Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:55, 6 March 2010

Why cut the link to "1798 in poetry" from "Tintern Abbey"?

I saw you removed the "See also" link to 1798 in poetry at the article on Wordsworth's "Tintern Abbey". I think a link of some sort from each page to the other is helpful for readers. For this page, it helps any reader who might be curious about what other works were being written and published at the same time or about the same time. They can then get information on other poems to contrast or compare with this one (perhaps Coleridge's "Frost at Midnight" or "France: An Ode" -- there could be a slew of different reasons to find it useful to compare poems or read up on poets or poetry movements from the same era, and it would be very useful to serious students, but also useful to people who just want to browse). The year-in-poetry pages are meant to be about all things poetry in each particular year, whether poems, books of poems, poets, movements or events, so the direct, one-click link between the poem and the year page seems right. It doesn't matter to me whether the link is in the article prose or in a "See also" list, and I don't think the link needs to be prominent. Please tell me what you think. If you prefer, we could move this discussion to the article talk page, although I don't think it much matters. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, fair enough thats a good argument. I normally dont like see also sections as they replicate links from the article body, but in this case I think you are right. I'll reinstate. Ceoil 20:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice the refs are giving page nos only - do you know which book they were taken from? Ceoil 20:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume "Woodring, Carl" in the "Bibliography" section, but it's only an assumption. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just checked Google Books for Woodrung's book. They only offer "snippet" views, so it's difficult to confirm. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks. I don't have the link handy, but there was an RfC a while back about various types of year links, and it was the consensus (which I don't like) that these links to "year in ---" pages not be "hidden" (I think that's the word) like this: 1798. At another point, another editor said he preferred that these links not be in "See also" sections but in the text. Personally, I think a "See also" link at the bottom of the page is less intrusive in the article than something like "was published in 1798 (see 1798 in poetry)", which tend to occur near the very top of the page. When I can, I try to add these links lower down in the article, but I add them wherever the publication year pops up (no reason not to link to the year written, but the year-in-poetry pages themselves seldom mention years written). Thanks again! -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I find thoes years in articles very interesting when aditing art history pages; its interesting to see what other artists were active at the time, and it gives good context. I suppose I though that a catg would be sufficient, but prob the avg reader does not notice them. Ceoil 21:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Life's too short

Ceoil me old mate, you once gave me some advice when I had a spat with Giano and, in the interests of Anglo-Irish relations, I'd like to return the favour. Malleus is very similar in his approach to Giano; he's an excellent editor but easily offended, and when he gets upset he lashes out. I don't believe he's got anything against the Irish at all, and clearly he's not familiar with all the Irish articles so couldn't really pass judgement on them. He was expecting trouble with editing the Manchester bombing article from the beginning because anything to do with The Troubles always seems to end up in acrimony. I'm sure the comment about all the Irish articles being shite was actually just because he felt his worst expectations were being fulfilled and he was really referring to the ones I've just mentioned. Obviously, all I know about Malleus is from what I've read on various discussion pages but, from what I've seen, once he's annoyed he doesn't do civility, he doesn't do apologies and he doesn't accept apologies gracefully. However, he can also be very kind and helpful and quite often he will accept an apology when things have calmed down. I'm not condoning or defending anything that was said last night but, at the end of the day, people are what they are and usually they don't change. What annoys me is when others who aren't involved jump in and start threatening people with sanctions. I'm sure that both you and Malleus are quite capable of looking after yourselves and either sorting the problem out or just avoiding each other, without the school prefects getting involved. One other thing I'm sure of is that if Malleus reads this he'll tell me to fuck off and mind my own business - but, as I like you both, I'll take that risk :) Richerman (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Richerman, you post is very much aprreciated and I think you are prob right. I think things went from bad to worse when others jumped in, and statements made by them were attributed to me. I cetrainly did not have the intention to derail yer GAN, and I'm not usually so pushy. For being a pain and labouring a point like that I apologise to ye both. For the other stuff, and esp with Fred and John, I do not care what people like them think. How dare they follow and bait and then condesend me like that. As a small aside, I think the article is overall very good work. Ceoil 21:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite few people seem to watch Malleus's talk page page because he's very active and there's always something going on there. It can be very entertaining at times too! However, there are some who enjoy joining in the fray and it's usually not helpful. I'm going to a funeral on Wednesday of a good friend who commited suicide for no good reason other than he was depressed and not thinking logically, and it really has put life in perspective. Funnily enough he's from a big Catholic family, no doubt with Irish roots - the buggers get everywhere! Richerman (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that Richerman. I had some bad news myself this week, and yeah perspective. It is a bit ridiculous to get upset by things on the internet. Ceoil 21:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! - keep well. Richerman (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in the frame of mind to tell you (Richerman) or anyone else to "fuck off". It was a silly incident escalated by the comments of others, one other editor in particular, who transformed what should have been nothing into something. Ceoil was right, the dates were wrong; a straightforward mistake introduced during copyediting that could have been very easily fixed. So far as I'm concerned it's over, and we should move on now. Richerman is right about my attitude to apologies; I rarely give them and I never demand them, as I fundamentally believe that nothing is ever entirely the fault of one side or the other, and in any case only God can forgive. All we humans can do is to forget. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fortune Teller

The cover is a detail...Modernist (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant Modernist, thanks. I know his name but not the work, very unusual figuration and colour. A new discovery. Ceoil 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome

Glad to be of help. And thanks for the compliment. :-) I was a bit surprised the category didn't exist - he is one of the greats, after all. Incidentally, I know that particular portrait very well; it's in my hometown museum, and I've seen it dozens of times over the years. They even used it as the cover of the comprehensive catalog that was my intro to art history some years back. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the rule I've always followed is basically this: capitalize the painting as you would a book or film title in the same language. So for English, for instance: Portrait of a Young Girl, in the same way as Dead Man Walking or Gone with the Wind. Other languages, I know, are different, but they've always been a bit beyond me. As for categories, all I do is look for a similar category, and then create the new one based on the old one. As an example, I'm about to create one for Petrus Christus paintings. I know there's already one for Jan van Eyck, and van Eyck was a near-enough contemporary that he's likely to be categorized in the same fashion. So I open up Category:Jan van Eyck paintings, look at the categories, and use them to map Category:Petrus Christus paintings. Saves thinking for yourself. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Lord. I'm terrible at citation; honestly, sometimes I'll just do it the way I was taught and leave someone else to prettify it, as it were. I've never been any good at HTML, either - Wiki markup is about as far as I go. The only reason I ever learned anything about categories is because I like uniformity, and sometimes the only way to get that (i.e., in the countries-by-year categories) is to start creating 'em yourself before population. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead image, nothing - how about in the body of the article? I've seen it reverted from time to time when I've moved an image to the left. Which I've done because it leaves a lot of whitespace on my office computer, which is formatted a little differently from my home PC. Not all resolutions are created equal, after all...

Anyhow, I must away in search of food shortly. It's getting to be my dinner time. I'll be back tonight. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)