Talk:Don Carlos/Archive 1

Different versions of the opera
The original entry confused the French (5 act) and Italian (4 and 5 act) versions. I have tried to clarify this. Kleinzach 18:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have substituted the synposis of the Milan version (with permission from Opera japonica) for the confusing 'Plot' taken from The Opera Goer's Complete Guide by Leo Melitz, 1921 version - a four act version starting with the Fontainebleu scene. Kleinzach 18:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't not quite understand this part in Act 2:


 * Don Carlo has received a note, apparently from Elisabeth, suggesting a midnight meeting in the Queen's gardens. However it is with Eboli not Elisabeth. She is delighted when he declares his love, but horrified when she realizes that it is not for her but for the Queen. Rodrigo enters and Eboli threatens them: she will tell the King that Elisabeth and Don Carlo are lovers. Rodrigo tells Don Carlo to entrust him with any sensitive political documents in his possession.

--Hkchan123 13:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Here is a paraphrase:


 * Don Carlo has received a letter which he thinks is from Elisabeth. However it is actually from Eboli. As requested, he goes to a meeting in the Queen's gardens at midnight. He cannot see clearly in the dark and thinks he is meeting Elisabeth. in fact it is Eboli. At first Eboli is delighted when Don Carlo declares his love, but then she is horrified when she realizes that he is love with Elisabeth and not her.


 * When Rodrigo enters, Eboli threatens Don Carlo and Rodrigo. She will tell the King that Don Carlo and Elisabeth are lovers.


 * (That's from memory but I think it is accurate).


 * Hope that is clear. Kleinzach 14:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OH!thank you:)!!

--Hkchan123 14:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Don Carlos and Don Carlo treated as two distinct operas
The article has just been re-edited to refer to two different operas by Verdi, a French one and an Italian one. The introduction now reads:

Don Carlos and Don Carlo are two closely related late 19th-century operas by Giuseppe Verdi, in French and Italian respectively.

I don't think this is helpful. There are actually three versions not two. All the authorities regard it as a single work. In many ways the most significant difference is between the four act and the five act versions, not between the French and Italian. If we treat all operas that have been given in different languages, with the participation (more or less) of their creators, as different entities, we will have a considerable proliferation of pages that can only serve to confuse the reader.

I welcome any comments about this problem. I recognize that different versions of operas are sometimes difficult to handle but treating them as separate works is surely not the way to go! - Kleinzach 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Kleinzach on this. Two of the major Verdi reference works, Julian Budden's The Operas of Verdi, Vol.3, and Mary Jane Phillips-Matz's Verdi: A Biography refer to it as one opera, the former having only one chapter, "Don Carlos", devoted to the various versions, while the latter's "Index of Verdi's Works" refers to "Don Carlos (Don Carlo)" with page references to such things as "revision and production", etc.


 * Therefore, we certainly cannot accept that it is two different operas requiring two diffrerent articles. I'll make some revisions to the present article's opening paragraph prior to giving the entire article some working over. Vivaverdi 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my two concerns were
 * trying to cram such a big Dab onto the article page (and i gather my fix for that was OK), and
 * two initial 'graphs that each sounded like they belonged on a separate page (and i gather i did something problematic in my effort to unify those two 'graphs, since i agree there should be one article.
 * It sounds to me as if you-all are bothered essentially by "operas" in the plural, which i thot was just restating what i had found there. If we agreed that the situation is multiple versions of one opera, i assume you agree that the opening statement of the article has to start by focusing on what the versions have in common, not on distinguishing the versions. My language was chosen as a minumum change in that direction. I guess i was not bold enuf (preserving the previous editor's focus too well) and kept too much of the separation. If the problem is a few words, i think changing them will be more productive than trying to negotiate them in advance. (But i hope we can discuss, if i'm missing something, and you-all liked it better before i waded into it, and you want to go back in the direction of what i started from rather than a little further in the direction i did.) --Jerzy•t 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. No doubt we can sort this out. As I said in my note to you the original version was not ideal and I'm sure we can improve on it - keeping it as one article and one work. Best - Kleinzach 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just waded in boldly with my scissors (snich-snach) & paste, and said roughly what i probably would have if i hadn't taken the previous organization of the article too seriously. But the description (preserved, i think, from what i first found) makes the "three versions"  sound a lot like 4. Probably needs better wording about "reinstated". Is the real situation that the 4-act 3rd version was deprecated (as we would say here, tho we shouldn't in the article!) in favor of the 5-act 2nd one? (The current Met production is the 5-act Italian; long evening, but i was glad for the Fontainebleu.) --Jerzy•t 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about published versions, or simply those performed under the composer's supervision? In the course of discussing these versions, would that distinction be worthwhile, or a lk to an article with a section on, uh, operagraphic practice re versions? --Jerzy•t 22:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * At the end of his chapter, "Don Carlos", Budden actually refers to 5 versions of the opera. However, based on what I wrote earlier, it is clear that there are at least 4 versions, 3 of which were certainly produced with Verdi's approval: (i) Original French 5 Act; (ii) Italian 5 act, unrevised, translated from French to Italian; and (iii) Revised, Italian 4 Act.  Budden says that no documentation exists which shows Verdi approving of (iv) Italian 5 Act in 1868, but states that it is unlikely that he would allow Ricordi to publish anything without his approval.


