Talk:Robert Burns
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Robbie Burns
No mention as Robbie Burns. [2004.12.31 JPiper]
- Yes, that's true. No mention as "rantin' rovin' Robin", "Rab the Rhymer" or "Rabbie Burns" either. There are lots of things that you could call him. If you thought that a mention as "Robbie Burns" was needed why didn't you add one ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:08, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
[edit] Poems!!
Please don't copy/paste your favorite poem to the article, I removed the following text:
One of his most famous poems is: A Red, Red Rose O my Luve's like a red, red rose, That's newly sprung in June: O my Luve's like the melodie, That's sweetly play'd in tune. As fair art thou, my bonnie lass, So deep in luve am I; And I will luve thee still, my dear, Till a' the seas gang dry. Till a’ the seas gang dry, my dear, And the rocks melt wi’ the sun; And I will luve thee still, my dear, While the sands o’ life shall run. And fare-thee-weel, my only Luve! And fare-thee-weel, a while! And I will come again, my Luve, Tho' 'twere ten thousand mile! Robert Burns
You should add this to wikisource and not the article about Burns, thank you!
- Actually this poem is already on wikisource[1]--130.161.31.26 19:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- When I checked, there was no text in the article - so I copied the above in. Camillustalk 16:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. No poems but by all means expand the story of Rabbie's life. I've just put in the bare bones so far and there's room for lots more detail. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:35, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Statues
An interesting bit of trivia that serves to highlight Burns popularity: There are more statues of Burns worldwide than of any other writer or composer. In fact the only people to have more statues erected to them are religious figures such as Christ and Buddha -- or Stalin (who liked erecting statues of himself). I would put this in the article if I could just find a reliable source to confirm it ... -- Derek Ross | Talk 2 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)
- And given that that is the case, let's not turn this article into a list of statues of Burns. No more statues please. We've already got too many. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I just tried to organise what was there into subdivided country lists, but it does seem to be getting too bloated? Is there a case for a List of Robert Burns memorials? ::Supergolden:: 13:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Currency convention
As per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style currency convention, I've changed the reference to '$36,000' to 'US$36,000'. If I am in error (if the purchase was made in AUS or CDN), please correct my edit. Although Euros might seem logical since Burns is Scottish, I guess the currency referred to in the article should be whatever the buyer paid in. Forgive me for being too lazy to look through the source material to find the answer myself.--Anchoress 09:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Euros are European. Since Burns is Scottish, pounds would seem to be more logical than euros. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Scotland is in Europe, though not yet in the Euro zone. Dollars are fine in the article.Guinnog 16:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Scotland is in Britain. Europe is across the North Sea. Dollars are fine in the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Scotland is in Britain. Europe is across the North Sea. And America is across the Atlantic. So why are dollars fine in the article? As it's about a British writer why would we impose an American currency? Yallery Brown 10:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
You are all missing the point completely. As it stands there is an unreferenced statement "Copies of this edition are now extremely rare, and as much as US$36,000 has been paid for one" in the article. Either this should have a reference added, or it should be removed. If there was a reference then it is simple to determine the actual currency used in the transaction and then use that. /wangi 11:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sweet Afton
Anyone fancy writing a short stub for this poem, to overwrite some non-notable cruft that's currently there? Thanks/wangi 08:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Burns redirecting here
Is there any good reason why Burns redirects here? I know Robert Burns is famous, but there are lots of other cases in Wikipedia where a disambiguation page exists as the primary page for a surname, even if one of the listed people is extremely famous. I find it hard to believe that interested people will have a hard time finding the entry on Robert Burns if Burns doesn't redirect here. Dsreyn 15:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- This seems to be an instance of bias more than anything, and Burns doesn't need to redirect here. Burns has been moved to a disambiguation page four times with only the explanation "restore" by user:Mais oui!, an action which has been reverted three different times (about to be four times) by three different users, including myself. There are too many instances of Burns throughout Wikipedia, including city names (Burns, Colorado, i.e.) and people (R. Nicholas Burns, i.e.), for it to simply redirect here. Of a Google search, only two of the first ten results even have to do with Robert Burns. Please consider discussing this instead of simply reverting the same decision made by three different users with nothing but "restore" as an explanation. It doesn't help. --tomf688 (talk - email) 00:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Not sure where you get the google info from, typing burns into google gives 5 of the top 10 related to him - with the other 5 all being on different subjects (ie. no one clear competitor). If there was a clear second choice for the word then I would support going to a disambig - but I afraid Burns, Colorado doesn't really compete against an internationally recognised and celebrated poet (from the Burns, CO article: "It consists of a post office, as well as cluster of houses and trailers"). As for people - nobody is known just as "Burns", they are known as "foobar Burns" - the closest internationally known would probably be Mr. Burns from the Simpson’s, but even then he is always known as Mr Burns - not as just Burns, which is what RB is commonly known as. I don't think there is a clear case of anyone or anything else having anywhere near the notability of the singular word Burns, thus there is no reason that a diambig should be used. The disambig page should also be heavily altered to conform to the MOS, which states "Always place the most-common meaning(s) at the top." - at the moment we have a red linked Australian politician as the first entry, and Robert Burns half way down the page - that is just making life difficult for the end reader. SFC9394 01:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The reason the Australian politician is first is that the entries are divided into subcategories, and arranged alphabetically within each group. There are plenty of other disambig pages that have a similar arrangement, including the division into subcategories. If all the names are arranged in one big list, and sorted by significance, it's not likely that it will help to find anyone other than the first few entries...and I would assume that most users can find Robert Burns already without much assistance. Dsreyn 03:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I am simply following the diambig MOS - and unless there are special reasons to ignore it I would generally support following the MOS. I am sure out of the diambig list there are half a dozen or so that could be shaken to the top of the pile on the basis of notability, and the rest that are all much of a similar obscure level of notability could then be listed alphabetically. As it stands it makes non sense - either from an easy navigation point of view, or from a conforming to MOS point of view. SFC9394 11:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Discussion of the layout for the disambig page doesn't really belong here. The main question we ought to be discussing is whether or not "Burns" should redirect here. Dsreyn 14:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
Robert Burns may indeed be well known as simply "Burns", but there are just far too many other occurances of the word "Burns" for this guy to take precendence. He may be well known, but "Burns" is a very common name used in far more instances, unlike Plato. And SFC, are you using http://www.google.com or http://www.google.co.uk? I was referring to the .com version. --tomf688 (talk - email) 01:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Robert Burns' Catholic roots
A strong opponent to the Kirk of Scotland, a freemason and all...but here I found out something about Burns as a Catholic raised man. This is the link: http://www.sierraclub.org/john_muir_exhibit/frameindex.html?http://www.sierraclub.org/john_muir_exhibit/writings/people/robert_burns.html
I'm going to add his name to the "Scottish Roman Catholics" page. Gianmaria Framarin 2:39 3 June 2006
- And while you're at it you might as well add every other Presbyterian, since they're all catholic in the sense used on that website. Oh wait a minute, "catholic" doesn't mean the same thing as "Roman Catholic", does it. Perhaps you'd better not. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External links
I boldly (I think) cut out a lot of external links, leaving just:
- www.robertburns.org/ (about as 'official' as it gets)
- www.worldburnsclub.com (which has links to the other million Burns Clbs)
- The Bard: The Story of Robert Burns, Official Feature Film Website
- Gutenberg link
Most of the others were links to repositories of poems, but given that Gutenberg contains the Complete works and letters, the others seemed redundant. Apologies if anyone thinks I went too far, but i feel external links should be kept to a minimum. ::Supergolden:: 13:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)