm, but it shows his notability and has further readings. I intend to come back to it at a later date. -Malkinann (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Wrad, thanks for passing Gather Together in My Name to GA. One of my long-term WP goals is to have a Maya Angelou featured topic, but we're way far away from that. Since improving her articles seems to be a lone project of mine, I can see this taking a couple of years, at least. So you've helped me get closer to it! I appreciate this, as well as all the hard work you obviously do for the project. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Closure of WP:GEOBOT

Regrettably I have come to inform you, that this bot project will not go into operation and therefore the project will be closing down. Thanks everybody for their time and support but there is a clear reason why it failed. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

R&J

Excellent work on User:Karanacs (very useful, I thought) comments at FAC. You've left me nothing to do. Great. :-)

The only thing that bothers me is the need to re-open the question of including the cast list. Maybe we will be able to continue without that becoming too contentious. (I speak as someone who doesn't care about the issue either way, and who considers supporting, opposing, edit-warring or even engaging-in-lengthy-discussion by reference to the question to be unneccesary hair-splitting.) AndyJones (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bring it up, but now that Karanacs has, I think it is going to inevitably be an issue. Wrad (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Come on...

...give it a chance! You're reverting while he's working on it, and adding {{unreferencedsection}} borders on WP:POINT. Let Smatprt try it as a prose section (you could even help; this is a collaborative process, remember?) and then we can reassess when it's done. --Xover (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am giving it a chance, but the fact is, it's unreferenced and we're going for FA status. I don't think it borders on WP:POINT to support consensus for removing the list and to put a template on something that is obviously unreferenced. He can remove the tag when he adds references. At least I didn't revert the second time. The first time, I reverted because he added the list back, which no one wanted at all. Wrad (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

To so tag it while he's editing it is going a bit far, IMO. You're also setting a fairly strict standard for it; neither the original Character list, nor the current Synopsis, are scholarly debates with detailed citations, but you're still using that measure for the new prose version.

There's also the fact that removing the section outright is actually the radical approach; Karanacs merely expressed a personal preference against it (without reference to the FA criteria), Andy doesn't care either way, and I view leaving the section out as the compromise position (my preference, absent other concerns, would be to keep it). IOW, in order to not rock the boat needlessly at FAC, we should prefer a compromise as close to how it stood at the time of nomination as possible. "as possible" may still mean the section gets nuked in the end, but to nuke it and then set the bar as high as possible for a proposed compromise alternative is just inviting an oppose under criteria 1(e). --Xover (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

1) The standard as set by El Senor Presidente (suggested on FAC) demands citations. No synopsis, on the other hand, demands them, ever.

2)FIVE people say they hate the list and don't think it should be there, so I removed it. Even Smatprt has conceded that the list shouldn't be there. People may disagree about what should replace it, but ALL agree it shouldn't be there.

Nothing I have done is out of line in any way. Period. I don't see how you can think otherwise. Wrad (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't mean to imply you were out of line; only that you were—as it looked to me out here on the sidelines—pushing a bit hard and that that approach wasn't necessarily the best for achieving a constructive process towards a compromise, or, heaven forfend, even a consensus. I just wanted you to back off for a little bit so we could get a prose Characters section into a representative state so everyone could evaluate the alternatives fairly. My impression, and that may be entirely subjective I admit, is that now we've seen the alternative the debate is much more nuanced and constructive; which hopefully will mean we'll make a better decision, and lead to less entrenched opinions in the future even if the outcome is the same (i.e. even if we end up deleting the characters section). Anyways, my apologies if I came across as accusing you; that wasn't my intention and I'm sorry if it came across that way. --Xover (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No big deal. Wrad (talk) 15:39, 5

November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Wrad - sorry to interrupt this conversation, but I wanted to a) thank you for your continued hard work on all things Shakespeare, b) apologize for my intensity in our recent exchanges (I blame Obamafever), and c) make one small correction to one of your comments: I would never concede that the character list does not belong, as you wrote to Xover. I did agree to a compromise that turned the list into prose (at least I thought that was the compromise). But deep down, in my heart of hearts, I think the list as it was when the nomination was made was by far the best approach. Andy's recent comments sum up the reasons best. Anyhow, as the conversation continues, I'll try not to be so overbearing. Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

