Talk:Restoration literature

message: Reader notes and caveats:  
#Please note that this article is part of an ambitious project related to English literature.  That article contains brief summaries of each of the classic literary periods, a structure mirrored in most university classrooms and older encyclopedia, and this project is attempting to have a full length article on each "period" of English literature.  This article is the first to be completed, but Augustan literature is underway all but finished now.  
#Also, please note that the article is an overview of two generations of literature and seeks to include all of the figures who affected the development of literature during this period.  Some of the figures have left very few traces behind, and yet we know that they affected the other authors.  Therefore, there are going to be redlinked names at this time.  This cannot be helped by the present authors.  If no one has yet had much to say about the career of Elkannah Settle, that does not change the fact that his plays goaded Dryden to make more lavish productions or that Alexander Pope would see him as the perfect example of a subordinated and tamed poet in The Dunciad in 1727.  As a fact or event, Elkannah Settle is fully explained here.  As a person, he is not.  It would be intellectually dishonest to not refer to him because there is no Wikipedia article on him, and it would be useless for those with only knowledge of his effects on Restoration literature to write a biographical article composed only of that. Geogre 16:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I would like to explain why I thought it worth leaving the year links in.  First, I understand why some think they're low yield.  I think they can be very low yield, too, but there are several reasons why I think they should stay, here:
# As an overview article, this article is supposed to spot trends and sketch movements.  Therefore, all links to more precise information are additive.  In the case of an article that is bounded by a year or two, linking dates is probably of zero yield.  On the other hand, any article that attempts to talk about time in a big chunk should profit from links to years.
# Although folks have been extremely slow to do it, the year links are supposed to give people overviews of everything that happened in that year.  Some years have more information, some less.  However, the Restoration and Augustan years are fair.  I would like for readers to be able to spot a coincidence I didn't discuss by surveying a year and come back to fix this article, if needed.  E.g. if I am linking to 1749, and I'm talking about a play, I hope that a reader might notice Pamela being published in the same year.  It might mean something.  Thus, we should hope for more information and not determine in advance that there is no use in the link.
# It's practice.  Unfortunately, it's how things are done in other articles, and so we kind of need to follow through and not try to rewrite custom now.
I know that a "rollback" is brusque, so I apologize for that, but I wanted to explain why I put the links back in. Geogre 21:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of the rollback 

message: Bishonen has solved the problem very well.  The current lead painting is exactly what we need.  There aren't any awed courtiers or scrofula patients being cured by his touch, but that's sure a regal Charles II up there now.  Thanks ever and again, Bishonen. Geogre 00:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead picture 

message: There are two sentences in the introduction that begin, "It saw...". Surely we can find a better idiom than this pretentious rubbish? It is fine in articles that do not have "compelling prose", for we expect much less, but in a featured article it is dreadful. Rintrah 04:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your input is appreciated.  The rheotrical device is known as parallelism.  Still, I'm sorry you couldn't perceive it, but your horror is not very moving.  Geogre 21:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am well aware of parellelism, but not aware of the value of "It saw". I should expect its ugliness would make writers forgo its usage. Rintrah 04:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The thing was large.  It was so large that this.  It was so large that this.  I.e. you can be upset at the personification of "saw," if you want, but to call it "pretentious rubbish" and then expect a polite answer beggars imagination.  The structure is rhetorically sound, and the article is on Restoration literature.  However, I shouldn't let that stop you from complaining, if that's what gives you joy.  Geogre 21:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A literature that can see

message: This article is still badly messed up in both subtle and obvious ways. Someone please check the long-term diffs and do some cleanup; I have to go. Melchoir 20:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another good reason for semi-locking all Main Page articles. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ordinarily it's thought that Main Page vandalism gets reverted quickly, but the fact that this didn't get done for 12 hours, including an 8-hour stretch while it was still live, is shocking. It's the opening paragraph for crying out loud! Clearly we need more eyes looking a little harder. Melchoir 04:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page vandalism 

message: Can anyone explain what this is? It's throughout the article, deleting text.
--TresRoque 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simple, childish vandalism. I have just finished removing it. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offbreak

message: The last item in this series seems jarring to me:
:It saw news become a commodity, the essay develop into a periodical art form, the beginnings of textual criticism, and the emergence of the stock market.
I don't wish to dispute the historical, even cultural significance of the founding of the stock market. But whereas news, the essay, and textual criticism are all literary developments, the stock market is considerably less so. I would end the sentence with "and the beginnings of textual criticism." Anyone agree with me? -- Rob C (Alarob) 17:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stock market? 

message: This graf could benefit from citations, such as the various bits on his biography ("He had no schooling at all and worked as a domestic servant, first as a footman and then, probably, in the pantry."), specific claims ("the poem sold out all editions"), and quotations of his poetry ("His poetry has "virgin" brides who, upon their wedding nights, have "the straight gate so wide/ It's been leapt by all mankind,"...). I'm assuming most of this can be found in Sloane (which I don't have) or primary sources; the Oxford dictionary article only verifies generalities, such as him working as a servant and learning to read/write, but has nothing on what kind of servant he was or whether he learned Latin. Anyone with Sloane willing to add the citations? Gzkn 15:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Gould paragraph

message: I removed a footnote to the online Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms for "Hudibrastic verse" as being redundant, since there was already a wikilink to a good article in a well-known online encyclopedia. Indon reverted me with the edit summary "It doesn't harm the article if the attribution is also given here, right?" and hasn't replied to my argument on his talkpage, which went like this (rather persuasive, if I do say so):
:Of course it doesn't do any large-scale harm to put both belts and braces on the Hudibrastic verse, as it's either way a very small effect. But on its scale, I think it's harmful rather than positive, yes. It's redundant; redundancy is not good. It needlessly introduces a subscription-only service—always to be avoided, if possible, use only in emergencies. It's mega-possible to avoid it here, as the note seems to me purely decorative. What's the point of it? Er, don't you trust Wikipedia as a reference work? The article Hudibrastic is actually very good. (Geogre wrote it.) And now fully referenced! :-P  Bishonen | talk 13:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Belts and braces

message: You folks must be joking!  You would use Britanica to reference our article?  This article corrects mistakes that Britanica makes.  It is superior to them.  Anything for a footnote, though, right?  Geogre 22:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britanica? 

message: Substituted at 04:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment