Talk:Seamus Heaney

message: Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page blanked - see [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 May 27]] 

message: Regardless of whether YouTube is or is not “a strong source”, the plain facts are (1) that the contents of this video clip are self-evidently authentic – only a conspiracy theorist would doubt them; (2) that while links to YouTube sometimes fail to produce the sought-for results because of deletion or removal by the provider, links even to sources such as the BBC and Oxford University have also in my experience done this; (3) the most one can aim for at the time of citing a weblink, is that (a) the link is still operating, and (b) that the resulting content accurately reflects what it purports to. This link fulfils both these criteria, and I believe users should have the possibility of viewing the content.
As a precaution in case the YouTube link fails, and as a courtesy to the other editor, I have not undone the link that was used to replace mine. If my reinstatement is deleted, I shall seek mediation, much as I would prefer to spend my time doing Wikipedia editing more creatively.CWO (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube as a source 

message: There is a new book of Heaney's letters that I just ordered. I'm curious if it should go into the section of his works or in the section on his legacy. Does anyone have any thoughts? https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/08/the-letters-of-seamus-heaney-review-amazing-grace —Zujine|talk 15:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New book of letters 

message: Hi @Martinevans123, can you explain why you "found those quite useful"? MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says, "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." This article has "publications" and "prizes and honours" sections, which are enough imo. Thedarkknightli (talk) 11:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Thedarkknightli. As with many other bio articles, they gave me quick access to his major publications and honours, especially as they are all notable i.e. have their own article linked. Sorry if that's just a subjective personal opinion that can't counter the objective rules for writer infoboxes. But looking at the infobox template, don't see any advice on when to not include Notable works or Notable awards. So maybe that's all purely subjective too? I'd suggest that Notable works might be more valuable than Notable awards there. Also, as I suggested in my edit summary, collapsing a list might be a good way of keeping the box shorter. If you have very strong views on this, I'll not revert you again. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the info is useful for one to get a sense of who Heany was at a glance. I don't see a problem with including the list. It is courteous to discuss and conclude a disputed change before deleting it. And also to use edit summaries. Anna (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the late reply, guys. Have we reached a consensus on whether Heaney's notable works should be kept in the infobox? Thedarkknightli (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be against it my self; who should choose, and the number we include implies a value judgement. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

text: So, shall we take the issue to WP:DRN? Thedarkknightli (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if anyone seriously objects to adding the bits in. I would imagine people have better things to do. Anna (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

text: To note, this was resolved by this agreed edit  Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{diff|||1210882508|This reversal}}