R&J Images

I share your frustration about the images issue, but let's take it as good news. If the FAC crowd are griping about images it means they are happy about fundamentals like the content and the quality of the prose! If I get time (although I have a VERY BUSY couple of days coming up) I will restore a few of the pictures that got relagated to the gallery, place them where it seems sensible to me, and ask the FAC crowd to take another look. If I don't find time for that, maybe you could do something along the same lines? AndyJones (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Good choice. Like that better. AndyJones (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice

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

§hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Shakespeare notice

There is currently a discussion going on regarding the project's policy on how information on characters should be represented in articles on Shakespeare's plays. Please take part by clicking Talk:Romeo and Juliet#Character Analysis. Further context, if needed, can be found by scanning the two previous talk sections on the page as well. Sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 04:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC) per request of Wrad (talk)

Awww.

Sorry about that. AndyJones (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha. Wrad (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Fleance is being reviewed

Hi Wrad, Fleance is being reviewed for its GA nom now, there are some issues that need your TLC. --Malkinann (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

1340s

I would indeed like to help, and have bookmarked it. As you may have seen, my RL work-stress is on 9.5 out of 10. By Friday, it should be downs to something more manageable and I'll take a proper look. Tell me, to what extent does it borrow from 1345? Tony (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

User:AndyJones away from Wikipedia

I think you're the only editor I particularly need to tell this: I've been between jobs for the last couple of weeks, hence the amount of time I've been able to devote to the Romeo and Juliet FA. However I'm starting a new job tomorrow. I've no idea whether I will be on Wikipedia for some time each day, but the job is away from home so I certainly won't have access to my home computer, certainly won't have very much spare time for Wikipedia, and certainly won't be spending as much time at the University library as I have been recently. I haven't put up a WIKIBREAK notice: but I can't be counted on to do anything for a while. (I'm afraid I'll have to abandon my suggested GA drive at Romeo and Juliet on screen, also!) AndyJones (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Wrad (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The way I predicted this above is pretty-much how it's working out. It looks like I may be on Wikipedia occasionally at weekends but not on weekdays for as long as this project lasts: it's currently slated to finish February '09. Great work on the Romeo and Juliet FA, by the way. It became a pretty painful experience by the end (for you more than most of us, I imagine) and with all the battles I'm not at all sure whether and how to hand out any barnstars. I was most grateful to Roger and to Awadewit for sticking with us, through it all. As far as the Shakespeare project is concerned, are there any thoughts on where to turn next? I appreciate there is a GA drive at The Tempest, but I've already performed the AndyJones magic on the Afterlife section of that article, which as you know is my particular area of interest, so I don't have much more to offer to it. Besides, I don't much relish being part of the inevitable three-ring-circus about the Oxfordian issue. My thought was to move on to King Lear, starting with its screen article then working-up its afterlife section. But if you think the project is going to move on to Macbeth I could do the same there, instead. Either way, I'll be plodding at a slower pace than I have been, of late. AndyJones (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A Newsletter?

Hey.

What do you think about something like this? Work in progress, obviously, and I'm hoping someone will step up and replace the lorem ipsum. :-) --Xover (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, and good wishes

Hi Wrad,

I appreciate how angry and disappointed people were over that. I just wanted to leave you a personal note of thanks for your work on red and green. The judges gave you kudos for your organizational powers and for your addition of so much referenced content. You can definitely be proud of such excellent work, Proteins (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm more angry at the fact that so many Wikipedians are against any form of payment for wiki-editing than at your effort to fix things. I think it could help wikipedia. Either the writing is good, or it isn't. Money doesn't have anything to do with it and shouldn't be considered when judging any article. Wrad (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Someday in the future, Wikipedians might want to (cautiously) re-open a discussion about that. I'm far too much of a newbie to have any clear ideas about that myself. I see that money has dangers, but also advantages, as I tried to explain on my user page. For the moment, I'm just focusing on bringing that to a satisfactory conclusion, which is difficult enough for me! :) FWIW, money wasn't considered at all in judging those articles. Proteins (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

For the GA on Fleance! Great work! ItsLassieTime (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Lassie. Wrad (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Tempest theatre criticism

Hi Wrad. If there's something specific you'd like me to look at, and then turn into wiki material, I'd be glad to, but I only have access to a proper academic library when I'm teaching at the uni, and that's just finished for a little while--and besides which, their stock isn't so great either, for some reason i've yet to get a good answer for; i can still get in there but not take things out... i've not involved myself in your great shakespeare work lately, mainly because i've noticed how many people per day are reading some of the really terrible drama articles and felt i ought to prioritise there and let you guys plough on with shakes. is it feasible / desirable for you to PDF any of it and email? Unless it's very mainstream, I might have a problem getting hold of it. let me know. and happy editing. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Acid dissociation constant - re-written lead