 * Now, it is also clear that many performances ignored much of what Verdi wrote; some cut out the 1st Act, some the ballet, etc....


 * I think that what we have here is a reasonably concise account of the process of Don Carlos becoming Don Carlo. Vivaverdi 07:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say that Don Carlos and Don Carlo are one opera with different versions. Yes, there are language differences among some of the versions, but they are essentially reworkings of the same opera. -- Kyok o  15:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we really have a problem here, do we? Jerzy did us a favour by getting rid of all that gunge at the top and creating a sensible dab page, and he agrees that there should be one article, not two. May I modestly (well, not all that modestly - I spent a lot of time on it) recommend something like the approach which I adopted for War and Peace (Prokofiev) for distinguishing the versions: a concise account of the differences between successive (legitimate) versions, and a table with dates and role creators. A similar approach would also work well for other operas revised under (approximately) the same title by their composers, such as Orfeo ed Euridice and Madama Butterfly. And for those revised by others if their work was left incomplete, such as Les contes d'Hoffmann and Turandot, (though not those like Médée (Cherubini) or Carmen or other completed operas that were interfered with after their authors' deaths). --GuillaumeTell 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I hope that, by "the process of Don Carlos becoming Don Carlo", Vivaverdi doesn't mean that Don Carlo is a more legitimate version than Don Carlos. I'd argue that it is less legitimate and requires less attention - Verdi engaged in practical alterations for particular productions, and didn't reject his original version in any way. --GuillaumeTell 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anything I have written implies one version is better or more legitimate than the other. But there was a process there, with Verdi's revisions changing the original Don Carlos quite considerably and transforming it into the Don Carlo we mostly see presented today (the present MET 5-Act Italian version is probably an exception).. San Francisco presented a facinating 5-Act French version a few years ago which was quite a revelation for me. I had "grown up" on the Visconti-directed 4-Act Italian version which I saw at Covent Garden many times from 1960 onwards. Vivaverdi 16:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm delighted this has all had a 'happy outcome'. We should thank Jerzy for finding the problem, Vivaverdi for fixing it and GuillaumeTell for his useful advice about how to deal with these tricky multi-version operas. Best - Kleinzach 19:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Self correction: in going back to my 1963 ROH and later programmes, I realize that I had seen the Visconti-directed 'five act Italian version, not the 4 act one. In addition, it is interesting that, while the Italian version is generally called Don Carlo, ROH chose to call it Don Carlos in the programme.  Vivaverdi 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Met 3 act (extended scenes unabridged version)
I do not like edit warring so I took the liberty by publishing the Don Carlo, The Met (3 act - unabridged version) synopsis/DVD/intro from the DVD that I have. Refer Synopsis and details in Fotopages

Verdi never did or revised to 3 acts but The Met did. The storyline is actually the same with Verdi's version but the act was done in three while the scenes were extended. But since it was produced this way, The Met 1983 Don Carlo is known as "Opera in 3 act (Unabridged Version)".

