 | A fact from A Lume Spento appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 February 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Re: citations
edit@Crisc: I'd rather get rid of the templated format altogether, but that's a waste of everyone's effort (Not least since you'd simply restore your formatting). In any case, if you prefer everything adopt that format, you're welcome to convert them yourself. — LlywelynII 16:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit: You shouldn't give the impression that a 1891 translation was first published in 2005, though. — LlywelynII 16:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Then we can add the |original-year paremeter, rather than wholesale reverting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Are you seriously edit warring just after saying you wouldn't edit war? Did you wait for me to respond on the talk page? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Of course not [edit: to first question ; )]. You were beginning to, but the parameter above obviously fixes the issue. — LlywelynII 16:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. I rarely use "origyear" except for facsimile reproductions, as later editions can have significant changes, so it didn't occur to me to include it here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Different strokes. In any case, out of deference to the excellent work you did formatting the original page and now finding a good template kludge, I did the formatting for my last source for you. — LlywelynII 16:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I've also named the Canto in which the poem quoted was found, for more context — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- No prob. That formatting seems to draw a lot of attention to itself, though, rather than using the Arabic numerals or somehow working it into the footnote. If that's the accepted styling, though, you can't do much to it... Maybe {{sc}}? — LlywelynII 16:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- The main Pound article uses the same formatting, so I've stuck with it here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- No prob. That formatting seems to draw a lot of attention to itself, though, rather than using the Arabic numerals or somehow working it into the footnote. If that's the accepted styling, though, you can't do much to it... Maybe {{sc}}? — LlywelynII 16:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I've also named the Canto in which the poem quoted was found, for more context — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Different strokes. In any case, out of deference to the excellent work you did formatting the original page and now finding a good template kludge, I did the formatting for my last source for you. — LlywelynII 16:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. I rarely use "origyear" except for facsimile reproductions, as later editions can have significant changes, so it didn't occur to me to include it here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Of course not [edit: to first question ; )]. You were beginning to, but the parameter above obviously fixes the issue. — LlywelynII 16:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
More details
editSimilarly, the Poetry Foundation’s biography of Pound (with details like the price and volume of the first printing run) most certainly does meet WP:RS but I have no real desire to get into an edit war over this, if Crisc would prefer to keep helpful details out of "his" article at the moment. In any case, for the curious, there's more info there for future editors. — LlywelynII 16:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- What I saw was a random website, with no argument of how it is an RS. To be safe I pulled it out while I investigated. Looking into it now, it appears that yes, it is an RS. So where's the good-faith everyone talks about? Instead you go straight to claiming ownership. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Good faith would've been looking at the source before pulling it as non-RS, hon. (Which is why people talk about it: it's hard to get it started again once it falls off that first time. You're doing a pretty good job, though, since rough edges or not you're obviously trying to make a good page on an interesting topic and looking for practical compromises. You should stay around more, even if you run into curmudgeons such as myself.) — LlywelynII 16:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)