I have now re-written the lead for acid dissociation constant. The essential content of the lead is the same as before. The effect of this change will be that when chemists will read the explanatory material they will say to themselves, yes, I know that, but non-chemists will hopefully get the gist of what the article is about

I invite you to read it and then record your “vote”, e.g. “now support” or “still oppose”, at wp:Featured_article_candidates/Acid_dissociation_constant. I have assembled a list of names under Re-written lead, so that the responses will be collected together in one place.

Some minor disagreements will inevitably remain. These should not be a reason for opposition. Rather, put constructive ideas on the article’s talk page, so that the article can be further improved by the normal editing process. Petergans (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Itub (talk) has proposed an alternative, shorter version of the lead at User:Itub/ADC lead. Petergans (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Template fixed?

If the template is fixed, i would be happy to revert the starts back to C. I see you have already done it once. Mrathel (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Do you know how to fix the template to add Category on the poetry project page, so all unassessed will be articles that are actually unassessed? If not, I appologize for the bother:) Mrathel (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Byuhlogo.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Byuhlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Anyways, the version you uploaded has been superseded by Image:BYU-H Medallion Logo.svg. —Super Rad! (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:2007big12.GIF)

Thanks for uploading Image:2007big12.GIF. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur

Could use your level head over at the King Arthur article, if you have the time... Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look

I recently created an article, Randy L. Bott, for which some notability concerns have been raised. Whether I'm right or wrong, I'd appreciate it if you took a look. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Aggression from Xover

I'm a new editor here. I've just been the subject of aggressive behaviour from User:Xover on the Baconian theory Talk page [[1]]. His tone is aggressive and one threat is to "drown me in sources". Could you please remind this user how to conduct him/herself on these pages? Thank you. Isnotwen (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Baconian theory Talk

I don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you'd care to explain what's going on because I find that this place is kinda crazy. Isnotwen (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Have a happy holidays and keep up the great work next year. The pedia would be sorely lacking if it didn't have people like you. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a sentiment I'll happily echo: Happy holidays Wrad, and the very best of wishes to you and yours in the new year. --Xover (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Note

Got your email, and replied (in case you've not got a valid address registered on your Wikipedia account). --Xover (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Barry's second SSP case...

Hi Wrad,

I've created a new SSP case for Barryispuzzled here, and notified the relevant accounts on their talk page, as requested. I'm a little bit short on time so I fear the evidence section may be a bit cursory, but I did link to the evidence you presented in the Checkuser request; and further notes can be made down in the Comments section of the SSP case if I missed anything significant. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Fenrir/GA1

Hello Wrad. On December 6 you began reviewing Fenrir. However, I have not heard from you since. Please let me know what is going on with the review, so that we can either continue or I can change its status. Thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Barry Situation

With reference to the the sockpuppet case (for Christ's sake lighten up!) I don't think you were around the Shakespeare authorship, Baconian theory, Oxfordian theory articles enough to see both sides of the argument. Do you want to hear the other side or are you only interested in casting me as the bad guy in your life? Smatprt's main reason for being here is to add Oxfordian Shakespeare authorship material to articles. For example, The Tempest [2], Titus Andronicus [3], William Shakespeare [4][5]. This has caused much disturbance which has led to several complaints [[6]] - particularly note the comments of the established Shakespeare editors Old_Moonraker, Paul B, and Bishonen. He completely took over the Shakespeare authorship article and tried to bend it to his views. I wrote the Baconian theory article (it went to GA status) but never tried to put these ideas in other articles. But Smatprt tries to put his Oxfordian ideas in the Baconian theory article [7]. Smatprt couldn't believe his luck when you came along. You put your weight behind him without bothering to discover the history of the dispute. Others have remarked how difficult it is to hold back his war of attrition "you delete information that you know to be true if it is mainstream/Stratfordian" (Paul B), he has an "attitude of a seeming complete disregard for other editors' views and lack of concern for progress and improvement to articles" (Old_Moonraker), "he edit wars to make the classic crank Shakespeare-wasn't-Shakespeare theory as large and as undue-weighty a part of the article as possible" (Ghirla-трёп), see [8]. By supporting Smatprt's attempts to get rid of me (the only one who tried to resist him) no doubt you believe you're doing Wikipedia a massive favour but you are seriously misguided. --- (Barry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryFried (talk • contribs) 18:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So I DID read your message! One other point - I'm from the UK and we don't take ourselves anywhere near as seriously as you Yanks do! I really don't get why a sockpuppet is such a big deal, if anything, it's theatre. Smatprt was ecstatic when I was banned the first time round but neither he nor anyone else found me out - I suddenly had the theatrical urge to unveil! Hardly the mind of a criminal! I've no malice towards anyone but it's time Smatprt was kicked out of this place. How's he's survived this long I just don't know. Take care my friend. TerryFried (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (aka Barry)

