Talk:1658 in literature

On format and stuff

 * Your edits are often very constructive, but your personal fixations about format and whatnot are getting in the way of developing this encyclopedia. I've tolerated your standards in typography, even though you seem to have never read our WP:MOS (specifically: On the English Wikipedia, use the "logical quotation" style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written. Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark). I've also tolerated your persistence in cutting down prose, because, while I view it at somewhat tiresome, the end result is not bad. But I must draw a line at your theories about how authors or books with no links for one of the other should not be mentioned.

You confidently theorize that removing such works reflects consensus, yet your edits to the article removed text that had been standing there for a while; as noted in my edit summary, they also glaringly contradict practice in other articles. In fact, I would not have added more such works to the list had I not myself noted that this is a long-standing practice. Particularly for old works of literature, where the simple fact of a work surviving to this day, or long enough to be mentioned, established notability -- unlike, say, a modern paperback.

The same goes for your removal of redlinks. While I understand why you would remove redlinked authors and works from a list of works, you're clearly overdoing it by removing all redlinks from the "Events" section. In this article, you removed Jacob IV of Armenia -- click the redlink, check "What links here", and you will instantly see why Jacob was a clearly notable figure, on whom we will eventually have an article. When we eventually do, who do you imagine will find this article to restore the redlink you removed?

Seriously, there is constructive, then there is obsessive. Let's find a middle ground here. Dahn (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Ready for the middle ground, but please read up about lists, which is what these [year] in literature pages are. Red links (intended pages) are fine in articles, not in lists. You don't list pages that aren't there – add them when they appear. The process of writing a new page includes marking its links. Easy with the search function. I look forward to your page on Jacob IV of Armenia. I'm all for having punctuation outside quoted phrases and inside quoted sentences, which is how we do it UK. Thank you for pointing to that. Punctuation, spelling and consistent formatting are as important in Wikipedia as in a book or magazine. Such mistakes undermine readers' assessment of Wikipedia as a whole. This is an encyclopaedia, so say it straight and factually and say it quick. I will now leave this discussion up to others.Bmcln1 (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hold up. You have removed from "New books" instances of unliked titles or authors, those added by other authors and by me; where is the guideline stating that these should be removed? Or is it you editing against consensus?
 * You have also theorized, apparently, that this and any such list should include no redlinks. While I can sort of understand why that would make sense for the main entries on the list, I cannot fathom where you gathered that they should not even appear in paragraphs about events with mentions of people who are not the main focus of the entry. You have also failed to tell me how one is supposed to know Jacob is mentioned on this particular list once you remove the link -- instead of having the redlink turned blue in one sweep, with the very creation of the article, you expect the creator of the article to seek out any mention of Jacob IV in random articles. Like other things, this appears to be your personal peeve, not any sort of transparent ruling. Like the removal of all books that have (yet) no link for author or title, it is destructive.
 * These are the things I was bringing up for discussion, the rest is tangential at best. Dahn (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)