User talk:Nortonius/Archive 4

Advice, please
You commented yesterday within User talk:Dudley Miles regarding my contribution to Henry II of England. Dudley's reason for reverting my edit boiled down to a concern that I hadn't backed it up with a secondary source and we ended the discussion apparently amicably when I restored the edit with such sources. I find today that User:Ealdgyth has again reverted my updated entry, giving as justification reviews of a play are not secondary for this - you want historians discussing how the play or whatever has a long impact on the perception of the subject of the article - and for a subject like Henry II - the play/work/book/etc need to have a pretty significant impact on the culture ... this is entirely too emphemeral yet to be given this much space here. He may be correct but in the absence of a page on Cultural depictions of King Henry II of England his approach of just removing the material seems heavy-handed. How should I proceed? Thanks in anticipation Mikedt10 (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the message. Just so you know, "Ealdgyth" is a female name. Also in case you don't know, our Ealdgyth has a vast store of knowledge concerning medieval English history, and at least as much experience handling relevant articles on Wikipedia. So, while you're quite likely to interact with her if you edit such articles, if that happens you can expect her to reasoning to be informed. I'll ping her as a courtesy. My advice to you is that a single sentence or so about a play might survive in the article for Henry II if it is relevant to perceptions of that king, as Ealdgyth says; and that you would do well – I encourage you – to go ahead and create that article on "Cultural depictions ..." It needn't be very long to start with, a single paragraph will do, so long as it's cited to reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject. But I would strongly advise that, in the act of creating it with your very first edit, you add a stub template at the bottom of the article, for example this one culture-stub, and one or more categories: I think that those at Cultural depictions of Stephen, King of England would do very well to start with. Those things aren't essential, but the article will be reviewed for retention or deletion within a day or two, and such details will help the reviewer in their decision – I don't think that they should, but I believe that they do.


 * By the way, when you say that your discussion with Dudley ended "apparently amicably", it suggests to me that you might have been fearful of a row. You know that I followed that discussion, and believe me when I say that I don't mean in the slightest to be patronising – I note that you've been editing WP for years now – but I do think that you would also do well not to take such things as that discussion and your edits too seriously. Just relax, try to learn from such experiences, and concentrate on the things you think suit you best. I sincerely hope that helps. Nortonius (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * this discussion and the one with Dudley should take pace on the article talk page, please move it. Discussions of article content belong with the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree, Ealdgyth, as far as this discussion alone is concerned – I understand Mikedt10's message to me above to be simply an appeal for advice on how they might deal with the issue at hand, rather than how to edit the article for our Henry II as such, and I'm happy to oblige here. The question posed was not about content, but "How should I proceed?" Of course any discussion that centres on that article belongs on that talk page. I will, however, post a note there to that effect, regarding this thread, if you like. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, both Ealdgyth and Nortonius. I'll proceed to sandbox a page to replace the current one on Cultural depictions of Henry II of England, which at present merely redirects to the relevant section in the main article. Then I'd be grateful if you would take a critical look before I release it into the wild. While I'm an avid theatre-goer, my knowledge of other aspects of culture is limited! Meanwhile, if you wish, any message on the article's talk page should mention my interest in generating the new topic. Mikedt10 (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No problem, Mikedt10. The approach you suggest regarding the redirect . And I'd regard it as an improvement. Many people (and I confess to being one of them) merely dislike the addition of "cultural references" to an article; some people dislike the addition of any such references on principle, and I cannot say that I think they are wrong. It's just that, these days, I try not to take editing WP too seriously. I think the key there is, as I said previously, to concentrate on the things that suit you best, in your case for example the theatre – you can take those things as seriously as you like. Sections presenting cultural references can become bloated with material that is completely irrelevant to the article where it appears – material that might disparagingly be termed "cruft". You might take a look at the relevant section of "Wild Hunt": most of what's there at the time of writing should go for lack of sources or relevance, but the section is a magnet for all sorts of trivia, and it's a constant, thankless battle keeping it in check. Perhaps someone ought to create Cultural depictions of the Wild Hunt ... Ping me if you like, when you think you've done all you can with your sandboxed draft. p.s. It's for you and no-one else to register an interest in "Cultural depictions ..." at the talk page for Henry II of England, because it doesn't really matter – it's extremely unlikely but entirely possible that someone else might create such an article while you're working on your sandbox, which I'd guess is what you're concerned about, but in the long run it makes no difference. Nortonius (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia
Thanks Ealdgyth! Same to you, with (k)nobs on (and bishops!). :o) Nortonius (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

 * Thanks Ealdgyth, same to you! Nortonius (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A smile when it's needed – thank you Gerda. Nortonius (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * six years today, on the birthday of Elke Heidenreich who wrote with her husband Alte Liebe after they separated, - my little contrib to what should be a good idea not only on Valentine's Day --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the remembrance, Gerda, and for the reminder of loving-kindness. Nortonius (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You are welcome, - I just added "passion" to the article of Elke Heidenreich, whose birthday is today, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I did not know, until I followed your links (which were richtig!) – there is too much passion in life, or not enough, depending on which kind you mean ...! Nortonius (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Twelve years on Wikipedia
Blimey, twelve years – thank you! Nortonius (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow, twice in one day – and I've hardly done anything for a while ... Thank you! Nortonius (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
Hi! How do you become a wikipedian?