Vengeance against who? I have no issue with you. TerryFried (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (aka Barry)

Barry. Again.

Hi Wrad,

I'd written up a lengthy reply to Barry's message on my talk page (essentially the same he left on yours), but I was hesitant to post because he's, frankly, pretty much used up my assumptions of good faith where he's concerned. In retrospect I'm glad because as it turns out he went straight back to his old games, reverting to his preferred version of the Bacon citations, attacking Smatprt (which, I hope you realise, would be an easy ploy to try to sway you and me to support him), and posting to Barry's second SSP report under false flag. In other words, generally just trying to cause as much disruption as possible. In the second round of this I was trying very hard to believe that Isnotwen wasn't a sock of Barry's, and that they were just of similar mind and methods, but after the second SSP, the Checkuser, and this latest round my facility for good faith is pretty much exhausted; he seems to think extending that courtesy and letting ourselves be bound by Wikipedia's policies is a weakness, or a sign of stupidity, and so I'm just not going to bother any more. If he pops up again I'm going to ignore his antics and just file a sock report. I just don't think it would be constructive to encourage him to keep this up by responding to him, at least not unless he shows some significant change of tune to counter his so far demonstrable bad faith. --Xover (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Botwork

I most definitely can! Do you have a main category I can work off of? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't sort through all of the articles, the program (and generally my computer) crashes when I go to filter the articles down. §hep • ^Talk 02:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Anaconda

Anaconda is no longer being actively edited by students involved in the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008. This student has opted out of the program for second semester. Hopefully, they did no damage during their brief experience with Wikipedia - the article were stubs and in poor condition on their arrival; however, I will look it over. My apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused. I had some initial doubts about the level of commitment among my students; however, the second semester should consist of a more focused group much reduced in numbers. Academic natural selection of sorts. Again - thank you for your support in this project -hopefully it will not discourage your enthusiasm should future projects of this nature. --JimmyButler (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

new WP:RDREG userbox

This user is a Reference desk regular.

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaminglawyer^c 07:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Years

In 2009, WikiProject Years developed a essay for the inclusion of events "recent year" articles.

Important policy discussions took place in January 2009 at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years.

Deilvered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC) on request of Wrad

Misinformation about MOSNUM discussion on year articles

Please see User_talk:Stepshep#MIsinformation_about_MOSNUM_discussion_on_year_articles. Tony (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See my opening sentence in that section. It's a point that has already been corrected at MOSNUM talk.

Tt is not the year-articles themselves that are regarded as trivial (although they have big problems), but the links to them from articles in general.

You're framing some kind of general attack on year articles. Is this a proper way to garner support?

Further, I wonder whether you are inclined to engage with my recent call to merge year-articles from many centuries ago into decade-articles. See the WikiProject Years talk page (I am a member of the WikiProject). Tony (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to frame it fairly, but I may have messed up. Wish you had shown up sooner. See your talk page. Wrad (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A rewording would be most welcome. On a slightly different note, some people might find it ironic that I've led the march towards more selective linking, especially of chronological items in articles in general, while taking an interest in improving chronological articles. I do not find it ironic at all. Tony (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Me neither. I think overlinking encourage useless trivia and ultimately harms the article. Wrad (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Dabomb87/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs—I would like your opinion, especially on the draft of proposed guidelines on linking chronological items. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Renomination of Hamnet Shakespeare

