User talk:Xover/Archive 3

Approaches...
I will do so. It would help if you and the rest of the editors would chime in on this. My contention is that the Cairncross Hamlet note is not relevant to any material in the article, and if it should go anywhere, it should be in the Hamlet article, which it is. Cairncross's chronology is not accepted by anyone, as I said, other than Oxfordians. This is the reason Stephen wants it in the article, to introduce an opinion supporting his authorship candidate, which is why I can't believe he's acting in good faith. Since it's an extreme minority position, woefully out of date, it has no more place in the article than does a reference to E.B. Everitt's 1951 book about Shakespeare writing Edmund Ironside.Tom Reedy (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your attempt to find a compromise. FYI - I have just posted further information about Cairncross on the talk page. I have found that he was regarded as a leading Shakespeare scholar through-out his lifetime, and is still being quoted in textbooks, journals, studies, etc. Hardly the disreputable ancient that Tom has everyone believing. Regards the article, I have made several attempts to attach the notes to the most obvious places, but if you can find  better placement, in notes or in the article, than please have a go - it shouldn't take long.  I'm afraid if I do anything else, it will just get ridiculed. Cheers.


 * FYI - I do mean these edits in good faith - no matter what Tom says. Sure, they have authorship application, which is why I happen to know about them!  But they also speak to the greater issues of Shakespeare's development and style. They speak to the "periods of development" which are stated as fact in the article. They also speak to the disparity amount scholars when it comes to dating (Hamlet being the perfect example - early play with constant revisions or late play during a "tragic period").  The article makes everything so clean and tidy. As such it's either simplistic or deceptive. Smatprt (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So are we about done, Xover?Tom Reedy (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we are almost done! I wanted to give you a heads-up that I just posted a response to your last bit on the WS talk page.  I also had a little brainstorm about a really obvious solution we might consider.  I will look forward to your comments there.Smatprt (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration
Hi. I made some edits today to the Shakespeare article. Trying to put the collaboration and notes issues to bed. I'd appreciate it if you would review them. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Characters of Shakespear's Plays
I decided to create a page for the second most important single work in Shakespeare scholarship. It is almost done, and I am just going to find a few more minor things to add. What do you think? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Kean was the same as in the essay section, Edmund Kean. I should probably specify as "the actor" when he comes up later. If I am right, the 34 essays should cover all of the plays, but yeah, I need to expand the "essay" section to go into that a bit more. And you can feel free to make changes/suggestions, as it is almost too much text for me to handle without a second opinion (mentally, it is hard to keep all of the individual pieces in my head at once when the words are my own and thus all blend together). I'm going to wait til after it is listed at DYK to list it at GAN. I hope to finish off the month with a few of his other, lesser books - Lectures Chiefly on the Dramatic Literature of the Age of Elizabeth, Lectures on the English Comic Writers, A View of the English Stage, and "On Shakspeare and Ben Jonson". After that I will put together Charles Lambs works on Shakespeare. I was commissioned by a group of students that needed to study Hazlitt for a doctoral exam and I am in the mood to fill in a lot of missing important Shakespeare scholarship. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the page again. I think I came up with a solution about Kean. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can be used to be a link at the top of a section to another page that is important. You might want to add that in there. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. I plan to put in the last two major sources and some more critical response tomorrow before working with Alan to make sure everything is correct to the sources. There might be a few more essays added if they are notable. Some of them add very little to an overall idea - the themes covers the generic approach while the essays are what the critics focus on specifically. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I listed the page at GAN after adding about 15k more text and some more images. Most of the plays have been covered. The other comments haven't appeared to be too notable. If I missed anything, they could probably be added later, but it should be at least 90% finished. Anyway, Alan is still looking over the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my last remarks to you on Ottava's talk page. This is getting confusing, what with four talk pages being involved as vehicles for this discussion, but I guess we'll work it out :-) --Alan W (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to note on this - "There are several quite long runs of quotes that are presented inline. Quotes longer than a sentence or two should be given as blockquotes for clarity." - the evil MoS says to not blockquote unless a sentence is four lines or longer. :) But if there are any in particular that you think need to be blockquoted, I wont mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the essays are alphabetized. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I need sleep - I've given too many reviews this weekend and worked on far too many topics. You can fool around with images if you want to remove some. By the way, this could be added in the critical review if you really want an image of a reviewer. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since GA reviews encourage the reviewer to have a direct role in helping the article become better, I would like your input to continue on the article after the GA review is done. I asked Alan to provide a possible section on Falstaff and there may be one or two other sections added (along with some others being dropped into the "others" section). Your background on Shakespeare will be important and it would be nice to have three people involved in the article, since it is a very tough topic and it would be good to have three people nominating it for FAC (to handle various problems and the rest). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

perhaps this will work . ..
... WP:BARD as opposed to WT:BARD. Crafty (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text and HTML lists
Hi Xover, thanks for your insightful comments over at Wt:FAC about alt text. Your comments about how blind people will have different needs depending on what devices they use to access Wikipedia, or there experience level with the site, are right on the mark.

