User talk:Xover/Archive 7

Talkback
Re:image deletion. Restored. Please read the explanation for what occurred. Alexf(talk) 17:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OK?
Hi, Xover, how are you doing? Are you in Oslo? Bishonen | talk 21:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Hi Bish. Thank you for your concern (it is very much appreciated). Feeling somewhat shocked right now, of course, that someone could be insane enough to do this, but otherwise I'm fine. I am, thankfully, not anywhere near Oslo, and all friends who are closer to the action seem to be ok too (I have relatives who were close enough to hear the bomb go off). --Xover (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. Yeah, we're all shocked in this part of the world. Bishonen | talk 22:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC).
 * ...and shocked in this part of the world too. Norway's grief is very shared. Giacomo Returned 22:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Giacomo. That is very much appreciated! --Xover (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Malone Questions
Well, you're moving along nicely with the Malone article. A couple of questions. First, the spelling of Shakespeare's name. Didn't Paul recently point out that Malone believed the name was correctly spelled "Shakspeare"? There are a couple of titles, such as that of the Steevens-Malone Supplement, where I think it probably should be "Shakspeare". Also, the ten-volume edition almost certainly should have it "Shakspeare". I can't seem to find corroboration for this on line. Perhaps eventually we can bring in Paul on this? If you don't have access to the original title pages, maybe he does, or knows some other way of finding out. I think it is very important to get this right, since, as Paul notes, Malone's idea of the correct spelling had a powerful influence in succeeding decades, when many thought that this was correct from a scholarly viewpoint. Note also that it is, as expected, "Shakspeare" in the photo of the title of the chapter by Malone on the order in which Shakespeare wrote the plays. That would suggest that Steevens accepted Malone's spelling.

Also, not sure why you moved the list of works before the last sections of the main text. Is this only temporary, before you engage in further expansion? It certainly doesn't look right, the way you have it now. The list should be supplementary to the main body of the article. Regards, Alan W (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The spelling is what's given in the immediate source (Martin), but I have him suspected of modernizing, so am planning to double-check what the spelling was in this instance.
 * I've previously tried to keep the entire article in reasonable shape by not messing with the original text until my new text has reached a chronological point that encompasses it. But at this point I am treating what remains of the original text of the article essentially as filler to hold up the heading structure. In other words, look more on the headings used (really; note the edit summary and look at the table of contents) than on the associated section's prose content. What I've effectively done there is remove all the remaining material from the top level Biography section (so that now, logically, the article's biography stops just after the Attempt and the Supplement); created a new top level Works section, in which I plan on discussing the main works from different angles, and where the works themselves are likely headings; and I've demoted what had previously been top level information to lie down in the Works section. The actual list qua list at the beginning there is likely to be moved out into a separate "List of works by Edmond Malone" (unless we happen to find some good way to incorporate it in the main article). The plan is to discuss there the Attempt, its structure, reception, legacy, innovations, etc.; ditto for the Supplement; ditto for The Plays and Poems; etc.
 * In a similar vein I'm also pondering a top level section that will discuss his relationships with contempories, such that one sub-heading would be George Steevens and the associated prose go into depth on their relationship, its progress, products, and quarrels; typically followed by similar sections on Edward Capell, Joseph Ritson, Robert Jephson, Charlemont, etc.
 * And finally I am intending a top level section on his legacy that would mention the Malone society, and what contemporary scholars and critics say about him (e.g. that Shapiro goes far in criticising him in Contested Will).
 * Some of this may be too ambitious and have to be scaled back a bit, but that's my current thinking anyway. --Xover (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, this all sounds good. Now I'll know where to keep out of your way, and where to continue with the kind of editing I've been doing. As for the spelling, yes, I suspect that Martin has modernized. Not a big deal in many cases. Here, though, it kind of undermines any attempt to convey accurately one of Malone's notable achievements, the setting of a scholarly standard for the spelling of Shakespeare's (Shakspeare's?) name, at least for a period. It may not have been Malone's greatest achievement, and obviously scholarship has long since rejected the spelling, but for historical reasons it should of course be mentioned, and using a modernized spelling undercuts and confuses the historical explanation. But I guess we'll get this straightened out eventually. Regards, Alan W (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Infographic Oslo bombing
Hi, I left an answer on my Commons talk page. Please be aware that the image has been updated to reflect changes to the bomb placement. I've marked older versions for deletion. Asav (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter Martin's book
OK, here's something else to consider. On August 6, 2010, you added to the Malone article: "According to Peter Martin, Malone's main biographer in the 20th century".... Yet the year of publication of Martin's biography of Malone is given in the references as 2005, which is obviously in the 21st century. I just searched the Web, and it looks like the book was originally published in 1995, so that explains the discrepancy. Given the discrepancy, and even simply from the standpoint of accuracy, I think it is necessary to give the original year at least in some way in the reference. Perhaps add it to the data in the template with the keyword "origyear" as you did with Prior? I'm posing this here rather than just doing it myself in case you are aware of something else about the book that would require adding the information in some special way, or something like that. --Alan W (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, my apologies; I seem to have let this one slip me by. My apologies. It's been a little chaotic lately.
 * Anyways… Not really sure on this one. I think the book itself notes that it's a reissue rather than a new edition, so an |origyear might be appropriate. I'm slightly hesitant only because I feel it may be taking precision one step too far (having some background in engineering, I've learned the hard way that excessive precision can be almost as bad as too little). Anyways, on issues such as this you should just feel free to go in and make whatever change you think appropriate yourself. Iff by some odd chance I disagree with you sufficiently to bother, it's not a problem to bring it up for discussion or revert it. The more participation the better, and I would particularly like for the treshold for participation be as low a hurdle as possible for you: and bringing such to me for discussion before making them must be at least somewhat tedious for you. Please do make any and all changes you think appropriate: you need have no fear it'll interfere with my work, annoy or offend me, nor bother me in the slightest to have to revert or bring up for discussion some change you've made (iff I should feel strongly enough about any such). I'm just grateful to have your watchful eye on the article, I assure you all other concerns are very distant seconds! :-) --Xover (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Xover. No problem about the delay in responding. Things have been hectic for me, too; some of us as you know also lead lives outside of Wikipedia. :^) I do feel strongly about precision in cases like this. Seeming to call a 2005 work "20th century" is misleading and confusing at best. I'll see what I can come up with. Probably, yes, "origyear", but first I want to be reasonably certain of what that year is (1995, I think, as I said, but I will try to reconfirm that). Regards, Alan W (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Easy enough to confirm by looking at the copyright page in Google Books. Done. Regards, Alan W (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Chattering about Chatterton
Xover, I was about to protest your removal of those "had"s. I disagree that they were "too many" in that context. If you unfold the story that way, the past perfect tense is needed. But on second thought, I think that the real problem is that the paragraph needs major restructuring. If you don't want the hads, then Malone should not be brought in at the beginning, setting the year as 1777. (You are forced to backtrack to several years earlier for a while, necessitating the hads.) The background of Chatterton's imposture should be explained first, then the Tyrwhitt publication mentioned, and only then should it be mentioned that Malone had just moved to London.