Please note, while you can feel free to renominate (if you're unsatisfied with the initial results, by all means, renominate), you can't just erase other users' comments and reviews and pretend nothing ever happened. Please review Wikipedia's policies on talk pages, Good Article Nominations and civility. Please refrain from erasing other users' comments on talk pages and review pages. Thank you. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not do any of the things you are accusing me of. Please just let me do what I have every right to do. Wrad (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not trying to interfere with your request for a second opinion. You always have the right to a second opinion. It is usually considered good form to address most of the issues raised by the first reviewer before requesting a second opinion, but you always do have that right. Again, the only complaint I have is with blanking the first reviewer's comments, right or wrong. But, if the comments still stand on the article's talk page, then good enough. I'll leave it alone. I'm sorry if I came off as uncivil in any way. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrad, sorry about the awkward GA experience (not sure what the comment above was all about either - everything still looks intact). Don't be too frustrated; the reviewer seems a bit new and inexperienced. He/she was just as frustrated as you but I gave them some advice to ease some of their growing pains. Don't be discouraged, nonetheless. Best of luck on its re-nom. --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to withdraw and renominate and Wilhelm keeps reverting me, claiming that I'm violating policy, that's what's going on! I helped write that policy, for goodness sakes! I know what I'm doing! Wrad (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Some comments were removed. I think you insulted me on the nominations page and then removed it when I alluded to it. ShaShaJackson (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In these cases it is usually a good idea to provide links to the relevant diffs/edits so everyone understands what, in specific, you're refering to. The editing was a bit frenetic for a while there, so if Wrad changed one of his comments after you had responded I'm certain it was not with an intent to obfuscate anything (it's quite common for editors on Wikipedia to refactor or copyedit their own Talk comments). Providing the diffs would be useful information for him to better tag changed bits to avoid confusion in the future. --Xover (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I frequently change my comments in order to tone them down if I think they're too heated. I do it to be polite. I'd suggest to anyone else to do the same. Wrad (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamnet Shakespeare nominated for deletion

In light of the consternation over this article at WT:GAC, I've nominated it for deletion; you'll no doubt wish to comment there. I'm personally inclined to support the article's retention, but when I see serious discussion over whether an article should exist, my inclination is to move that discussion to the proper forum. Don't shoot the messenger/procedural nommer, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

GAN

Wrad, I'm going to sleep now, but I am concerned and saddened by your emotional state regarding GAN. When several editors you respect do not notice an injustice you perceive,the question is why? I still do not know what are the other crap reviews by the same reviewer, and I expect very few at GAN do. I've not yet been through the GAN history or the reviewer's contribs to find them as I am incredibly busy right now. How can we know about bad reviews without links? How is it shameful that they weren't all commented on at WT:GAN if no one knew about them? You apparently believed there were links and everyone should know about them. No one does. You ask what we are smoking? Nothing, on my part, and I would hope the same is true for several other editors you respect. I see absolutely no sign that you or this article is being persecuted. Please, as I go to sleep, I urge you to get some rest too. With very best wishes, Geometry guy 01:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wrad, I think that although there was a lot of drama (hoho) about Hamnet and the AFD, it was quickly realised that (a) the GA review was very poor and (b) any argument for deletion was plain silly. The only problem withstanding is that some editors believe that the article should have a different name (e.g. influences of...)—it's a shame that an editor decided to express these thoughts through an AFD rather than thinking it through and discussing a move. Needless to say, a proper review would have been much better, but I believe that the article is worthy of GA as it is now. Perhaps now you could try a peer review to get the critical input you desired? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I throw in my 2p worth as well. I appreciate your frustration, especially when it appears to you that you've done all the right things to get attention for a substandard review and, from your perspective, unfairly ended up in the stocks yourself. I don't believe that really is the case, but I can understand why it may look that way to you. It might help to clarify for you why events followed the sequence they did.

Reason for AfD: The poor review for Hamnet was rightly highlighted by both you and Peregrine Fisher; but before this could be tackled questions were raised about the scope of the article - the argument was essentially that title implies that it's a biography, but much of the content relates not to Hamnet himself but to his possible influence on his father. This again is understandable; how much can one write about a boy who lived over 400 years ago and died when he was eleven? Frankly I'm impressed that you found as much as you did. However the balance of the article is, perhaps unavoidably, skewed by the additional content, leaving the impression that Hamnet's only real 'claim to fame' is not who he was and what he did, but the effect of his death on his father. As such, we asked "does the article meet WP:BIO?" As a more fundamental issue than the GA review, the article's right to exist in it's current form needed to be tested first - hence the AfD. In retrospect this turned out to be a poor decision, partly I think because the issues were too nuanced for that forum and have been misunderstood, and partly because the (incorrect IMO) SNOW closure killed the debate prematurely. I should add that there was no chance the article content was ever going to be deleted, and quite rightly - it's all good, verifiable, sourced stuff - but we were hoping to clarify if content + title = notable, stand-alone article. Much unfortunate confusion resulted on all sides.