The recording history section in the article MUST reflect the “history” of how the actual play took place. We can’t “label” the Met 1983 Don Carlo as 4 or 5 act because it has never be done that way but yes, we can put that in "remarks" column. People who read the intro of Don Carlo/Carlos should be able to know that the "changes" was done by the opera house but not the composer. That is also the reason why I and The Met had to put “Unabridged version” – the term is self explanatory.

Hopefully this would end the "nonsense" remark from those who are not sure. I do not wish to see anymore editing with remarks “nonsense” to me, save it to The MET! Anyway, I am open for discussion; it’s just that I believe our fact about how it was presented by any opera houses must remain and we can't change as we wish. Thanks. - Jay 03:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC) -


 * So, when an opera company chooses to present LA BOHEME with ony one intermission, that it is sufficient to call the opera a 2-acter?


 * Any company can present an opera any way it likes; that isn't the same as the version as written by the composer. (Comment apparently left by 67.164.148.66 )

- Viva-Verdi has changed it and I agree with the way he/she changed it. To 67.164.148.66, I have no issue if anybody edited my writings but it seriously pisses me off when, not only you didn't know that the version I wrote referred to "The Met", you also spice up with the opening statement "nonsense". Any contributors will be angry with you if this is the way you "edited" others writings. It is common for people to edit others writings in here, I did too, but never I wrote "nonsense" as the remark for it. - Jay 06:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Onstage banda
See Carter (1999), pp. 147-149 for the use of saxhorns in the onstage banda in Verdi's Don Carlos in 1867.

