User talk:Xover/Archive 11

Your GA nomination of A Midsummer Night's Rave
The article A Midsummer Night's Rave you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:A Midsummer Night's Rave for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Titus Andronicus
Hello sir. How's things with your fine self. When you get a chance, would you possibly be so kind as to take a look at the discussion currently happening at Talk:Titus Andronicus. It's fairly self explanatory but a user (who is very lucky he didn't find himself reported for multiple violations of WP:3RR and completely ignoring WP:BRD, amongst other policies) is adamant that a paragraph about a South Park adaptation of the play is irrelevant. Myself and two others have tried to explain it isn't, but without avail. Would appreciate a fresh set of eyes on it. You might find yourself in agreement that it's not worth mentioning in the article, but I'm just interested in getting another opinion, whichever way that opinion lands. I've suggested he file an RfC, but perhaps with your input that can be avoided. Cheers. Bertaut (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Bertaut (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Xover !
Merry Christmas and thanks for our Hamlet article dicussion ! It was very giving to me at least. Boeing720 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thank you, and a very merry Christmas to you and yours as well! I very much enjoyed our discussion; not just because I learned something (I had honestly expected to find more in my review of the literature!), but because I always enjoy seeing proof that people who disagree on an issue can still discuss it politely and civilly (which is, sadly, less and less of a given in the world today). May all your endeavours in the new year be the kind that bring renewed faith in humanity! --Xover (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It was the one who learned the absolutely most ! Politely and civilly yes, I agree 100%. Keep up the good work ! Boeing720 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Since you're clarifying...
Glad to see you're still alive and still consider yourself a Wikipedian, Xover. Yes, that thing called "real life". I understand. When you do get a chance to get back to participating here, you know there are some of us who appreciate your work. Yes, I, for one, have been thinking of you. Best regards, Alan W (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words, . They are, as always, far too kind and gracious, but I'll happily take them to heart in any case! And providentially, your message is the perfect excuse to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! :-) --Xover (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Xover, and the same holiday greetings back to you! As for deserving or not, well, it's true that we seem to be frequently on the same Wiki wavelength, so I might tend to say something like that more than many others would. Still, I think my words are justified on more objective grounds. A few notable extraordinary efforts stand out; but also, I'm sure simply by habit and natural inclination, you continue to make this and that incremental improvement in all sorts of Shakespeare-related articles. This has gone on for over ten years now. And the whole of this effort has added up to a mighty sum total. True, it's hard to measure this kind of thing, but I feel sure that the general state of Shakespeare-related Wikipedia articles would be significantly poorer without your efforts. Don't sell yourself short! Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't take my efforts at modesty too seriously. I am not, by nature, an excessively humble sort, and I would not keep chipping at this mountain if I did not think my efforts had some value. Granted it's mostly just wikignoming, but I happen to think that gnoming is an essential part of improving the project. No, when I attempt to maintain a modicum of humility in this regard, it is because I've been privileged to observe the collaborative, and single-handed, efforts that, among other, led to William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, and even Shakespeare authorship question; the massive improvements to the articles on the histories (for which Bertaut deserves the lion's share of the credit, I believe); and the incredible work Andy and Wrad did on screen adaptations. Or, from a different angle, the incredible improvements to language and organisation that—to single out two editors whose regrettable absence makes lavishing with praise safe from from forgetting others—Awadewit and Qp10qp in various ways engendered. In the face of that, one cannot help but be somewhat humble, no matter one's natural inclination to hubris!In any case… I just wanted to take the opportunity to wish you happy hollidays, and to acknowledge the kind encouragement you so freely share, and I so very much appreciate! --Xover (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello Xover. I just wanted to express my appreciation for you defending me at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates. Shortly after I posted my comment, I departed for Italy with my family ("fair Verona"), and essentially just ignored any emails that lacked a subject heading of "Extremely urgent." Mind you, even had I been around, I wouldn't have been aware of the accusations being made, as I wasn't watching the page. It was a request for comment, I made a comment, and that was the extent of my involvement. But I returned yesterday, and seeing your ping, I read the exchange. Still don't feel the need to further comment, but, again, I wish to thank you. Happy New Year to you. Five Antonios (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! --Xover (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Earliest Shakespeare authorship doubt
Hi xover, if I link to Edward Ravenscroftwiki page and to this article https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Z50UAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PP13&ots=b2r_ldSmXw&dq=Ravenscroft%20tradition&pg=PP13#v=onepage&q=Ravenscroft%20tradition&f=false

will that be enough to change the Shakespeare Authorship entry?

Thanks for your help. --Billdup (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue of how to present what constitutes "the earliest doubt" (and just exactly what is meant by that concept) has been the subject of significant controversy during the development of the article (Shakespeare authorship question). As such it requires discussion on the article's talk page first. You need to post there describing how you propose to change the article and explaining your reasoning, with citations to reliable sources (and "reliable sources" here specifically as outlined in the policy pages: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:WEIGHT). The goal is to attempt to gain consensus among interested editors for the best way to improve the article.I must warn you, though, that this particular topic (and articles related to alternate authorship theories in general) has been one of significant controversy, mostly due to a steady stream of editors who attempted to push their particular favourite authorship theory at the expense of all other concerns. The editing climate eventually devolved to the point that the Arbitration Committee (the highest organ for dispute resolution on Wikipedia) imposed what is known as "discretionary sanctions" on all articles related to this issue (broadly construed). Discretionary sanctions essentially means that administrators are given wide latitude to impose sanctions (including blocking accounts indefinitely, or imposing a ban from editing in a topic area or set of articles) at a much lower threshold of misbehaviour than usual, and without prior discussion of the specific sanction.As a practical effect, all editors (but particularly those in favour of an alternate authorship theory, since as a group there is a history of disruption) must bend over backwards to act within policy; and the regular editors on that article are likely to be resistant to changes such as the one you propose (the issue has been debated ad nauseam, and several proponents of similar changes have been… unconstructive… and confrontational in their approach).I don't mean to discourage you: articles can always be further improved, and fresh eyes on a problem is always valuable. I just don't want you to wade into a quagmire of old entrenched conflicts unawares (that rarely ends well), and my immediate assessment is that this is not a change that has any significant chance of gaining consensus. --Xover (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Xover I hear what you're saying, what about if I just create a an article to 'The Ravenscroft Tradition' and leave it at that? Here it is in my sandbox, User:Billdup/sandbox --Billdup (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A couple of issues with that. First of all, Ravenscroft isn't really talking about the Shakespeare authorship question; he's talking about Shakespeare attribution studies and William Shakespeare's collaborations. Which illustrates the more immediate policy point: drawing conclusions from what Ravenscroft wrote in 1687 is original research under Wikipedia's policies. Both Ravenscroft (1687), Symons (1885), and Knight (1839) are effectively primary sources; and combining them to reach a conclusion is novel synthesis. In order to write about this properly you would need to start with a modern survey or overview (the Oxford or Arden editions of Titus, typically) that reflect what the current state of the art is on the play, its authorship, and its critical history. These will typically reference Ravenscroft and his preface, but filtered through the understanding of a couple hundred years of research. And, crucially, it will reflect the interpretation and scholarship of Jonathan Bate or Eugene M. Waith rather than our own personal opinions.Further, putting conflicting information into a separate article is known as a content fork, and is generally not allowed on Wikipedia as it endruns consensus processes and violates principles like neutral point of view. When it comes to the "doubt about Shakespeare" that is the thrust of the draft in your sandbox, and your previous edit to Shakespeare authorship question, the proper place for it (iff it is to be included at all) is the main Shakespeare authorship question article, and the way to including it is by raising the proposal on the article's talk page.Now, usually this isn't such a fraught bureaucratic process: the vast majority of changes on Wikipedia are simply made with no fuss or discussion. The problem is mainly that you've chosen a controversial area, and a point under previous contention, so you somewhat inherit the consequences of that. --Xover (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Scala Theatre
Hello, Xover. Please see this change to the hatnote, which you and User:Paul_012 had previously worked on. My understanding is that, once we link the disambiguation page in the hatnote, we should not link to any other specific articles. If that is right, will someone please revert the change and explain it to this relatively new user? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I took a look at it. Going by "the book" (MOS), the article shouldn't have a hatnote at all. However, I personally think the MOS, in this area, is too focussed on ambiguity of article names, and doesn't sufficiently take into account terms—particularly names of buildings and venues—that, while not strictly speaking ambiguous, are very generic for the reader. In this particular case, a lot of readers, and a lot of books etc., will think of the place as simply "the Scala". So though not literally ambiguous, it will be conceptually so. In short, if anybody wants to add back in a hatnote, I wouldn't object. The MOS says no hatnote here, so we'd have to do it under WP:IAR. --Xover (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've also asked for more direct guidance on this to be added to the MOS over at WT:Hatnote. --Xover (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would vote to put back in the link to the disambig page, but not (also) the café. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. But we're pretty deep into article-specific issues now. If you don't object, I propose we move this discussion to the article's talk page to let everyone participate, and to document whatever is the consensus for future reference? --Xover (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd say a hatnote is quite warranted here. "Theater" in US English means "cinema", and Scala Cinema (Bangkok) and Phoenix Picturehouse are both listed in the disambiguation page. There's also Teatro alla Scala, which translated into English would also be Scala Theatre. The ambiguity should already satisfy WP:HAT as it stands. The club, on the other hand, of course shouldn't be mentioned. (Commenting where the discussion currently is but feel free to move.) --Paul_012 (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I have copied this thread to the article's talk page. Let's continue there. --Xover (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Feature request IABot API
Phab ticket opened in case you want to follow it. -- Green  C  19:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

A. L. Rowse
I have started a thread on the talk page, which is what you should have done instead of reverting me. DuncanHill (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss
...or as it has long been known, BRD, an explanatory supplement to the consensus policy. It would be very helpful if you were to practice this longstanding, nearly core principle. I want to encourage you to revert your edit here. You were bold, then you were reverted. Instead of forcing your edit back in (essentially edit-warring on a template affecting 2.7 million existing articles), the next step is to discuss. So...please revert yourself and let's have a discussion. Just because *you* don't like the format doesn't mean that others agree with you. (And just because *I* prefer a different format doesn't mean that others will agree with me). I will look forward to your response. Risker (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey . Glad to see you're still around. The rate of attrition, far too often as a result of pointless and avoidable wikidrama, of good editors is way too high, so I'm always heartened when I see some of the old familiar names pass by my watchlist.Thank you for your otherwise both polite and constructive message; but I've got to say you're mighty quick to throw accusations of edit warring around (and I didn't much appreciate your somewhat more veiled repetition of it at Help talk:Citation Style 1 either). You know full well that the situation obtaining does not constitute edit-warring, and that there's a reason the bright-line rule is set at 3RR and not lower. Your argument here would have been much stronger without this accusation: human nature when faced with an accusation is to get defensive, and defensiveness is not particularly conducive to constructive discourse. Much better to ask about the rationale for whatever action you find objectionable, and make your requested corrective action contingent on your having properly understood it. It would not dilute your message, but it would avoid making the interaction needlessly confrontational. And, man did I ever have to remind myself of the great respect I have for your many contributions to this project, over many years and in some of the most demanding positions, and that you're both acting in good faith and trying to be both polite and constructive even though you must be pretty frustrated about the situation yourself. I shouldn't let this annoy me, of course, but among my many flaws is an insufficient ability to immediately ignore such things. In any case…The revert (that I then reverted) was made with an invalid rationale: you cannot make a local consensus at (by analogy) Donald Trump (Visual Editor) that dictates changes to Hillary Clinton (cite web), or vice versa. The editor making it, while acting in good faith, was acting based on two requests, made without full information available, in the wrong forum (I'm guessing they were just trying to help out VE users, so I have no complaint in that sense). This would be one one of the valid rationales for "reverting a revert" (i.e. why the bright line is at 3R). Further, BRD, while often cited as applying to every edit, is intended mainly to help move forward changes that have stalled due to entrenched discussions. It is, like most other policies and guidelines, not a "suicide pact", and the focus should be on the "D" and not the "R" part. So to the extent that discussion is now ongoing, in the right forum (forums, as I see the underlying VE issue has also now been raised in its proper venue), this is entirely in line with the intent of WP:BRD.That being said, since it did annoy me that you chose to stand on a formality here, I can hardly in good conscience do the same: I'm willing to self-revert while the discussion is ongoing. Or, indeed, just revert it yourself to avoid the back and forth; I won't object. I am however going to ask you to jump through one small hoop first (my apologies for that; I realise it's pretty bad form!):Think through the theories of harm for the two possible status quos. The change obviously doesn't "affect 2.7 million articles" (I presume that was just a formulation for rhetorical purposes?) as changes to the TemplateData doesn't directly affect even a single article (if it did you certainly wouldn't find me making such changes!). The direct effect of TemplateData is just in the