Reason for GAR: Even with the AfD something of a cock-up, we've still any outstanding GA assessment issues to address. This seemed to be something you were open to, so I suggested GAR as a place where we can get more eyes on the article and give it the detailed treatment it should have had from it's original review. I was in no way suggesting you nominate it yourself, but under the circumstances wanted to get your approval for the nomination. GAR's aim, first and foremost, is to improve the articles that arrive there so we don't need to delist them, but without your willing input on Hamnet that would be a fairly pointless exercise.

Rather more than 2p worth, but I hope I've been able to explain why we took the steps we did, and hope you can appreciate that it's only ever been about doing the best we can for the article. You're right that there are other reviews that need revisiting, but as G'guy says until we're told about them or someone happens to notice them, we can't do much about it. It's a weakness of the single-reviewer system that we are well aware of, but is thankfully becoming less common as we tighten up procedures and look at ways we can improve review consistency and quality (not that it's much comfort to you at the moment!) All the best, EyeSerene^talk 12:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(apologies it this comment is a bit awkward; posting from iPhone is... not optimal)

Who said Hamnet Shakespeare is a biography? Were you under the impression that, say, William Shakespeare is a biography? Xover (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. The article never claimed to be a biography. It only claimed to be about Hamnet. Wrad (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In what way is William Shakespeare not a biographical article, Xover? It covers his life from birth to death, with analysis and commentary, in as much detail as can be sourced within the limits of the article's focus. I'm slightly confused why you'd contest that, or are we just quibbling over semantics (a biography is different from a WP:BIO article)?

