Talk:The Relapse

Comments
Hello, You Know Who You Are. Please don't FAC this article. It's not finished. There are some things still missing. It's not quite ready yet. Please don't. It's not all it can be. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 16:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Just holler when it is, you've got my support.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 22:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * She's trying our patience. Geogre 18:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Ganymead's just found some new images, I'm gonna have to think! I appreciate it, guys, but it's not done to a turn yet. It's unready like Aethelred. Plus FAC is increasingly an uncomfortable place. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't think what's making you say that. ;>D Giano | talk 11:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh please don't say that, Bish, I just put Mandan up on it! *biting nails* Anyway, you certainly have my support on this as well! *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 03:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not for Mandan so much. And look how well it did! Anyway, I'm done, here goes. Bishonen | talk 23:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * May I ask why a Featured Article has a frustratingly short synopsis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.204.173 (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Footnote formatting
On my monitor, the footnotes were irritatingly small. I thus changed font-size from 75% to 85%. Alkivar promptly changed them back, explaining that 75% was the regular size for this. (Or something similar: I don't claim to have this verbatim.)

Well, I prefer 85%, or indeed 90%, but I thought I'd see what the MoS said about this, and thereby arrived at Footnotes. This says little about footnote size, but does have its own footnotes, which we surely may infer have been very carefully considered. These are at the regular size. Further, one of the footnotes says: ''If footnotes are too small, then they are difficult for some people to use. See Footnotes (or endnotes) on Web pages, Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, 2003-08-22, retrieved 2005-02-19 from http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www/fn.html''. Yucca's page actually says rather little, but tellingly his own links are in the regular size as we view them on screen; he approvingly presents a sample chunk of CSS that, although reducing printed footnotes to 70% of their regular size, does nothing to the size of footnotes on screen.

So not only do I still prefer 85%, or indeed 90%, but [pompous voice ON] I'm surer than before that I'm right [OFF]. Though of course I'm reluctant to get into an edit war over it. -- Hoary 10:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * MoS is not the definitive end all be all of solutions to these questions, merely a suggested guideline. What you have to realize is that common use is generally a better solution... W. Mark Felt and many of the other articles (i'd have to start browsing to make you a list) that have gone through the FAC process have been reduced to 75%. As this appears to be the "preferred standard" I tend to think this is what we should stick to. These are merely FOOTNOTES, not content to be generally read, as such readability is of a lesser importance.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 10:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OK then, let's suppose for the purpose of this argument that, oh, perhaps 80% of featured articles have footnotes and that 80% of these have font-size set at 75%. I still submit that 75% can easily be uncomfortably small, that it's pointlessly small (as it takes no fewer bytes, and 90% would be sufficiently small to show that these are footnotes), that such a de facto standard (if it is such) is a silly standard, and that for what the MoS is worth it tends to disagree with such miniaturization. And now I think I'll turn the computer off and go home, before I start hitting y'all over the head with quotations from useit.com. Instead I'll put it simply: Web pages aren't printed on paper. Or simpler still: Usability rocks, diddy little fonts suck! Good night. -- Hoary 10:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as "Web pages aren't printed on paper" wikipedias ultimate goal IS TO BE PUBLISHED!  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 11:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes I see what you mean, that is very small, in fact I can't read it (even with my glasses) I would prefer them to be standard text size, but the "in text numbers" to be as small as possible, so they don't iinterupt the flow, all one has to do is see they are there and have them large enoght to click on. Giano | talk 11:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * for the record the 75% text is the EXACT SAME SIZE as the "in text numbers" no one seems to have trouble finding or looking at.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 11:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * but you only have to click on them, not try to read them, most of us who dont have brilliant vision can make out the definitions of a number, because it's a familiar shape, but reading text is a different matter all together. Giano | talk 12:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

A New Twist in the History of The Relapse
I was wondering if the Relapsarians that have done an excellent job of presenting the history of this work are aware of it's use in a new Restoration Comedy entitled - wait for it - "Restoration Comedy".

A review of the premiere production at the Seattle Rep.

I saw the next production at the California Shakespeare Theatre, and it was a hoot. The playwright, Amy Freed, has linked []Love's Last Shift to The Relapse with some modern day allusions, and sly in-jokes.

A rave review by the SF Chronicle drama critic.

Perhaps this new use of old material could be a nice addition to an already fine article.

Rufus Newby

"me da died last Friday, and I don't feel ta well meself"


 * Thanks for the compliments and the info, Rufus! The article now has a new final sentence and one more footnote.

