Deleted trivia sub page |
|||
Line 211: | Line 211: | ||
==Deleted trivia sub page== |
==Deleted trivia sub page== |
||
Unless there is massive changes to |
Unless there is massive changes to the articles listed there, and a decent attempt to re-create them in proper article form: (paragraph form, rather than a cluttered list), it will get put in Miscellany for deletion in a few months time. I've seen many people say "move it to my subpage so I can clean it up", and lots of time goes by: and nothing is done. My point is: subpages aren't just a storage area for deleted articles. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] 16:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:16, 20 August 2007
Previous Talk is archived at: User talk:AndyJones/Archive 1
The Original Barnstar | ||
For truly awesome and inspirational work on List of Shakespearean characters I award you the original barnstar SilkTork 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC) |
That is long and devoted work. And is nearly one of the longest pages on Wiki. I'll nominate it for a peer review for a Good List. I see you are not quite finished yet, but are almost there. I truly admire what you have done. Nice one! SilkTork 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
New collaboration
I've been brainstorming on a new collaboration, let me run an idea by you:
I'd like our next collaboration to be on Romeo and Juliet, to bring it to GA status. I think it would set a standard for the other play articles. I also think that since it is second only to Shakespeare's article in number of page views, it deserves to look good. Right now, I'd rather the project to focus on improving several articles to GA, rather than burning ourselves out to get one FA. GAs aren't all that hard to achieve, especially as an organized group. I bet we could get R&J to GA in less than a week, without breaking a sweat, then move on to another article. Once we have a solid base of GAs, we can concentrate on improving those to FA.
Anyway, here's a plan outline for R&J:
- notify project members
- cite all sources (reliably)
- breadth - do enough research to assure that the article covers all important aspects of the topic. The outline on the project page should help
- style, format, copyedit
- apply for GA
So, what do you think? Wrad 14:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Haha, haven't read Measure for Measure yet, but I plan to. Those are just side projects. I'll be right there with everyone else when it all starts. Do you think the time is ripe to start this new collaboration, or should we wait, or bring it up on the project talk page? I suppose we could do it the way we did last time. I have discussed it with a few others who seem to agree. Wrad 19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's the same thing I was worried about, but I think I've come up with a solution. In my little newsletter thing I'll say that we're starting a collaboration on R&J for GA status, as the WS article has boiled down to copyedit issues. Those with strong copyediting skills may wish to stay with the Shakespeare article and continue the push for FA status, others may want to join in on R&J, the choice is theirs. Something like that. I'm not too good at copyediting, myself, and I'd like to do some real expanding! If you could put up the to do list, I'll notify the members. Wrad 21:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I see you're back and better than ever. I'll start notifying people. I think two people acting at the same time can move the masses more effectively than one. Wrad 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I'm starting at the top and working down. See you in the middle. Wrad 20:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration request about your POV pro-Rotary activity
I included you as a non-declared Rotarian editing POV Rotary wiki, on this Arbitration Request. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration
You're a lawyer. You should advocate on that.
If you are close to Rotary, you should declare it on your page, as it would help you to feel better, believe me. You can have politic or religious preventions against declaring yourself, but Rotary is an association, not a religion. I know that masons are frequently in Rotary and hide themselves as masons (they swear to hide), but I am not antimasonic (I just think that elitism in masonry leads to violence) at all, you know. If you are a member or close to a Rotary member, to declare yourself as a Rotarian would help you, believe me. Pierre 04:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
A deceitful sockpuppetry
You MUST read The Life and Times of BenJonson (Wiki editor) in the Shakespeare Authorship discussion section. He is finally exposed as that celebrated Oxfordian Smatprt! (Felsommerfeld 23:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
- Hi. Sorry you've been dragged into this. It's true, I have an expertise and I make edits about what I know. Felsommerfeld wrote the following about this article: "*I mean why are we even having this discussion? The guy from Stratford wrote it all, period." If he had his way there would be no article on the authorship question at all. Since he cannot kill the article he is trying to edit out anything which challenges his position, including deleting whole sections without input or discussion. Now you know...the rest of the story.Smatprt 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Felsommerfeld's accusations of sockpuppetry have gone way too far. He knows, as do the actual long-time editors of this article (of which he is not), that Ben Jonson and I are two very different individuals that happen to see eye to eye on the authorship issue. Feel free to investigate, research or whatever you need to do to confirm this. For starters, BenJonson lives fulltime on the east coast, I on the west. Check our IP's or whatever (I am not that technical to know how you check, but I know you can and immediately clear this up and stop Felsommerfeld from his one-man war.Smatprt 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. Sorry you've been dragged into this. It's true, I have an expertise and I make edits about what I know. Felsommerfeld wrote the following about this article: "*I mean why are we even having this discussion? The guy from Stratford wrote it all, period." If he had his way there would be no article on the authorship question at all. Since he cannot kill the article he is trying to edit out anything which challenges his position, including deleting whole sections without input or discussion. Now you know...the rest of the story.Smatprt 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Smatprt is smart enough to use different IP addresses. Please check out the Shakespeare Authorship discussion about user BenJonson and read the evidence in detail. You can form your own opinion. (Felsommerfeld 01:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- Oh dear. Do I really want to get involved in this? Of course not. Anyway, I seriously doubt that Smatprt and BenJonson are one-and-the-same. Smatprt hasn't denied being Stephen Moorer (who I confess I hadn't previously heard of, sorry Stephen) and BenJonson is very probably Roger Stritmatter. Either way, I doubt they can be the same person, since BenJonson isn't as experienced with the technicalities of editing as Smatprt, and that would be a bizarre attribute to try to fake. But then, is any of this valid evidence in the world of authorship? And do I care much? No. AndyJones 07:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- No problem Andy, I never said I was famous, just easy to look up. And you are right about Benjonson's editing technique. I hadn't thought of that.Smatprt 13:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Do I really want to get involved in this? Of course not. Anyway, I seriously doubt that Smatprt and BenJonson are one-and-the-same. Smatprt hasn't denied being Stephen Moorer (who I confess I hadn't previously heard of, sorry Stephen) and BenJonson is very probably Roger Stritmatter. Either way, I doubt they can be the same person, since BenJonson isn't as experienced with the technicalities of editing as Smatprt, and that would be a bizarre attribute to try to fake. But then, is any of this valid evidence in the world of authorship? And do I care much? No. AndyJones 07:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Romeo and Juliet on screen
I don't know what to do with the first paragraph; the first sentence doesn't make sense, and the second doesn't flow. I have run-through everything else, and here present the work for your consideration.
The films' openings reveal each director's care to establish authenticity: Cukor introduces his characters in a shot of a scene played on a proscenium stage; Renato Castellani's 1954 version opens with John Gielgud, famous as a stage Romeo, as the Prologue in Elizabethan doublet and hose; Zeffirelli sets his scene with an overview of Verona, and his Prologue, in voiceover, was another famous stage Romeo: Laurence Olivier. In contrast, Romeo + Juliet opens with images of television and print journalism, targetting the tastes of a younger audience.[4]
There is a particular difficulty for the screen-writer towards the end of the fourth act, where Shakespeare's play requires considerable compression on the big screen, without giving the impression of "cutting to the chase".[5] In Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 version, Juliet's return home from the Friar's cell, her submission to her father and the preparation for the wedding are drastically abbreviated, and similarly with the tomb scene: Paris does not appear at all, and Benvolio (in the Balthazar role) is sent away but is not threatened.[6] In Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, the screenplay allows Juliet to witness Romeo's death, and the role of the watch is cut, permitting Frair Lawrence to remain with Juliet and to be taken by surprise by her sudden suicide.[7]
Including the four major theatrical releases already mentioned, Shakespeare's play has been filmed more than 40 times.[citation needed] Several of the adaptations of the story have been filmed, also, most notably West Side Story, Prokofiev's ballet and Romanoff and Juliet. Similarly, several theatrical films, such as Shakespeare in Love and Romeo Must Die, consciously use elements of Shakespeare's plot.
RedRabbit1983 10:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Eyrian
Thank you for your useful comments there. I was perhaps a bit harsh in not continuing to assume that Eyrian had good faith, and was just trying to make a point. Bearian 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Take it slow, young Luke Skywalker .... Bearian 17:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy close of the afds might be appropriate, but it has to come from some neutral respected person who sees the discussion, not someone with a position in the matter. The best thing to do at the moment is to comment usefully for whatever position you support in the actual afds. DGG (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Reply
Whew! How about I start with the most important thing? R&J is going strong! Another user from the project started helping out. I feel the same about Shakespeare. QP is about to reapply for FA, so keep your eyes open. 'bama came back for a bit but is still a little sour. As for the rest, I'll have to look at what you said... Wrad 20:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Userfication requests
I noticed that you've requested to userfy many of the "in popular culture" pages. I've userfied a recently-closed page at User:CaveatLector/Kitsune in popular culture. I figure you would be the best person to keep track of this class of deleted articles. If you would like "in popular culture" pages that have already been deleted, I can undelete them and move them into your userspace as well.
Here is a partial list of already-deleted pages nominated 7-28 or later (I just quickly scanned them, this is probably not complete:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to torture in popular culture
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stockholm syndrome in popular culture
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beagle in popular culture
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian martial arts in popular culture
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pac-Man in popular culture (2nd nomination) (userfication request apparently unnoticed)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seppuku in popular culture
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses in popular culture
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomical names in popular culture
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batmobile in popular culture
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to Soul Train in popular culture
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Hall of the Mountain King in popular culture
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toupees in popular culture
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depictions of God in popular culture
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeti in popular culture
Let me know what you'd like; anything you can find. Cool Hand Luke 17:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I did all of these, and made a directory at User:AndyJones/Deleted trivia, so that you can keep track of the ones that might be userfied elsewhere. If you find anything else that you want, just let me know. Cool Hand Luke 20:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you add this one to the userfying that he has also requested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermes in popular culture? Mathmo Talk 00:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I've got that taken care of and updated the list at User:AndyJones/Deleted trivia. If there are any others that slip through, you can let me know. Cool Hand Luke 22:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
In popular culture articles and AfDs
I saw your comment here, and wanted to say I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. I too agree that some of these articles have potential. Other common forms of such articles are "Pop culture <something>" and "Cultural depictions of", both of which I've linked to in the Prefixindex. I also saw that you (or someone) tried to start a request for comment on this spate of AfDs. I'd be happy to support any future attempts to discuss this issue. I also saw the list above of AfDs. That is rather incomplete, as the history of such AfDs goes back much further than the recent spate. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Popular_culture_articles for more on finding such AfDs, and see this search. There should be ways to further refine such seraches. There will be a lot of crap mixed with the diamonds though, so good luck! :-) Carcharoth 01:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture? Carcharoth 21:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am now! It's on my watchlist. AndyJones 07:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how close an eye you are keeping on your store of userfied 'in popular culture' articles, but if enough people get involved, it might be better to move it to the Wikipedia namespace so it can be more collaborative? I've added a good resource at User talk:AndyJones/Deleted trivia. Carcharoth 09:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
As requested
User:AndyJones/Air Force One in popular culture
I hope you'll be requesting these to be restored at WP:DRV once you have referenced them and removed any and all original research, rather than just shifting them back into project space; do that and they will be redeleted under WP:CSD#G4. Neil ╦ 17:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Of course. Thanks for your help. AndyJones 18:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- And here is User:AndyJones/Cultural References to Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil CitiCat ♫ 22:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. AndyJones 07:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- And here is User:AndyJones/Cultural References to Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil CitiCat ♫ 22:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Bermuda Triangle AfD
Per your request, I have userfied "The Bermuda Triangle in popular culture" to User:AndyJones/The Bermuda Triangle in popular culture. — Deckiller 14:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I agree with you about deletion being inappropriate in many scenerios. Once the Wikipedia Annex is fully operational, I hope to reduce these deletion issues (especially relating to fiction); for the time being, however, deletion is the method everyone seems to be using. — Deckiller 14:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. AndyJones 16:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
RfD
I noticed that you voted to keep the Wp:an/i and Wp:afd redirects at the Redirects for deletion page. I also voted to keep these redirect pages. I thought that if they were removed, then I would not automatically get to the pages I was looking for if I happened to type all lowercase letters, which would be pretty inconvenient. However, it turns out I was wrong. The software will automatically send someone to the appropriate page, even if they type all lowercase, and even if the redirect pages are deleted. It's just like a redirect, but without the redirect page. Deleting them will remove needless clutter in mainspace searches. With this knowledge, I wonder if you might consider changing your vote to delete. Thanks, and have a good day. Nick Graves 18:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking this trouble. I've withdrawn my vote. AndyJones 21:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
We've nearly got the breadth parameter covered for this article now, which leaves mainly style and copyediting issues. If you like, go ahead and look over my writing for mistakes. I know for a fact that there are several, and I don't want to be too embarrassed when we call Redrabbit in on it :) Wrad 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Saviour
The Outlaw Halo Award | ||
To Andy Jones, for salvaging great works on pop culture for later use....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
Andy - I'll get to Tyrannosaurus in pop culture soon, now prioritized given what has happened..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Will
The Barnstar of High Culture | ||
I commend your hard work on William Shakespeare. Choosing to edit such a high-profile, controversial and research-intensive article is a mark of patience, perseverance and dedication to Wikipedia that is rarely seen. We clearly need more editors, such as yourself, who are willing to dedicate their time and energy to writing articles about their areas of expertise. Awadewit | talk 04:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for reverting to my last version. the debate on it's notability wasn't closed, and then Sherzo decided to blank the page on his own whim. I recreated it and nominated it AfD in order that a consensus could be reached. Sherzo's actions have resulted in a complaint which can be found here. As a result of this complaint he has made a counter complaint against me which can be found here. I would appreciate it if you read both complaints and commented as you see fit. Thanks. TorstenGuise 18:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Simple tales, Fee tails, and Special tails…
cf. your comment on the Shaks FAC page. I'm certainly no lawyer, but the description of a Fee tail—aka. Entail—on Fee tail certainly seems to match Will's will, as best I'm able to understand it. He takes care to specify “…his daughter Susanna and the first son of her body lawfully issuing…” etc., thus filling the criteria for a Fee tail special (and clearly trying to achieve a Fee tail male) and avoiding a Fee simple. The legal wrangling Susanna and Elizabeth Hall get into after Thomas Nash's death seems match the description of a Common Recovery. As the Fee tail article states, the relevant bits of law and practice were obsoleted about a century ago; which may explain why the term rings false to someone familiar with current terminology in the area?--Xover 20:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Internet versions of Will's will are often quite deficient in one way or another. Here is a transciption from Chambers—and verified against the original—of the relevant part of the will (the linebreaks are from Chambers, not the original; and --this-- indicates a strikethrough):
Item I Gyve Will bequeath & Devise vnto my daughter Susanna Hall […] To Have & to hold All & singuler the saied premisses with their Appurtennaunces vnto the saied Susanna Hall for & during the terme of her naturall lief, & after her Deceas to the first sonne of her bodie lawfullie yssueing & to the heires Males of the bodie of the saied first Sonne lawfullie yssueing, & for defalt of such issue to the second Sonne of her bodie lawfullie issueing and --so-- to the heires Males of the bodie of the saied Second Sonne lawfullie yssueinge, & for defalt of such heires to the third Sonne of the bodie of the saied Susanna Lawfullie yssueing and of the heires Males of the bodie of the saied third sonne lawfullie yssueing, And for defalt of such issue the same soe to be & Remaine to the ffourth --sonne-- ffyfth sixte & Seaventh sonnes of her bodie lawfullie issueing one after Another & to the heires Males of the bodies of the said fourth fifth Sixte & Seaventh sonnes lawfullie yssueing, in such manner as yt ys before Lymitted to be & Remaine to the first second and third Sonns of her bodie & to their heires Males; And for defalt of such issue the said premisses to be & Remaine to my sayed Neece Hall & the heires males of her bodie Lawfullie yssueing, and for defalt of issue to my daughter Judith & the heires Males of her bodie lawfullie yssueing, And for defalt of such issue to the Right heires of me the saied William Shackspere for ever. […]
- It's also worth noting that the original document was heavily revised and in haste—just a month before Shakespeare died, and those willing to interpret his signatures claim to find obvious signs of sickness in his writing there—and that Francis Collins, the lawyer, had a habit of letting draft wills stand rather then produce a fair copy. If you get down to subtleties such as a possibly rote use of “saied”, the document is probably not in a state to support such. However, the transcribers whose work I've found on the web have been prone to insert oft repeated words—such as “saied”—where they are not present in the original; which seems to be the case here.--Xover 21:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Both Chambers and Schoenbaum (twice) refer to it as an entail, so we certainly have a source for it. I'm not sure I would ascribe either worthy with any particular legal expertise, but they're usually very thorough so I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that they had consulted someone familiar with the law or practice in the Elizabethan era. Given how central Will's will is to Shakespeare scholars, I'd be much surprised if the document hadn't been, repeatedly, pored over by a murder of lawyers. In any case, I'm not overly concerned with the wording there either way. I just wanted to follow up on the enatil thing to make sure I hadn't completely misunderstood.--Xover 21:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Was making a joke
Andy, I reverted the "dum dee dum" on the Shakespeare article and left my reasoning on the FAC page. One thing: In the article's edit summary, I made the comment "hell no." When I wrote that, I was smiling but it occurred to me you might take it as an attack. That wasn't how I meant it. Best, --Alabamaboy 12:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I laughed at the dum-ing down joke, though! AndyJones 12:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
O Romeo!!
Wow! I almost want to give you a barnstar for that display! How do you think we're doing GA-wise? Wrad 21:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, to be honest I was pretty lucky nobody reverted something I did or made an intervening edit, or my edit summaries would have been up the Swannee! As for GA, I think it's pretty-much there already, although I've only read as far as the point I edited to yesterday (that is, as far as the character heading). The page could use a really thorough copyedit, but I think it's got FA potential. AndyJones 07:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Deleted trivia sub page
Unless there is massive changes to the articles listed there, and a decent attempt to re-create them in proper article form: (paragraph form, rather than a cluttered list), it will get put in Miscellany for deletion in a few months time. I've seen many people say "move it to my subpage so I can clean it up", and lots of time goes by: and nothing is done. My point is: subpages aren't just a storage area for deleted articles. RobJ1981 16:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)