In my experience it's standard practice on Wikipedia to regard articles titled after a specific person as bio articles. At GA, the article title affects its assessment under criterion 3 (broadness of coverage), and specifically 3b (focus). If you look further up WT:GAN, you'll notice we've been discussing this very subject with regards to sportspeople, whose articles often concentrate in minute detail on their sporting career but omit even a minimal level of the sort of biographical information we'd expect to see in an article with their name at the top of it. The clear consensus is that such articles fail GA, as they are not sufficiently broad in relation to their stated intent as defined by their title. For example, if an article is entitled "Joe Bloggs (footballer)", I'd expect to see information about his birth, education, family, marriage, children, charity work, etc as well as what clubs he's played for and how many goals he's scored. If it's entitled "Joe Bloggs's football career", the focus of the article changes and I wouldn't expect (or want) the same level of biographical information. Hamnet Shakespeare is, by its title, defining itself as a bio article - if that wasn't the intent, then perhaps the title should be changed? EyeSerene^talk 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If by "same level as other bios" you mean that it contains everything that the available sources have to say, I don't see the problem. William Shakespeare doesn't meet the descriptions at WP:BIO. Most of it is about his writing, not his life. That's just the nature of the beast. That's what most people talk about when they talk about Shakespeare. Similarly, when people talk about Hamnet, they talk mostly about his influence on his father's writing. The article reflects what the sources say. You can't apply one rigid WP:BIO standard to the lives of all of the millions of people in the world. Everyone is different. WP:BIO is just a guideline, meaning that it recognizes this and respects that there will be unforeseen exceptions. Please, then, stop applying a double standard to this article. The title is Hamnet Shakespeare because that is the subject of the article. There is no better title. The article is part of a series of articles on Shakespeare's family, so changing the title would also disturb the incredibly logical pattern of having each article in the set have the same name as the person it is talking about (what an idea!) If you think the article is violating 3b, let me ask you this: would you fail RMS Lusitania on 3b for getting on a tangent about the influence it had after it "died"? Would you demand the article be renamed Speculation on the influence of the Lusitania? If not, why then do you demand that Hamnet be failed because it talks about his influence after his death? How is that off the subject? Wrad (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another flaw in your argument is the connection to sports articles. Yes, people are agreed that if an article talk only about a person's career, and not about the rest of his life, then it fails (actually, your claim of consensus on this is very debatable, but I give it to you just for kicks). However, this article leaves no stone unturned biographically. It talks about Hamnet's entire life. It omits no portion of it. It has information about his birth, education, parentage, godparent, dwelling-place, etc. Wrad (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The more I read that discussion, the more clear it is to me that a double-standard is being applied. Look at this quote from Geo guy: "Why do we have to describe people only in biography format? Why can't we have GAs that discuss the contribution of person X to Y?" and Philcha says "Chess promotion apart, Geometry guy is right - "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" makes influences on and influences of the subject more important than private lives, unless these became causes celebres (to put it politely) or influenced the career that made the subject notable." I particularly like one of your own quotes: "That's broadly true, of course, but we're in a bit of a grey area. I think part of the problem is that while many things are of note, they aren't documented in the highest-quality sources because they aren't of note to those sources. We wouldn't, for example, expect to find personal information about a footballer in a peer-reviewed academic journal or even necessarily a quality broadsheet - the audience for that information, by and large, is the readership of the tabloid newspaper, so that's where we'd look. I completely agree that such sources must be handled carefully, but that doesn't mean they have no value at all." So... why are you attacking an article that actually does have academic sources? Why don't you go back to attacking tabloids, where you're really needed? Wrad (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(unind)Oooooo. Here's another good one from Peanut4: "You have to take each article on its own merits; however, the good article criteria particular 3a says "Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" Where the note states: "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics." To me, that does not say a biography of someone who is very rarely in the public eye outside of his/her main field, needs to go into much detail at all. Some detail is certainly preferable and not to be discouraged, but I wouldn't be demanding much more than that." Am I reading the same discussion you are? Where is the "clear consensus ... that such articles fail GA" that you mentioned? I'm not finding it. I'm finding the opposite. Wrad (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent and bullet point for clarity) William Shakespeare is an article with biographical material, but it is deliberately and specifically, by consensus, not a biographical article. Shakespeare's life is the biographical article on William Shakespeare (ignore the fact that that article isn't very good yet, WP:BARD plans to remedy that when time allows). Additions of biographical material to William Shakespeare are usually reverted and moved to Shakespeare's life instead. Much like further detail on the plays are moved to Shakespeare's plays, &c.. If the GA process—and the folks who hang out there—has evolved some kind of rule that says an article located at First Last must ipso facto always be a biographical article (and more specifically, must always be a biography and nothing else!) then the GA process has taken a wrong turn somewhere. Both William Shakespeare and Hamnet Shakespeare are instances of a main article; the only difference is that there is not enough material on Hamnet to warrant actual sub-articles. In any case, if all the people arguing enthusiastically for merger or rename have somehow made the assumption that First Last equals Biography then I begin to understand why they're taking the (previously incomprehensible to me) positions they have been. Don't get me wrong, it's a fair rule of thumb for the daily grind of working through the GAN backlog, but it cannot ever be a hard rule (and, for that matter, WP:IAR).
  Also, your example of the sports articles is apt, but does not lead to the conclusion you draw: the biographical information that was missing is important because the life of the person in question is one important aspect and as such should be covered; along with the material related to their sporting career (which is what makes them notable). If one were to apply the arguments made regarding Hamnet Shakespeare to these articles, once the biographical material was added one could as well say they should be renamed to Biography of John Doe (cricketer).
  To me this seems like an uncommonly apt example of lacking common sense and an overabundance of bureaucratic enthusiasm (bikeshedding and wikilawyering, to apply the WP:SPADE). Where else would one expect to find information about Hamnet Shakespeare than at Hamnet Shakespeare? What possible gain could be had from renaming it when all that would be left behind is a redirect (as opposed to, say, two articles on different aspects of the same subject, or a dab page, or... pretty much anything at all except a redirect)? While I'm sure there's some truth to the assumption that both I and Wrad have some kind of emotional investiture in this article (as Wikipedia editors often do, and that is a sign of health; pride in your work) and would probably benefit from taking a step back and considering the question in a more clinical light (not more objectively, just more clinically); I rather think it's the rest of you who are in dire need of taking a big step back from the abyss of Wikipedia process (not just GAN) and consider where would a random Wikipedia visitor expect to find the article about Hamnet Shakespeare! --Xover (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly. I would have thought you would have all woken up when your attempt at AfD failed so miserably. Most Wikipedians apparently do not think like you folks do. Get your heads out of the clouds. Wrad (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrad you make very good points, but they would come across better without the "us-and-them" approach of "double standard" and "your attempt at AfD". Our aim is to improve the encyclopedia, not win or lose battles and arguments. The AfD was literally a procedural nomination (by SarcasticIdealist, who !voted "keep"): there was no concerted attempt to delete the article. My own contributions were aimed at clarifying the issue and exploring the boundaries: indeed, one could say I blew some of the arguments for merger or rename out of the water.