You say that Walpole was "taken in", but it is not clear by what, since the uninformed reader might not at that point realize that the Rowley history was a forgery. I can't find this "History of England" on the Web. Was it a prose history, or the name of a poem? The hypertext leap via the provided link to the Chatterton article might add some information, but this article should stand on its own. Much to be untangled and clarified here. Regards, Alan W (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I've taken a crack at a rewrite. I sidestepped the question of whether the "History of England" is a poem by not mentioning it. I'm not sure that it is important to mention that one specific title. Of course if it is, and you find out if it is really a poem, you can put it back in the appropriate place. I hope that you will appreciate the fact that now the entire paragraph contains only one "had". :-) Regards, Alan W (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A few quick reactions to the changes (I've not thought particularly deeply about this yet, mostly because I'm not yet finished fleshing out the section)…
 * First, the new version places the emphasis on Walpole too much. Walpole is there because he's a big name (i.e. a little bit of name dropping for the article); because his embarassment was a significant thread in the controversy; because he was Malone's friend and this may have been a contributing factor to drawing Malone into the issue; and because it will tie together with the overall narrative of the article in a section—yet to be written—on Robert Jephson's Count of Narbonne (based on Walpole's Castle of Otranto). This latter section may (in fact probably will) be inserted before the current section. In any case, Walpole is actually incidental to the main thrust of this section.
 * Second, it places a bit too much emphasis on Chatterton himself; and the section isn't actually about Chatterton, but about all the reactions to and controversy surrounding it. In particular it's about Malone's actions and position regarding it, and the context which shaped them. As with Walpole, Chatterton himself is actually incidental to the main thrust of the section.
 * Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the new version takes the reader out of the overall order of the article. The thread tying the article together (well, the Biography chapter of it) is a purely chronological progression through Malone's life. This section now starts with a jump back in time (from the 1782 timeframe to 1769) and a focus on Chatterton and Walpole, which sets the context for the reader (in 1769 and on Chatterton/Walpole, but we're really going to be talking about Malone and 1782). The original was placed firmly in Malone's timeline and then digressed back to explain the precursors for his actions. If you look at the current section in isolation this isn't a problem (both would be valid approaches), but in the larger picture of the article it is disharmonious.
 * I am going to focus first on finishing fleshing out this section—and perhaps also to complete one (Jephson's Narbonne) or two (courtship of Sarah Loveday) short sections that may end up preceding it (because they fit chronologically before the Chatterton thing)—before going back to look at this prose in any depth. I believe the immediate reactions I've outlined here will need to be addressed, but not necessarily by going back to the way it was previously. I'm just not sure how to approach the concerns (i.e. mine as well as those that originally prompted your changes) yet.
 * As to your original concerns: I agree that from a pure readable prose perspective, the fact that the Rowley poems were Chatterton's forgeries needs to be worked in prior to any reference to Walpole being “taken in” or similar (expecting the reader to be familiar with this point is excessively onerous). The episode where Chatterton sent Walpole something appears to be somewhat ill researched in general. Some sources claim he sent something called History of England without explaining what that was; some say he sent a few Rowley poems; some that he sent come commentary on painting allegedly by Rowley, intended for Walpole's History of Painting in England (IIRC); and one source I looked at yesterday describes that Chatteron sent a few Rowley poems with a letter that asked for Walpole's patronage in return for a copy of a Rowleian commentary on mediæval painters. Since they communicated, as far as I can tell, strictly by letter, and Walpole's correspondance and manuscripts are preserved, I would have expected this to have be both clear-cut and long settled; but it appears there is still some significant confusion in this area that too many sources simply handwave away.
 * Wow, that was quite long-winded for “a few quick reactions”. My apologies! --Xover (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, PS: We should probably move these discussions to the article's talk page for the benefit of future editors (and reviewers in the various processes). This discussion, for instance, will explain why the Chatterton section ends up the way it will eventually end up (however that will be). --Xover (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Some very interesting points, and if you proceed as you indicate, then much of what we both did already might be moot. Somewhat but not entirely off the point is the matter of "name dropping". Walpole is only a minor example of it. I don't recall how much you inherited from earlier edits to the article, but all the stuff about other people who sat for portraits by Joshua Reynolds, and other lists of famous and not-so-famous personages—I'm really wondering about all that, and maybe some or all of it should go.