I went to your user page and found it hard to read because there are extra line breaks between the items in the HTML lists. As you can see in the HTML source, putting an extra line break after a list item causes the list to end, so it reads like this with JAWS: "list of 1 items, list end; list of 1 items ..." you get the idea. I often fix these discontinuous lists when I find them in articles, by either removing the line breaks, using , or using the old-fashioned  and  tags. Graham 87 15:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much - the problem is gone now. Graham 87 04:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare Photos
Hi - yes I do have a number of Shakespeare photos available, with no copyright issues! I'm quite busy right now, but in the next few weeks I can begin posting them.Smatprt (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey there - do you have a wish list of Shakespeare photos? I uploaded a few today (puck, Prince Hal, Countess of Salisbury/Earl of Warwick from Edward III), and will keep uploading as I have time. I also left you a note in the section below. Smatprt (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll keep uploading pictures and look for some of the more obscure characters. Posted a great Puck shot. Of course, most of what I have is lead characters (nature of the beast), but I'll keep looking.  One issue has already arisen - I posted a fabulous Kate/Petrucio shot and put in in the Shrew article. It wasn't notable enough for one editor who posted this: []. I put the shot in the lead cuz the existing lead image was a terribly boring shot of the Folio title page (oooh-ahhh!), which I moved down to a more appropriate place (text/source).  But I am afraid I might run into the same argument a lot. What do you think - if a picture isn't of "famous" actors, is it still of value here?  Depending on your thoughts, you might comment on the Shrew talk page, as well. Oh - I also worked a bit on the Hamlet synopsis. Corrected about a dozen errors. I'm amazed in reached FA in that condition. Anyhow, thanks for your continued work on all things wiki! Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Authorship edits
Thanks! I appreciate your appreciation! I did some more this morning and will move on to the Oxfordian theory article with a similar eye. It was the Oxfordian theory article I split, but given that that particular theory has received so much attention and is so multi-faceted, I really don't see a problem with a sub-article or two. But your comments, as usual, are valid and I will look to make sure that they don't become overly inundated with trivia or too many variations on the main premise. As always, if you have any specific suggestions, I will be glad to help implement them. Thanks again. Smatprt (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll continue to keep an eye out in this regard. FYI - you mentioned the fact that the issue only rates a couple of sentences in the main article. Check here [] for the way the article read before several mainstream bullies attempted to have the entire section removed. They repeatedly maintained that there was "no authorship question". Only after some admins got involved did they reluctantly and begrudgingly agree to even the minimal wording that stands today. It's a shame, as what is there now in no ways provides a summary of the main article, as the former wording did. However, as the issue continues to grow, perhaps that will change one day. For example, were you aware of the N.Y. Times survey of Shakespeare professors which found that 17% of these college professors think that there is "possible" reason to doubt the standard attribution. Hardly the 99.99999 percent that some of the more rabid editors here would have everyone believe. The same survey showed that 72% of these professors do indeed discuss authorship issue in their classes. These numbers would have been unthinkable 20 years ago, and they continue to rise. Also, there are now several colleges that actually offer courses in the authorship question. Perhaps these facts will help to allay your fears over undue weight. Cheers - and thanks again for your kind words. Smatprt (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xover, thanks for the feedback.
Just to let you know, I did try and find out how to do the proper "Citation Needed" thing, but I couldn't find the info. For future reference, where do I need to look for that kind of thing? Stratpod (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your cool head
Hi Xover. Thank you for intervening. You were so right on in soooo many ways. I snapped and made some poor comments based on prior experiences and just being, well, fed up at the continual nastiness that has gone on - all because of my authorship beliefs. But that is no excuse for my own behavior. Thanks for calling me out on that. I tried to explain myself on the Hamlet talk page and offered several apologies to Wrad. But I also reaffirmed my belief that we must keep interp out of the synopsis. In any case, I hope we can all move forward and that your words will resonate with all the regular editors of the Sh project. Thanks again.

SVG Signatures.
SVGs are preferred here on Wikipedia..they allow infinite resolution zooming in, with no loss of quality. They also have more crisper lines, allowing for a more clean image. The SVG I have provided of Shakespeare's signature is a trace of the original image, and is literally the same, just in a different format. I don't see the fuss of changing it. Connormah (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, again
Thanks for posting your response to Old Moonraker at the Taming of the Shrew page. I wish he/she had assumed a bit of good faith, but as you know, the old arguments do linger and seem to taint everything I do. Anyhow, I posted the issue at the Wikiproject: Photography talk page hoping for some input from some non-involved editors, as well as a response at the Shrew talk page itself. I certainly don't want to run into a batch of COI accusations as I move forward with uploading more photos. Thanks again. Smatprt (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you comment?
Can you comment on the discussion going on at the Shakespeare discussion page []? AGF is already out the window and words like "stupid" and "misleading" are already being thrown around. (Sigh). Even though we are on opposite sides of this issue, I still very much appreciate the wisdom you bring to these discussions. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about images
Hi there - I got this question on my talk page and answered as best I could on the Bertaut's talk page. But could you take a look at my answer and add your input if you feel it would help Bertaut (talk):

"Hi Smatprt, I apologise for bothering you, but I could do with some advice. I'm currently doing an overhawl of Henry VI, Part 2, and one of the things I'd like to bring to the page is some pictures. I've spent a lot of time online, and I've managed to get five or six good quality images which would look well on the page. Now, I know there are copyright issues, and I started reading through the various rules and regulations and whatnot, and frankly, it meant nothing to me. When I was editing pages on the Star Trek wiki Memory Alpha, I used to upload images from the DVD special features, and simply cite them and that was good enough, but I think more would be required in the case of Henry VI wouldn't it? Again, I apologise for bothering you with this, but I'd rather just not post any pictures than post a bunch that I shouldn't have done, so any advice is much appreciated (I can happily give you the links to the pictures if you wish). Basically, I'm just looking for a simple explanation as to what I can and can't post (If such a thing exists! Thanks very much. Bertaut (talk) ." Thanks, - Smatprt (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Authorship edits
Greetings. Long time! I am attempting to collaborate with Tom here[] and our discussions may interest you. Or they may not! In any case, may I wish you and yours a happy holiday season! Smatprt (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)