I think the arguments over whether the article on X is a biography are primarily definition disagreements, which are meaningless: you just have to find the right correspondence between editors' definitions. In my view any article whose title is a person's name is in some sense automatically a biography: it should cover the life, work and influence of the person, as described by, and in balance with, reliable secondary sources. This is why I argue that in articles on sports people whose private life is unreported and not notable, it is reasonable to focus on their professional life, with little mention of their private life. In the case of William Shakespeare noted above, his work and influence is obviously far more important than other aspects of his life, and it is reasonable that most of the coverage concerns that. Shakespeare's life is not a biography, in my view: it wouldn't even make a reasonable obituary, because of the inadequate coverage of his work. But others use the term "biography" to mean "life-story".

In terms of my quote above, a longer version is "I don't have a problem with [editor irrelevant]'s nominations of articles which refer to a person's contribution to a particular event. What is unencylopedic about that? Why do we have to describe people only in biography format? Why can't we have GAs that discuss the contribution of person X to Y?" in a thread where I previously noted "I would encourage the option of page moves (renaming the article) rather than failing as a biography." In other words, I'm not arguing that biographies should be unbiographical, but that renaming is always an option and other types of articles on individuals can be GAs too.

In a case where the only notable aspect of an individual is their possible influence on another, one has to ask whether biography (in my sense) is the best format. An article with title "Hamnet Shakespeare" and lead sentence "Hamnet Shakespeare (baptised 2 February 1585 – buried 11 August 1596) was the only son of William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway, and the fraternal twin of Judith Shakespeare." is a biography. The biographical structure does not even draw the reader's attention to the main point in the first sentence. Good arguments have been made for keeping it as a biography, but I think it would be so much easier to write a cast-iron GA, using the material available, with a different slant and, probably, a different title. Geometry guy 20:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm at a loss. Please explain exactly how this article should be split/renamed/mangled and why that would be better. All I'm seeing is the creation of some nonsense side article fork about speculation with a redirect in the actual Hamnet space, which makes no sense, since anyone looking for info on Hamnet Shakespeare is most likely to type in "Hamnet Shakespeare". Again, get your had out of the sand, please. This is a double standard, if we're going to follow WP:SPADE. I'm merely calling a spade a spade. Wrad (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(Sigh) I'm not saying it should be. My head is not in the sand. I'm saying that it needs serious thought. Your argument is only an argument for a redirect from "Hamnet Shakespeare". Please read what I wrote more slowly. Geometry guy 21:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You're just vaguely referring to renaming the article and changing its slant. I don't see any concrete, specific idea of how that would happen or work. One reason renaming will not work is because this is part of a series of articles on people in the Shakespeare family. All of them have the names as titles. It seems utterly crazy to me to change all that because of some idealized view about biographies that doesn't apply in the real world. Wrad (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comments more slowly and answer with thought. (Not in 7 minutes.) I have no idealized view about biographies. You seem to have an idealized view about how articles about the Shakespeare family should be written, but I am not going to criticise or challenge you for it, because you haven't yet fully articulated your vision and I haven't yet digested it. Geometry guy 21:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrad, if you believe that anything I have said here, at WT:GAN, or on my talk page was mocking your emotional state, I sincerely apologise, without reservation. That was never my intention, but if I failed to convey my intentions that is, in my book, grounds for apology too. Geometry guy 23:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to leave this here. My intention was to try to explain how the GA process could perhaps be used to improve or amend the article so that it meets all the criteria (specifically criterion 3), and it's something I was prepared to bend over backwards to help with. I've tried to articulate as clearly as I know how the issues that are being perceived with the article in its current form. However, I'm getting a little fed up with being consistently mischaracterised and misunderstood, I'm genuinely upset with some of the ill-considered descriptors above, and I feel my time can be better spent elsewhere. I wish you well with developing your article. EyeSerene^talk 23:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that I offended you. I don't think you'll see me at GA anymore. Wrad (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please archive etc as you see fit

Apologies for replying to a thread you've archived, but I just wanted to assure you that I'm sorry things turned out the way they did, I respect you greatly as an editor and fellow Wikipedian, and there are absolutely no hard feelings on my part. Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 10:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)