Political themes
What about the political and national themes of the opera? This opera has a historical significance that the article doesn't mention. Does someone want to fill this in, please? Bruxism (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of composer navbox
I propose that Template:Infobox opera be removed and replaced with Template:Verdi operas. Our traditional navbox is more useful and non-obtrusive, while this new Infobox opera is distracting and adds no information that is not already and better presented in the lead. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support restoration as a long-term contributor to this article dating back to 2005. Once again this infobox is problematic with regard to genre. Gerda Arendt should have proposed the infobox here first before taking any action, as she knows perfectly well the use of this particular box is controversial and prone to inaccuracy. -- Klein  zach  02:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there is a similar WP:POINT distraction at Rigoletto. -- Klein zach  02:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you understand that the composer navbox is redundant? There's a more complete navbox for the composer at the bottom of the opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree that the top right composer navbox is redundant. It has long been supported by a strong consensus. -- Klein zach  01:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For the infobox: feel free to change it. If the genre is not correct, just drop it or change to Grand Opera. - No, I don't know "perfectly well" that "this particular box" is controversial, - it's an option of project opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * An option of project opera? Whose option? Andy Mabbett's? Yours? -- Klein zach  01:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Update, quote: "Following discussions here last March ..., this is been under development at Template talk:Infobox opera. It is now in a usable state with complete documentation ... As this discussion has been open for over two weeks with some reservations but without any major objections to making this box available as an option for articles on individual operas, I've now gone ahead and added it to the list of templates on the main project page and to the Article Guide. Hopefully, this will not prove to be the end of civilization as we know it, although you never know ;). Voceditenore (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)." end of quote --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * My general thoughts on the Infobox (including that in my personal history I argued exactly as shown above) is found on QAI/Infobox, short: the infobox is meant to repeat, in structured form, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not consistent with WP guidelines on infoboxes which stress that they are to summarise not repeat. -- Klein zach  14:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Without looking: How would you "summarize" a date of first performance, a subtitle, the name of a librettist, etc? If the guideline does not allow to repeat those key facts it needs to be changed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Gerda, the box is supposed to summarise the article, i.e the article as a whole.  Klein zach  15:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your view. - I believe that an infobox supplying only a quick date and location of a topic is already helpful, everything else is optional. - "Genre": I changed the field to "Description" for now, awaiting further discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Description" is actually worse, IMO, because it's very vague: it could mean something similar to "genre", or it could be a plot description, or it could be....etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not meant to be permanent, but better be too general until consensus, suggestions welcome on the template talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS:INFOBOX:When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose . . . . Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. In other words, long multi-field boxes are discouraged.  Klein zach  07:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * While the material you quote doesn't support your closing assertion (indeed, you appear to be scrabbling around for support for your position and finding nothing substantial), the inbox in question is not a "long multi-field box". Further, the quoted material does not support your earlier "summarise the article" assertion (emphasis in original) either, because it says (my emphasis) "summarize key facts in the article". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it's true that Andy Mabbett is an expert on MOS:INFOBOX. He rewrote a large chunk of it on 30 May . The words usually in the top right of an article were inserted in the first sentence.  Klein zach  21:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How dare I?!? Report me to WP:ANI for that, at once! (But first, please feel to address the point I made in my previous post in this section, refuting your false assertions). Intelligent readers will note that my what my uncontested edit actually did was to change the words "usually at the top" to "usually in the top right ...(in the desktop view)". Do feel free to point out infoboxes at the top left or top centre. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A navbox in the upper right does not good whatsoever. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahem
Pardon me for intruding and reverting to the orginal topic here. As at Rigoletto, I agree with Kleinzach and Robert.Allen that the old template should be retained, and I believe Robert.Allen has been correct in restoring it. Template:Infobox opera seems to me clunky. No clamour of complaint was ever present about the old template - if it ain't broken, why fix it? - --Smerus (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Different from Rigoletto, do you agree with me that all links in the sidebox would be repeated in the bottom navbox if that navbox (which should be present in every article that it links to) had not been removed. We are not talking about "fixing" but adding: a date in template form that appeared only in the infobox, a picture closer to the time that Verdi composed the work, and structured information useful for Wikidata. Site consistency - infobox on top, navbox on the bottom is normal - is another consideration. Did you read the related Signpost article? I am on Wikipedia to improve, not to retain something only because it is not "broken". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the infobox is intrusive and pointless; and I am not aware of any evidence base to indicate that it has any use or advantage over the template. --Smerus (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you haven't been paying attention. Infobox opera - like many of our infoboxes - emits metadata about the subject, making it machine-readable and available to services that reuse our data for a wide variety of purposes, as well as to browser tools operated by individual readers, all in furtherance of our mission to provide a world-wide, freely available educational resource. that;s in addition to providing a handy and convenient, easily accessible quick summary of key facts about the subject to our readers. None of that is true of the top-right navbox, which is redundant to the better-featured and more logically placed footer navbox. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I pay attention where content merits it, and not at the instruction of indiviudal editors. I'm not interested, and don't believe, in the messianic metadata arguments. This is all in effect WP:OR, and there is no evidence base to indicate that infoboxes, with or without metadata elements, improve WP either for the reader or for any WP 'mission'. Rather the contrary - inaccurate, or ineptly summarized or curtailed, information in infoboxes (and not only in musical topics of course) can in effect degrade the encyclopaedic authority of WP. We can certainly seek the best way of providing 'a world-wide, freely available educational resource' when that resource is in itself worth providing. At the moment article quality issues in Wikipedia, in musical topics and elsewhere, raise serious problems which better merit editor's application than potential techniques of marketing it. Let's get the product right first. -Smerus (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed; given that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, why should we shove our information down Google's throat? Toccata quarta (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Like', as they say elsewhere.--Smerus (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We make our information (machine-)readable to Google and others, because they want us to, because they do good and useful things with it, and because it serves our mission. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You clearly haven't been paying attention in conversations in which you have otherwise participated; and to replies made to your comments or questions. You have been presented to the evidence of how infoboxes emit metadata; and its usefulness, That you choose to deny this, regardless of whether or not you approve of it being done, is rather silly. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Development
