User talk:ImaginesTigers

Archives (Index)

2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/March 2022/April 2022/July

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Odyssey and the arts

Hey!—Hope all is well with you. I don't know if you recall, but we had talked about fixing up the citation formatting on the Odyssey page; I went ahead and did so, though there is a little clean up left that I will get to soon. If you have any spare time, the citations for Reece and Mayor need page numbers.

I see you've been less actively lately, but I have a proposition for you! I was thinking about taking a formal stab The arts article; I've already added a bit to it in the past, and wondered if you might want to work on the literary arts section? It's a VIT1 article, and I would do the performing arts section, and then ask another editor (perhaps Johnbod) to do the visual arts section. I have quite a few pending projects at the moment, and given your inactivity, I was thinking (if you're interested) we might start this in a few months? Thought I'd throw it out there. Best – Aza24 (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I will take the silence as a note that you are otherwise occupied. Best – Aza24 (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Aza24: Hi, Aza. Apologies - didn't see this at the time. I unfortunately don't have the time I used to, but it isn't just about time. Wikipedia used to be a seasonal itch for me: on holiday from university, I'd miss engaging intellectually and used editing as a way to get that. Work, unfortunately, scratches the same itch, and I've now graduated and work full time, so the "Wikipedia energy" is just taken up elsewhere. I hope one day, when I've progressed in my career, I'll get back to editing, but for now I am essentially retired. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, totally understandable. Your earlier contributions are already a formidable legacy, though I do hope you'll find to time in the future to return. Take care. – Aza24 (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Aza24: Goodbye for now, not forever :) — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Aza24: Hi Aza! Hope you're good. I've started working on this in my sandbox. I'm used to writing about works of literature rather than something more high level, but I'll give it my best shot. There's a chance I don't get to dedicate myself properly to it till my FAC is complete. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hello! Just thought about you when going through Nithyananda again lol. Glad to see you're still around! Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 09:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI: Thank you so much! I've come back. There's work to be done! Great to hear from you. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Dracula

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Dracula, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Undefined sfn reference in Dracula

Hi, in this edit to Dracula you use {{Sfn|Miller|2000|p=220}}. Unfortunately there is no such work, Miller 2000, listed as a source. This means that readers cannot look the reference up, and the article is added to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could rectify this problem it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, DuncanHill. Fixed. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Dracula

Hello there

Hope you don't mind my dropping in on your Talk page. I found your recent changes to the Sexuality and Gothic genre sections somewhat disjointed and sometimes they read like draft notes. Thousands of readers in other time zones might get the wrong impression of an otherwise excellent article if you publish new information in an incomplete state. Wouldn't it be better if you worked on a version in your Sandbox and then published it when you are happy with it? I hope you aren't getting stressed and losing sleep over your understandable desire to get this article to Featured Article status. I assume there's no rush to do this? I also think you might also be worrying too much about pushback regarding the sexuality theme. I thought the previous version was better in some respects because it was more concise. Dracula does have an obvious sexual and homoerotic subtext and I think we should state this clearly and concisely up front. For what it's worth I have the article on my watchlist now and I can help ensure that any drop-in edits or comments on the Talk page conform to policy and the consensus of reliable sources. Please let me know if you would rather that I raised issues such as this on the article Talk page, sticking to content, sources and policy. All the best. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Aemilius Adolphin. I'm assuming good faith but I think there is an overstatement of harm here. Improvement since I started work on the article has been dramatic; even if Sexuality does "read like draft notes" (I think I disagree?), it constitutes a *tiny* deterioration in the scheme of things. Regarding the Gothic section, I do not disagree because you are right: I made those changes to provide easy access to the sources I would work with today. Again, it's 2 weak sentences: no readers are being harmed by 2 weak sentences (that are still verifiable facts about the subject).

Being honest: if I happened upon an editor clearly making efforts with a particular article, my instinct would be to let them work and then provide a review at FAC or PR; I wouldn't rework their drafts in my sandbox and post feedback every day. It can be frustrating to discover something verifiable has been deleted because it isn't true and only increases my work the next day (including revisiting old sources and topics).

