User talk:Trollyboy

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Trollyboy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! John of Reading (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Gloomy Sunday
It would save other people a lot of effort if you could work out how to cite references properly, and also what references should be used. Random blogs don't count as reliable sources, for instance. But, in particular, do you think you could look at WP:ECITE - it explains how to format references, so that information on them, rather than bare URLs, is shown in the References list at the bottom. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you've nominated the article at WP:GAN. I suggest that you withdraw it from there - the article falls a very long way indeed short of what is needed in a GA, for all sorts of reasons, including referencing and style.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Had no idea that the WP:ECITE was important...or nessasary; I'll keep that in mind from now on. And I can see your point on the references. Unfortunetly, it looks like it'll be very hard to find verifiable references for the subject in question, so I'll be looking into that for the near future. Oh, and I took down the GA nomination for the reasons you stated; have patience, I'm still new to this, but I'm learning :) Trollyboy (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a huge amount of guidance which you would find useful in the welcome message above.  Most new editors do not quite launch themselves into existing articles in the way you have done - your efforts are commendable, but you are leaving behind a lot of work for other people in tidying up afterwards.  You could also work a little on your spelling - for example, necessary, unfortunately.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Don't worry, I have no malicious intent on this site (although I'm starting to realise that having the word 'troll' in my username may well be cause for suspicion)! I've just been a little too eager to see rapid changes in a short amount of time; a possible trait of the Z Generation perhaps? Wikipedia needs established veterans like you to set us newbies straight. Don't worry, I won't make any more edits till I've got the rules down pat. And just to show you there are no hard feelings, I'll even try to set my previous mistakes right some time. Cheers for all the advice! XD Trollyboy (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had to remove a lot of original research, synthesis, and inappropriate references like YouTube from the article - and also the lyrics, which we must assume are a copyright violation. I'll probably carry on tweaking the article in due course, especially if I find any better quality sources.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shame about the lyrics. You're doing a good job of sticking all the sundered pieces togethor. Do what you think is best. Trollyboy (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't think the Seress lyrics added much anyway, as they were not the basis of any of the successful later versions. But I'm grateful for your efforts, particularly in finding sources for the article.  They are not ideal sources (blogs shouldn't really be used at all, but those ones seem relatively reliable) - but the problem is that information on songs, and on pre-war popular culture of any sort, is difficult to find online.  Have you looked at WP:GA/A, by the way ?  - it may give you some idea of the sort of level that "good articles" reach.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've so far checked out WP:Good article criteria, which has been helpful in its dissections of what a good article requires. I've also looked up the reviewer comments on nominated (though yet to be determined) GA/A to see what appears to be the most searched for features in potential 'Good Articles' of that category. As you pointed out, it's all relevent to the article in question; a pre-war song like Gloomy Sunday that is so obscured in false legend is very difficult to find the reliable information that most nominations would require. That said, the article is many times more informative now then it was a week ago, so at least some tangible progress is being made. Keep up the great work. Trollyboy (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shame we don't speak Hungarian! Google translate gives this.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn. The most relevent thing I could gain from all that was that he was Jewish, which may have explained his melancholy mood with the rise of nazism/fascism in his country (as mentioned in the article). Maybe a Wikipedian in Hungary could be kind enough to give us a more...comprehensible translation? Anyway, apart from checking to see if the facts are accurate (and maybe adding a little more broad coverage of the "Legacy" subsection), there doesn't look like much else that can be added to the article anyway. Trollyboy (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, unless you want to go round libraries looking for offline sources (= books and magazines). Frankly, many of the sources in the article now wouldn't really pass a proper examination against WP:RS criteria, and I think we've done about all we can there now.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeh. I'm not sure even offline sorces would be that helpful, other then the original Hungarian ones. I also don't think that a GA nomination right now would be much more then last-ditch wishful thinking, but it's a shame considering the goodly work that has been put into the article. What do you think? Worth even trying? I don't want to give up on this articles development entirely, but there doesn't seem like much point now that we've realised the limitations of information on this song. Trollyboy (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I think it's short of meeting GA standards, mainly because a lot of the references (blogs, etc.) are sub-standard - though my view is that many of them are, in fact, reliable. My personal preference is always to tell as complete a story as we can for readers, rather than concerning ourselves too much with what other editors think about it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a shame the reviewers don't actually check out all the websites on the subject, because quite frankly this Wikipedian article about Gloomy Sunday would have to have pretty much the best information about it on the internet right now (which is saying something). Who knows, maybe someone will come up with a reliable source or two somewhere down the line? Anyway, we might as well put the articles development on ice for now, apart from some style tweaking I suppose, and maybe check back on it some time later if and when reliable references become available. Trollyboy (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Titular
Please see http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/titular?q=Titular. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  05:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry I took so long to respond. I think the problem with 'titular' is that it's original meaning had nothing to do with the current meaning that it is applied to (that is, "title role" or sometimes more erroneously "eponymous"). I'm not convinced that it's usage is preferable in such a situation; that said, I'm not prepared to get into an argument over it, so I'll let it slide.Trollyboy (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)