 * Also interesting about the apparently sloppy Chatterton scholarship. Sounds like it might be hard to select really accurate material. My first suggestion at sidestepping the need to do so in all places, though, was in just removing the History of England mention. Probably not necessary at all, and that's one fact the less to have to verify.


 * As for the ordering, well, I don't know. If you feel you have to anchor sections with actions in Malone's timeline (maybe I'm putting this a bit awkwardly), all in chronological order, and then only look back here and there for explanations of certain events, all well and good, but it might require too many elaborate grammatical constructions of the type that seem to bother you. And yes, there might have to be a bunch of hads in there in that case; we still have to be grammatically correct. But I guess we'll see how it works out. We certainly might not have to say as much about Chatterton's forgeries as we say now, but we do have to give the reader an idea of what they were and what the controversy around them was, or else Malone's subsequent actions won't be properly understood. Anyhow, I'll watch you expand and modify this and other sections for a while, and then join in as necessary. (I might mention that I will be very busy in the next few days and might not have a chance to do any Wikipedia editing, but I'll look in as soon as I can.) Oh, and if you want to copy or move any of this discussion to the Malone talk page, I have no problem with that. You might even get a couple of other Wikipedians to join in, though I wouldn't hold my breath; Edmond Malone is not a fashionable topic in most circles these days, but more of a specialized, perhaps acquired taste. :-) Regards, Alan W (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hope all is well, Xover. I, for one, miss your presence here. This year was a busy one for me too, but the pressures have lessened now, and if you have any time over the next few weeks to work on the Malone article, I can help as before. Regards, Alan W (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI
It's done. Regards, — YourEyesOnly (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Xover (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Request that topic ban be lifted
Hi Xover,

I've made a request that the topic ban be lifted. I hope I can count on your support. NinaGreen (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Where Are You?
I see that after a flurry of activity about a year ago, you have been absent from these pages, Xover. Don't think that your valuable contributions, especially to topics related to Shakespeare, have not been missed. I hope that all is well and we will see you back here soon. Regards, Alan W (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification motion
A case (Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has  been modified by  which changed the  wording  of the  discretionary  sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just  articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Theatre Project collaboration
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DionysosProteus (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your Better Source notation on Shakespeare Theatre Company
Good Morning Xover

I noticed your requested better source for the Patrick Stewart Remark in the Race Reversed Othello paragraph of the Shakespeare Theatre Company article. The citation is in fact my personal memory from having attended the reception. It was not covered by any news organization, so I am not aware of any other source that would be available other than the other ~400 attendees. Your thoughts please

ed

Ecragg (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I'm not sure that's an issue with any actual solution. Your personal recollection is unlikely to meet the verifiability and reliable source policies (you would, in this case, be a primary source). The only remotely plausible way I can see would be if you had published your observations (in a blog or something) that we could cite and then rephrased the sentence to say not "Patrick Stewart said X" but "Ecragg reported that Patrick Stewart said X" (and I'm not sure even that would pass muster). If we cannot find a reliable secondary source for this statement it may simply have to be removed entirely. I tried a few google searches earlier but was unable to find any. Sorry. Xover (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thomas E. Kennedy
Our policy on external links is that the only thing that should normally be linked there is the main official website of the article's main topic. It shouldn't contain a convenience link to the website of the publishing company that publishes his work (that would belong on an article about that company), to a separate promotional website for one of his books (that would belong on an article about the book), or to extra bits of media coverage that haven't been cited as references (those could be used as additional references, but are not just added to ELs.) Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back and a question
Hi Xover, nice to see you back. I was surprised; I've seen people take a couple of weeks or months off from working on here, but I don't recall seeing anyone disappear for three years and then just pop back up like they were gone for a long weekend. Whatever the case though, 'tis great to have you back. You were the first person to welcome and encourage me when I started dabbling in Shakespeare articles way back when, so it's nice to be able to return the favour upon your return. Anyhow, quick question for you. I've noticed you've removed the doi_broken parameter from a number of articles. I'm just wondering why? This is an extremely useful (albeit aesthetically unappealing) parameter added by a bot when a doi within the cite journal template is broken or invalid. The advantage of the parameter is that if and when the doi is repaired, the bot will automatically remove the broken parameter, and the doi link will go live again. By removing the doi_broken paramter, the only way an editor would have of checking to see if a doi is still active is to do it manually. So, for example, in this edit, you removed the broken doi from the "Structural Unity of The Two Gentlemen of Verona" on JStor. However, should that doi be repaired at some point in the future, we'd now have no way of knowing. So, as I said, I was just wondering if there was any specific reason you were removing the parameter. Cheers. Bertaut (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi I kinda got burned out by the SAQ ArbCom case, and then I got busy IRL, so for my own sanity I had to shelve the `pedia for a while. Not that I have oodles of free time now either, but at least now I have the occasional spare cycle. Don't expect the recent level of participation on average though. I'm kinda "catching up" and putting some extra time into it for that reason, but on an ongoing basis my contributions are likely to be… bursty.And I must say, particularly in light of the sad news about and, I was very glad to find some of the old crowd still around. The work you've done on the play articles, in particular, has been a joy to behold!Regarding the DOI issue… For context, I've been working from the cleanup listing for WP:BARD, so from that perspective it was a maintenance template ala cn (or a dead link, etc.). I had not given the issue you bring up any thought, and will have to think more on it. In the mean time you should, of course, feel free to revert my changes if you feel that's best.However, also keep in mind that there are some other factors at play here. The DOI prefix 10.2307 is owned by JSTOR (i.e. not by the given journal's publisher), such that a DOI link that has that prefix will always refer to the article's copy on JSTOR. It is thus redundant with the "JSTOR number" (see the |jstor parameter). In addition, JSTOR operates with a "moving wall" where not all articles from a given publisher are always available (it changes over time). And that's not even counting the possibility that a publisher may cancel their deal with JSTOR (I see a lot of journals splitting their archives between JSTOR and Project MUSE). And finally, when a JSTOR DOI is broken it is probably because JSTOR deliberately broke it. I've seen a lot of content on JSTOR that doesn't have a working DOI and that makes me suspect JSTOR has deliberately disabled them, and I speculate this is because it costs a hefty chunk of cash to register and maintain DOIs at the large registrars (liek CrossRef, which I believe JSTOR used). All of that is not to say I've necessarily concluded that the broken DOIs should be removed from articles—as I said, I'll have to think on this a bit—but they are factors that affect the conclusion.Anyways, thanks for bringing this up, and good to hear from you! --Xover (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was shocked to hear about Paul alright. I didn't know him that well. My main involvement with him was in the many pages he created for the characters in Shakespeare's history plays; he asked me to make sure all the templates and articles like An Age of Kings and the BBC Television Shakespeare were kept up to date. I must say, he caught me off guard when he created a separate page for Prince Hal. Do I link to Hal or Henry V of England? So many options...well, two, but you take my point!Anyhow, as regards the doi issue, it's no big deal, I was just curious. I had noticed that it tends to be primarily JStor links that are broken, but didn't give it much thought, although I was aware the prefix was owned by JStor rather than the publisher. It never occurred to me that JStor themselves may have broken it. I wasn't planning on reverting you, in the grand scheme of things, it's a pretty minor issue. As I say, was just curious.So all the best in your flurry of current activity. If you want a hand with anything, you know where to find me. Bertaut (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)