Bishonen | talk 17:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

And an old twist
What about "Lock Up Your Daughters"? The Henry Fielding page describes it as a 1959 play and 1974 film based on "Rape Upon Rape" (1730), but that's wrong on at least one count, as IMDb says the film was released in 1969. The credits for the film name both Fielding and Vanbrugh, and list characters from both "Rape Upon Rape" and "The Relapse". I haven't seen "Lock Up Your Daughters" on either stage or screen but it does sound as if it makes use of "The Relapse", if nothing else filching some characters from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.78.212 (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

tearjerker?
Perhaps something less subjective could be used than "tearjerker" in the intro? It really sounds wrong in an encyclopedia article. Also, I'll point out that it's hyphenated on the main page, but not here. -Harmil 17:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if you were to read Love's Last Shift, you might not think it so subjective... And according to contemporary reports, the first night audience did weep floods. I do see what you mean, but I find myself a little reluctant to actively change the word. Please do feel free to change it yourself. Bishonen | talk 19:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC).
 * I kinda agree - I don't really like the phrase "notorious tearjerker", which, especially without sources, smells a bit of POV. I think at least a source is needed showing why it's notorious - It doesn't give this away at all in its article. -- jeff  the  jiff  20:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed this myself. Would "melodrama" serve? -- Writtenonsand 22:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Virtue in danger.png
Image:Virtue in danger.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

references need improving
This article has few citations. There are many passages that seem to express opinions or make judgments but it is not clear from where the information comes. Some of it may be in the references listed at the bottom. These need page numbers. All the quotation need citations, although it can be guessed that they come from the references at the bottom. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This article remains woefully under referenced. The material withing it is not "common knowledge" for those of us not born in Britain. Please help. Regards, — Mattisse  (Talk) 02:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup templates
Without anything more specific to substantiate the review and peacock templates, I am at a loss to address those concerns. Since Template:Review requires "Add a new item to the talk page explaining the problem so editors will know what to address, and when to remove this tag" and nothing related has appeared on this talk page, I've removed the misused review template. Should no further explanation of peacock template's placement be forthcoming, I'd suggest that it too should be removed soon. --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Rex, and I hope Brad101 replies here. Perhaps it's no longer strictly necessary for me to weigh in, but since I have more specific objections than you, I'll say what I came for. That will hopefully make it simpler for Brad101 to respond. Brad has just nominated this article for Featured Article Review, per the FAR template at the top of this page. FAR rules, posted at the top of WP:FAR, require that first you discuss your concerns on this talkpage, to see if the article can be improved without suggesting it be de-featured. Brad hasn't, though; perhaps as a substitute (?), he has added three drive-by templates to the article, two of them very prominently. "Drive-by" is the term used for tags posted without any talkpage justification. These IMO have no intrinsic justification either. Especially not which seems, well, frankly, random. I was going to leave them all for now, for the sake of the FAR and any interest in the matter which that might generate, but I see Rex has already (IMO reasonably) removed  . Unless Brad101 cares to justify them on this page (or on the FAR, the forum doesn't matter), I'll remove the other two myself in a while.


 * The three templates:


 *  .Backing up Rex, I'll say that the review template was the most surrealistic of them. "Reads like a review?" Brad101, do you see the article as an attempt to promote a 17th-century play? In what way? The word review in the template links to NOT. So the charge gets more specific: that the article contains (or is) one of the following: advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, or an opinion piece, or scandal mongering, or self-promotion, or advertising. Er.. which of those? All? If it's as uncyclopedic as that, shouldn't you consider nominating it for deletion rather than merely de-featuring? Except perhaps that on AfD you might not get away with responding to good-faith comments with "tl;dr" instead of engaging with them, as you did on the FAR.
 *  . The peacock template, still on the article ("This article may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information, etc") seems to me merely a weaker version of  : equally based on a misunderstanding, but not quite as offensive.
 *  ISBN . Brad101 has also added ISBN  to the References section, a template which states that "This article lacks ISBNs for the books listed in it". To my sense, and my intention in writing the references list, it doesn't so much lack them as deliberately  doesn't have them. See the "Uses and limitations of ISBNs" section of ISBN: "Note that ISBNs are not required of citations; popular citation styles like Chicago, MLA, and APA do not use ISBNs". They don't use them because they don't want to seem to insist on a particular edition  of a book, and I don't either. The ISBN template, a little oddly, invites me to discuss the issue on the talkpage. That's backwards, you know, Brad. You're the one who thinks there's a problem, you're supposed to open a discussion.


 * I suppose you wouldn't post templates without taking responsibility for what they say? Bishonen &#124; talk 00:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Revisited: removing the other two driveby templates
Having given the FAR nominator a reasonable opportunity to save face by removing the remaining two templates himself, I have now removed them. At this time there seems to be consensus on the FAR review that there's nothing in them. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC).