User talk:Xover

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiproject Shakespeare

Hey! Just noticed your work on Shakespeare articles and wanted to invite you to join Wikiproject Shakespeare, a group of editors dedicated to improving Shakespeare articles on wikipedia. Just add your name to the list of members in order to join. We'd love to have you! The page also describes current developments and ideas within the project, as well as a list of articles needing help. Wrad 19:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare Collaboration

The Shakespeare Wikiproject is starting another collaboration to bring Romeo and Juliet to GA status. Our last collaboration on William Shakespeare is still in progress, but in the copyedit stage. If you have strong copyedit skills, you may wish to continue the work on that article. Members with skills in other areas are now moving on. Improving Romeo and Juliet article will set a standard for all other Shakespeare plays, so we look forward to seeing everyone there. Thanks for all your help with the project. Wrad 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quiney

The second ref on the page uses Richard and Thomas to describe him interchangably. Admittedly, though, it isn't the best of sources and may be wrong. Wrad 21:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is confusing. I don't mind at all if you improve it. I was kind of in a hurry when I wrote it, and couldn't do any real thorough work. Wrad 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ref

Good catch. Cheers. I was going to check that lot. I moved that ref around, and I don't know what happened. I'd better check I haven't broken anything else in the process.qp10qp 18:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Thanks for your edits. So many people have been editing "Life" for weeks that until the last couple of days I have avoided it and thought I would only have to copy edit it; but it's starting to look as if it's going to need a fact and reference check and re-ref. Like you, I didn't get the "unbreakable" business and couldn't find it in Honan, as such; I assumed some other text must have said Quiney was a hatter, because my sources said he was a vintner, too. If I have to re-ref "Life", it will be another week down the drain.qp10qp 18:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Xover: combining short refs and full citations works well on Wikipedia. We must think of readers first, and multi-tagging is bad for them; it also goes against scholarly practice (and combination within references does not). Also, I intend to bullet combined refs at some point, where full citations are involved. And we must stay consistent throughout the article. Thanks for all your work, though. And, at the end of the day, you are free to edit as you wish.qp10qp 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't care much about the Chambers refs. The i is OK in books because there is a bibliography. We don't have a bibliography, and that fact is the source of every single issue that you raise—short notes make sense with an alphabetical bibliography but not much without. But the systems used in the article are the ones we have to somehow live with, per Wikipedia policy. I would never choose this arrangement in a million years, but it's what has evolved. I've only been on the article a few weeks, and so has Tom: we are making the best of the mess we found. Don't worry about the word "standardise"; there's no word for what we are trying to do, which I guess is to try to restrain the styles of reffing to two (full and short) and to keep substantive notes in "Notes" (another style I don't like).
The only thing I genuinely care about is blue tag rows. I can't read articles with tag rows, and I know I'm not the only one. I can promise you, however, that when I get round to bulleting combined refs, they will be much easier to read because each one will start on a separate line, even when tags are shared: so, goodbye semicolons. This is the last thing on my list, though, because it makes sense to leave it until all else is done.qp10qp 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers

Thanks! And kudos to you for those link edits! How stupid of me. I must have been tired, because I got them right higher up the article.

On your comment about the article being slightly light on biography, there is an article called Shakespeare's life which I think we could get to FA one day. I've got so many Shakespeare biogs now (still not Chambers, I fear) that it would be a shame not to use them again. And it would be fun to go into the greater detail needed for so many little scholarly issues. I'm going to need a break from Shakespeare for a while after this myself though. qp10qp 21:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judith Quiney

I applied this article for GA status, and it is doing quite well. There are just a few things listed on the talk page that need clearing up. I plan to help with a lot of them, but since you are the article's main editor, you would probably be a bigger help than I... Wrad 04:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will

Image:CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
I commend you for all of your hard work on William Shakespeare. To compose and copy edit articles with multitudes of other people is never easy. You have helped produce a fascinating and eminently readable article. Think how many high school essays will reflect your language! :) Awadewit | talk 04:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will's Will

Yes. You certainly could be right about that. Also, I'm a bit worried there might be a typo in the version of the will I'm looking at, which says:

...unto the saied Susanna Hall for and during the terme of her naturall lief and after her deceas to the first sonne of her bodie lawfullie yssueing and to the heiries Males of the bodie of the saied Second Sonne lawfullie yssyeinge...

Now, if that had ended "...saied First Sonne lawfullie yssyeinge" then I could see an intention to create an entail. As drafted it looks like the gift would vest in the first son if he survived, therefore NOT creating an entail, and making the reference to the second son's heirs a substitutional gift. However if that is the interpretation then "saied" would be wrong (you only say "said" with reference to a person already mentioned, which the second son hasn't been). I'm wondering if a line was skipped in typing up the above - I found it by googling on the internet, so I could easily have found a naff version. AndyJones 20:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Suggests that in the version I had looked at there was, indeed, the error that I suggested above, and therefore in the correct version a stronger case that there WAS intended to be an entail. Oh, well. Anyway, all of this is OR absent a source. I still pretty much stand by my view that QP's version is the better one. AndyJones 21:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Good: I think we've probably got there. I've withdrawn part of my comment at FAC, referencing this conversation.

[edit] Shakespeare project - New collaboration debate

The Shakespeare project's first collaboration has ended in success, with William Shakespeare reaching FA status! Congrats to all who chipped in! We also had success in our second collaboration Romeo and Juliet, which is now a GA. Our next step is deciding which article to collaborate on next. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare#Next Collaboration to help us choose. Thanks. Wrad 04:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sycorax (Shakespeare)

I'm in a bit of a jamb on this article. It's up for GA status and is doing pretty well. All it needs is a good copyedit by someone unfamiliar with the prose. I asked another editor to do it, but he got into a bicycle accident and may not be able to do it. Could you do it? I would be grateful. Thanks. Wrad 03:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamlet

The Shakespeare Project's new collaboration is now to bring Hamlet to GA status. Wrad 00:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No bot! :)

Hello Xover,

First of all, I am not a bot. Also, even if I were, please assume good faith. No, my recent edit to Hamlet was performed using software that analyses the links, and, in particular, detects links that need disambiguation. But other than that, all is manual. As for the message, it was automatically generated.

Now, explanation of my edits:

  • First Folio is linked twice in the same sentence
  • Sigmund Freud is linked just above
  • Same for Craig
  • [ [Sarah Bernhardt|Sarah Bernhardt's] ] is useless and makes the source code difficult to read so changed it to[ [Sarah Bernhardt] ]'s.

I hope you agree my edits are more than legitimate and I urge you to revert your revert and be more careful next time. Also, avoid making your prejudices such as "set a bot loose on Wikipedia pages" too explicit, it doesn't look good.

Randomblue (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] R&J

    • No problem - I wasn't sure which sentence to change - since they are in direct conflict. Can someone fix one of them so that section does not contradict itself as it does now? Thanks Smatprt (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Authorship name calling

I finally realized what bothered me about the Authorship discussion at the Hamlet page. It was the title of the section. I found "Rears its head" to be kind of insulting. It conjures up "rears it's ugly head" of course, and images that the Authorship issue is some kind of monster rearing its head and gobbling up innocent travelers on the road like some kind of troll. There has been so much derision and name calling that I admit to being sensitive - my own "welcome" to Wikipedia was a good example. I was a newbie that needed some advice, but you'd have thought I shot the queen! Thanks for your work here, by the way. Smatprt (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow - thanks so much for those kind words. I'll see you in the edit room! Smatprt (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)