I am grateful to you for many of the misconceptions you've highlighted because I do not understand everything on the topic (RIP Elizabeth M); my area is literary theory... But the way I am currently receiving feedback is leading to my current editing practices — trying to do as much as possible each day is not normal for me. For example, if you were to wait – say – a week before reviewing, you could find a version of the article I am happy with and provide direct feedback, rather than providing feedback on content that is changing every day.

Your concerns can be brought up at FAC. Within the FA context, though, other reviewers will be able to directly reply to you, or you will be able to reply to them. As is, I am reading others' feedback, implementing it, reading your feedback, editing; it is not really the kind of consensus building I associate with producing featured content. I hope you do not take my tone poorly; ultimately, I see we both want the article to be its best version. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my comment. I never said you were causing harm to anyone, I was just trying to point out (obviously in a clumsy way) that your most recent edits to the Sexuality and Genre sections weren't up to your usual high standard. (You did actually ping me and asked me to provide feedback on your edits to sexuality.) I think I have made it clear in my previous comments that I think your have done an excellent job in this article. I only started editing this article because I am interested in the topic and thought that there were a few things which could be improved and that it lacked a section on Religion, Science and Superstition and one on the relationship with Irving. I will ease off on the feedback as you request and confine myself to minor corrections as I see them. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin: My apologies for misunderstanding. I acknowledge that I can be a bit sensitive so the problem may not just be your phrasing, which I see in hindsight was complimentary. I am grateful for your interest and caretaking/stewardship of the article and its Talk page.

If there is any information missing from the "Sexuality and gender" topic, or if it is not given appropriate weighting, I am open to that feedback. I received some comments that the new version is improved and clearer than the old, so it was distressing in the moment to get feedback that it was actually worse.

Hopefully, it won't be too much longer. I think the article would really benefit from having you review it in detail (if you can) at FAC. For the avoidance of doubt: no ill will whatsoever – grateful for your support (but yes, definitely very tired). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 14:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

No problem, no offence taken. In hindsight it probably would have been better if I had simply developed a list of things for you to consider and then you could have aksed me for clarification and sources if necessary. Keep up the good work! Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin: That would have been great for me. If I get a little bit of direction, it gives me a lot of momentum – that's what happened with the Politics section! I've nominated the article now – hope you find some time to review. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. I am preparing review comments but thought I would run this one past you first because I don't want to open a public debate on the VladIII/Dracula issue without consulting you.

====== Lead ======

The current lead states: "Some scholars have suggested that the character of Dracula was inspired by historical figures including the Wallachian prince Vlad the Impaler and the Countess Elizabeth Báthory, but recent scholarship suggests otherwise and Stoker's notes mention neither. He probably found the name Dracula in Whitby's public library while on holiday, and selected it because he thought it meant "devil" in Romanian." I suggest this be changed to: "Some scholars have suggested that the character of Dracula was inspired by historical figures including the Wallachian prince Vlad the Impaler and the Countess Elizabeth Báthory, but recent scholarship suggests otherwise. Stoker's notes do not mention Báthory, and he probably found the name Dracula in Whitby's public library while on holiday, and selected it because he thought it meant "devil" in Romanian."

While Stoker's notes don't mention Vlad the Impaler by that name, Dracula was the commonly used name for Vlad III in England at that time and Stoker does have a page of notes on the historical Dracula. Miller's point is that Vlad III didn't inspire the character (he already had a vampire called Count Wampir) and that Stoker knew little about him except that he was a Wallachian Voivode of the 15th Century who fought the Ottomans but was defeated and driven to Hungary. (And had a great nickname.) The source for this is Miller's Bram Stoker's Dracula: A Documentary Volume (2005) p. 207 which reproduces the page of Stoker's typed notes on the historical Dracula. I think the text of the article is fine, but the lead makes a claim about the notes which isn't in the article.

Let me know what you think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry about providing this kind of feedback directly at FAC. That's what it's there for – making sure the article confirms to policy. It won't start any debates, I think. I've made this change; thank you for highlighting it :) — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 08:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)