Talk:The Labours of Hercules

message: The version of "The Capture of Cerberus" that was published in this collection is a rewrite. The original version that Agatha Christie wrote for the Strand Magazine was apparently too politically sensitive to publish at the time, and stayed out of print until John Curran recovered it from Christie's notebooks in 2009 (see ). This is mentioned in the Agatha Christie article in passing, but it's interesting enough to be worth noting here, I think. Adam Sampson (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Capture of Cerberus 

message: The original work was first published in the United States, so the spelling of this article should reflect that of the American spelling. Even the book picture spells it without the U. If no one objects, I shall make the change. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labors vs Labours 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Labours of Hercules. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141029064709/http://www.agathachristie.com/poirot-tv/the-labours-of-hercules/ to http://www.agathachristie.com/poirot-tv/the-labours-of-hercules/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Archived page with cited information was found at the archived link.  --Prairieplant (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Block quotes for reviews are not often encouraged. I have been asked by other editors to shorten the amount quoted, work in my own words to highlight the sense of the quote, when I have found reviews for various novels. And at the same time, told not to use the block feature to highlight a quote with almost no other words around it. So I do not see that in this case here, the quote from the reviewer should be blocked, . It needs to be put back into the text and perhaps shortened with words from an editor instead of the long quote. I like the longer quotes myself, but my efforts have been undone by wiser editors often. I am sure your link to the Wikipedia style tells how to block a quote, but not when to do it.  --Prairieplant (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: From MOS:BLOCKQUOTE: ”… more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length …” At least click on the wikilink provided to confirm that the style-guide entry cited does indeed “not [tell] when to do it [i.e., blockquote].” I’ve nothing to say as to the rest of your comments here; I’ve no intention of participating in an edit war. It would be nice, however, if you could point us to a policy, guideline, style guide, something, that says that long quotes, including excessively long ones, are not to be blocked when forming part of the review section of an article about a film, literary work, etc., that an exception is carved out for those. — SpikeToronto 12:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , my point is simpler, that long quotes are not often good, and are not meant to be an entire section of Literary significance or Reception. If you look at the Reception section for the article about this novel, is three block quotes with no words incorporating them into an organized discussion of the reception of this novel. That is the work needed, not the block format. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#List of exemplary articles, Novels, and glance at the Reception section for the five examples listed. Sometimes a quote is boxed not simply blocked, but it is one small feature in several paragraphs digesting the critical reactions to the novel. That is a page from the Manual of Style, Writing about fiction. Is that clearer?  --Prairieplant (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we may be conflating two issues here. While it is desirable that the reviews be paraphrased instead of simply quoted at great length, the fact remains that they are indeed quoted here at great length — as they so often are in the reception sections of article of the type — and as such should be set up as block quotes. And, as block quotes they should remain until such time as you or some other editor has the time to properly paraphrase them and make them cease to exist as long, extensive quotations. The desire to have them be more properly presented as paraphrases of the reviews from which they are drawn does not cancel out the need for long quotes to be blocked as Wikipedia’s style guide instructs. I’m not actually sure we fundamentally disagree. You are not so much objecting to the quotes being blocked as you are objecting to the failure of previous editors to have paraphrased the reviews in the first place (an understandable criticism). But, one does not the other negate. — SpikeToronto 00:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , the two issues are intertwined as you describe. There is no point in blocking these long quotes, as that makes them appear as good writing, which they are not. I want once in a while for another editor to catch on to this need for better writing. Usually I end up trying to make a prose paragraph from the quotes.  --Prairieplant (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Well,  we disagree. The section is written badly, and you add a flourish to its appearance. If your mission in life is to put quotes in blocks in Wikipedia articles, then that is that. I do not advise it. And it is still true that editors in past years when I was new to Wikipedia taught me that the long block quote was not the right way to write a Reviews section. Those editors were correct in what they taught me. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is like talking to a wall. Yes, the section is written badly. Yes, the quotations are too long. So, as the editor concerned with the poor writing, your job is to rewrite the section. Your job is not to unblock the overly long quotes. The MOS rule is simple: Quotes exceeding a certain length are to be laid out as block quotes. NOTHING is being highlighted; no flourishes are being added. Pull quotes are not block quotes; the former is an editorial decision, while the latter is an editorial rule. They are not the same. Block quotes ≠ pull quotes. This is the bottom line: You do not want block quotes, then editorially shorten them; otherwise, leave them as they are, consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. All the time spent here telling me that what is needed is a rewrite shortening and/or paraphrasing the quotations, all the time spent unblocking quotes that are too long to run in-paragraph — per the manual of style — all this time, applied by you to the actual body of the article, could have had that section rewritten and this merry go round of a discussion obviated. — SpikeToronto 23:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Sorry , you cannot speak for me. It would be good if you could learn to rewrite the review sections, far more useful than spending time blocking overly long quotations. That is what I would like to happen, and clearly that will not happen. You seem uninterested in that, and would rather put quotes in blocks. Go your own way.  --Prairieplant (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is one of the other issues with blocked quotes, when the quote is all that the source had to say on the topic. See here. --Prairieplant (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block quotes in Reviews section