According to one of the removals of this infobox, it's "still under development". Interesting, I thought that was true for every line on Wikipedia, and development normally happens in article space where more people can see it. But let's make an exception and develop right here, as an exercise. What do you think is missing or wrong? If it's on this opera, discuss here, if it's the template, on the template talk. Should we have for example a second infobox for its Italian version? (as we have two, for German and English publication, of works of Kafka) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I really like this one. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted its removal as that reason was spurious. It was then removed as "there's no consensus for this change", which is also not a valid reason to revert (WP:DNRNC). I've now reverted its removal from this talk page; which was blatantly unacceptable, whatever the edit summary. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec, reply to Kleinzach removing the box from this talk)
 * like this (restored): This infobox shouldn't be placed here in talk space. Gerda Arendt previously agreed not to use this tactic following the controversy at Talk:Richard Wagner. If the box is going to be redeveloped, this is not the place. -- Klein zach  21:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Kleinzach, you are right, it should not be placed here, it should be in the article and be developed there. - Following Wagner, I said I would not again place an infobox on a talk page when it's not wanted in an article, to remain on the talk page. - This is different, it is (or rather "was") on the talk page to be developed, to be taken back to the article. Also: this is an opera, not a composer, the infobox is not controversial, even if you think so. I take it to the project discussion now, I have my generous day and no interest in edit war. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I added infomation about the Italian version there, ready to discuss development, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Gerda Arendt: It's not possible to have any kind of discussion here while my comments, to which you have responded, are being removed. . -- Klein  zach  22:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I restored the "message" above, for the intelligent readers, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * AS I noted below, what I actually did, as intelligent readers can see from the diff, was to revert you removing part of another editor's contribution, at the same time inviting you, in the edit summary, to restore your comment if you wished to. It's beyond time you stopped trying to censor others' contributions to talk pages. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As so often, I find this draft infobox belies the often-heard claim that boxes offer a quick, easy-to-read overview of the central ideas of an article. Again, as so often, I find that simply reading the lead sentence in prose is far superior in giving me this overview. This article has a well-written lead, with virtually all the info of the box contained right in the first sentence (only the place and time of the premiere comes a bit later, at the end of the lead paragraph, where it is again quite easy to spot and efficiently placed.) In contrast, when I read the box for the first time just now, I found myself going vertically downwards, finding first "Don Carlos" (okay, obvious), then "by Giuseppe Verdi" (fine), then the pic, then the genre (fine, so far it's indeed easy to read). But then I stumbled. I first encountered two unfamiliar names ("Camille du Locle, Joseph Méry"). I found myself asking: who are they, what role did they play? Only then did I jerk my eyes leftwards, away from my natural (vertical) sequence of reading, in order to find the caption that goes with these names, finding "aha, those are the librettists". Why does the box force me into this unpredictable visual up-and-down, left-and-right? Because it's part of the tabular, caption-plus-content pattern of infoboxes. Who says that this tabular layout produces efficient reading? It just doesn't. For me, reading the lead sentence was a distinctly smoother, more efficient and more enjoyable experience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this comment. Perhaps you may care to take a look at Rigoletto, where a similar situation has arisen, but where the original template has not yet been replaced. Your opinions may also be of interest there.--Smerus (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment, saying that you read the lead sentence better. Nobody wants to replace that lead sentence. Someone looking just for a date information or the names of the librettists, will find it faster in the infobox. The present navbox only repeats information from the footer navbox that was removed (as it shows in Rigoletto), although it should appear in every article it navigates to. - Please note that the discussion is now at Wikipedia talk:QAI/Infobox, with a second box added for the more frequently performed Italian version. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I find it difficult to imagine how you could possibly think spreading this dispute to yet another place would be a good idea. As if the travelling circus hadn't had enough stops already. And as for splitting the box up into two, that is the most horrible idea possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The "yet another place" is a project's discussion of several infoboxes, which includes this one. (Did you read above "If the box is going to be redeveloped, this is not the place."?) - What would you do to do justice to the (more often performed) Italian version with a different name and premiere, not presented in the lead of the article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of my message By Andy Mabbett
Andy Mabbett is now deleting what I write here. -- Klein zach  21:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice try at a smear, again, but what I actually did, as intelligent readers can see from the diff, was to revert you removing part of another editor's contribution, at the same time inviting you, in the edit summary, to restore your comment if you wished to. It's beyond time you stopped trying to censor others' contributions to talk pages.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He's got you on that one Kleinz. You really need to stop this sort of thing. Here's your removal. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Not only am I deleted — but again this has been refactored. . -- Klein zach  22:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you don't deny removing someone else's comments. Pumpkin Sky   talk  01:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The only "refactoring" was to make the heading level 3, so that it sits under the level 2 heading of the matter under discussion. No change was made to your comment. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)