User talk:Five Antonios

Would you please do me a favor
Hello FA. I have a favor to ask. Would you please follow up on your tag and edit summary here by posting your doubts on Talk:Macbeth. The reason I ask is that your edit summary will get pushed does the edit history page. After 50 edits it won't be seen at all unless someone digs through the edit history to find it. The article gets a lot of vandalism during the school year so it will only be a matter of months for this to happen. Now, you are under no obligation to do this so if you don't wish to do this that is okay. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good day Marnette. My apologies, I completely misread the sentence. I took it to mean that Macbeth was the fist play Shakespeare composed after Elizabeth died, which, given that it's usually dated to circa 1606, would be a strange claim to make! My mistake, I'll remove the tag post-hast. Thank you for pointing out my error. Five Antonios (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I am glad things worked out. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare template
Hi. Thanks for showing an interest in the considerable discussion about removing the Wikiquote and Wikisource texts from templates, and if you'd like to jump in see my talk page (near the bottom), the talk page at Wikipedia, or there can even be a discussion on the Shakespeare template page. As for images and pictures on templates, I don't think the guidelines are against having them, and am in the midst of a question about that as well at the Ken Kesey template. On a brief look you've really done some good work, thanks for hanging out at Wikipedia. Good to meet you. Randy Kryn 14:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there . I was unaware of this discussion until the recent edits on the Shakespeare template. Having read through the various points of view, I find it extraordinary that anybody could make the argument that linking to the sister projects is a bad thing for templates for writers. How can having a handy link on an author's template be, somehow, incorrect? I simply cannot get my head around the logic. As far as I can tell it's slavish adherence to policy, which is one of Wikipedia's most egregious problems. Regarding images, to the best of my knowledge there is no policy at all prohibiting their use in templates, which means removing them is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. On the Ken Kasey template, the link that you were pointed to was, as you stated, only an essay, not policy. And in any case, it says nothing whatsoever about images. As a side-note, my editing on here tends to be fairly sporadic, but I do have flurries of activity (thanks for the encouragement by the way). I'm going to ping, although I'm sure he is aware of this now, as I know he watches the Shakespeare template. I would imagine he would be of a similar mind to myself on this. If you are taking the discussion regarding Wikiquote and Wikisource any further, please let me know. Five Antonios (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, and I am of the exact same thinking: I cannot imagine or understand how someone would want to remove these informationally-important links, especially after it's been proven that they existed on the Wikipedia template - the sites home template - since 2009. There is a discussion on the Wikipedia templates talk page, about mid-way down, if you'd like to comment. As for pictures/images, because of the edits on the Kesey template the editor is trying to remove all images from templates in this new discussion, so your concern (and your present sojourn on Wikipedia) are timely. Very good to meet you. Randy Kryn 10:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi guys. I came hither as soon as the raven arrived (sorry, pseudo-Game of Thrones reference). To cut a long story short, I agree with everything you both say. I too was completely unaware of this discussion until the, what I considered very strange, edit to the Shakespeare template. I've actually been through the images in templates thing before, and there is NO guideline whatsoever. Templates don't have to have images, but nowhere does it say they can't or they shouldn't. It's not even something worth getting into an argument about as it all comes to down to a case-by-case situation. All of the Shakespeare templates use images, except for the very large ones, such as Henriad and Romeo and Juliet. As for the other matter, yeah, I too find this an extremely bizarre decision. Removing links to quotes and whatnot on an author's template! How that aids navigation is beyond me. Navigation templates are supposed to aid navigation right? How does removing useful links accomplish this? So, if you plan to appeal or take this further, I'd certainly be happy to weigh in. Bertaut (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , good to meet you too. Very timely, as the fellow who thinks images on templates is taboo has opened a policy-making discussion on it here, so please come by and say what you've said above, everything of which I agree with. I had a feeling that when removed Wikiquotes and Wikisource texts from the Shakespeare template, causing the Bard to spinith withith his grave, he'd find some people who'd be scratching their heads about it. Makes no sense to me either, and Rob, that's one of the things: to people like us, removing the Wikiquote and Wikisource links from the Shakespeare template make no sense. It just doesn't, there is no reason to do it other than to limit and contract the available data. That, and the important precedent-setting fact that the main Wikipedia template had all of the sister-project links on it for five-and-a-half years - in essence grandfathering in the concept and practice by becoming a guideline exception even as another guideline forbid it - did not become part of either the discussion or the close which has now resulted in such a beneficial data pool being erased from the William Shakespeare template. But yes, on images, the attempt to discontinue the use of images on templates discussion is taking place right now at the link above. Randy Kryn 2:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail
Bertaut (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier if you just made your point?
Instead of all this back and forth, wouldn't it just be easier to make you point (assuming you have one) on the talk page so the matter can be discussed? Mediatech492 (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, but as you're the one trying to remove information which is reliably sourced, you're the one with the point to make, not me. My point is simple, and I've already made it; no reason has been given for removing this info sans the fact that you don't seem to think it's relevant. Five Antonios (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 * Hello . Thank you for the Christmas wishes, and allow me extend my best to yourself and any additional Marnettes out there. I was in Italy for the entire Christmas and New Year (ostensibly with my family, but really it was all an elaborate and ingenious subterfuge to do some research on a new book I'm planning dealing with the question of whether or not Shakespeare ever actually visited Italy. Sadly my wife had realised my poorly laid plans before we'd even left for the airport, and my books were immediately confiscated upon landing), and am only back a day or two. Hope you had a fine break yourself, and I wish you the best for the New Year. Five Antonios (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note FA. It sounds pleasant even if your researching was curtailed. Best wishes to you and yours for your 2018. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 06:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

All Is True review
Hey. I thought you might be interested in this. I've been writing online film reviews for a while now, and I just posted a review of Kenneth Branagh's disappointing All Is True. Don't feel under any obligation to read it, but it's there if you fancy having a look. Bertaut (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated Bert, I'll take a look over the weekend. Thank you. Five Antonios (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)