behaviour of the Visual Editor, and thus affects editors not articles. And in this case, with the TemplateData as it currently stands, it causes mild inconvenience to those few editors that a) use Visual Editor and b) mainly cite web sources and c) routinely add preemptive archives (that's a grand total of two that I know of, but I'm sure there are more). With the TemplateData as you would prefer, garbage parameters will get invisibly and silently added to actual articles for all editors who add or edit a citation using VE (a still small in absolute terms, but much larger than the other subset in relative terms), with all the potential for attendant annoyance and actual edit wars that implies. And I won't even go into the equivalent inconvenience to those editors (like me) who use VE to edit citations but have to manually compensate for the addition of garbage markup to articles. So long as discussion towards a consensus is actually happening I have no great objections to either outcome (neither is exactly the end of the world), but in terms of overall harm to the project and a balance of concerns I would urge you to consider whether the inconvenience to the relevant subset of editors truly outweighs the alternative. If you still prefer "your" version to stand while discussing, then by all means either let me know so I can self-revert, or just do so yourself.Finally, thanks for actually chiming in on the discussion. My personal biggest frustration on the project is actually the absence of discussions (unless there's some drama involved), not a multitude of opinions. In fact, if you can muster an opinion, I desperately need more participation in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style! :) Cheers, --Xover (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Another thanks
Hello Xover. I wanted to drop you a note of thanks for all your work on the "Scottish play" it is much appreciated. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Likewise! Don't think I haven't noticed your efforts on that article. :) --Xover (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am glad to help when I can :-) Memories of this sketch always makes me smile when I think about "the curse" Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bwahaha! Blackadder would have been a runaway hit on the Elizabethan stage, I'm convinced of it! :) --Xover (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree X!! Speaking of coming at Will's plays from a different angle I don't know if you are aware of this version of The Comedy of Errors. When I went searching for info about it this morning (my time) I was pleasantly surprised to find that it is now available here - part one and here - part two. As my VHS has faded almost into obscurity I am happy about this. Now this may not be your cup of tea but I thought I would make you aware of it on the off chance. Cheers again. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 12:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I finally found the opportunity to watch it this weekend (long story, don't ask). It is indeed hillarious! I don't know about old Willy, but I'm pretty sure it would have been a runaway hit at The Globe. It's… I think it's sort of the essential expression of the play. That moment at the end, when Shakespeare is alone in a single spotlight on an otherwise darkened stage, juggling. The recording should have ended just there!Now I must admit I like to think Shakespeare himself was more enamoured of the high dramas (the Hamlets and Macbeths), which, completely coincidentally I'm sure, also happen to be my favourites too. Take this, for example. So pretentious and overly dramatic that it verges on self-parody, but I absolutely adore it! --Xover (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am glad that you enjoyed it Xover. Thanks for the link!! Who is that young fellow anyway :-) McKellan is so good at teaching - he reminds me of Bernstein in that respect. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I should add that I meant Leonard not Elmer HeeHee. Lennie's Sunday afternoon Young People's Concerts are a marvelous memory of my formative years. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh yeah, I kinda figured it was Lennie you were referring to. Not that I would usually know Lennie from Elmer (or Elmo for that matter). Apart from the usual modern mainstream personal favorites, my facility with music, in any capacity, is essentially non-existant (fundamentally a tin ear).I, by chance, ran across a long article from The Musical Times analyzing Britten's A Midsummer Night's Dream and figured it for a good opportunity to expand our article on it. Three pages in I realized that I had no idea what they were talking about, much less was able to summarise it.In any case, Bernstein… I think I've caught bits and pieces of Dybbuk, Candide, and On The Waterfront, more or less by accident; but apart from West Side Story I don't think there's anything I would be able to point to as his without looking it up. Definitely a blind spot for me. I did make the mistake of looking up his Young People's Concerts on Youtube, though, and before I knew it an hour had passed. The man is absolutely magnetic! And, it must be said, his attempt to explain musical concepts to a K12-ish audience, was only slightly too advanced for me. :) --Xover (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Your post caused many smiles X. Thanks for that :-) I've seen three different performances of Candide over the years. When done well it captures the spirit of Voltaire and Bernstein. Magnetic is absolutely the right word for LB and his ability to impart his love of music (and life for that matter) to us is a great joy. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)