User talk:Victoriaearle: Difference between revisions

Formerly User:Truthkeeper88

I have Questia access. Were you planning to do extended research, or just look up one or two details? If it's the latter, I could perhaps do it for you...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the short term I wanted to read the Rewald essay mentioned on the Van Gogh page - Questia has the book it's published in. For the long term I need it to retrieve sources for a number of articles I've not yet finished but would like to work on. The Brothers Grimm and St John Altarpiece (Memling) are two that I wrote using sources from Questia. I can't remember when it lapsed, but probably during the period I was gone. Victoria (tk) 11:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I bought my copy at MoMA several years ago...Try here: [1], and here [2]...Modernist (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I probably would have grabbed a copy at the used bookstore as an impulse buy (or sat there and read it), but I haven't yet brought myself to the point of waiting for one to be shipped. Maybe I can get Questia renewed (that's the best option). I found that the only copy at our library system is in the city in the non-circulating section, so that would involve a day's work. Still trying to decide, but I'm thinking if you seem to think it's important, then we should get some of the material from it into the article. In the meantime, I'm sort of floundering around in my sandbox, in case you want to take a peek here. Feedback welcome. Victoria (tk) 20:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Re this removal, there are a lot of theory's and a lot of journals. Have seen this before with The Garden of Earthly Delights; we need to be slow to give credence to new research before widespread traction. In short I share reservations. Also noticing first order research on secondary sources from you lately. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) I too tend to be conservative in these sorts of situations.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the feeling that our definitions of good and bad use of sources are not commonly shared. Ceoil (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm careful and don't just grab what's easily found on the 'net. But that means that hours and hours of work can go into one or two edits because of the background reading involved. Most people won't edit like that. Victoria (tk) 13:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see way forwards. If you dont mind, I'll copy across your work on His style, and we'll go from there. I seriously doubt anybody would dispute the quality of your work. Unless they want a tooled up Irishman and his 24 brothers and 53 cousins on their case (nod wink), that is. Ceoil (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you, but it's unfinished. This version might work, it keeps the letters but it does push the word count to about 9500. Look, my feeling is this. I respectfully kept to a sandbox so as not to make anyone feel that I was being judgmental or anything else, but when i read your post on the talk about style, and then the PR, I realized the style could only be written with a lot of heavy lifting. Sections like that don't write themselves - been through it with Hemingway and Pound and they're a bitch to write in an encyclopedic manner - so I gave it shot and pitched it. I cannot tell you how much I do. not. want. a dust up over something I've done here or written. I just don't. So you all work it out - I've unwatched the page. I'm ok with however it turns out. The work is in the sandbox and can be looked at there, worked on there, or not used. I'm just not fussed about it. Life is short and all that. Victoria (tk) 14:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't even pretend to have read that YUUUGE thread above, but I will say that if you folks wanna propose a final version this in WP space, you should spend a few days (yes days) working up a page that shows the practical differences b/w your version and current one as it will work in article space. This may spare us days of blowhard argument.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I agree. At some point, quite soon, I'll probably haul all of this off to a subpage. It contains some valuable links and ideas but needs sifting. Haven't the time for it atm. Victoria (tk) 01:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be very happily in caravan in county Kerry in the rain for the bank holiday, fat on Spanish food but peeking in. Will be editing on tablet much as I can. Its going fine, not to worry. Really pleased. Have covered off as much as I can tonight; room for exp (by me esp on the flowers overview). Ceoil (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know and I hope you and the mrs have a lovely time. My advice is to ignore, don't edit on the tablet, enjoy yourself and jump in again the weekend after. I'm about 200 edits behind you, trying to address Brian's points, busy tomorrow, so won't get back to it until Saturday. There is no hurry and no deadline. I had a free day today and took advantage, that's all. Take care. Victoria (tk) 01:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are reasons why we have have so many colabs, and chilling out isn't one of them. Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you. I have a semi-funny story for you and Ceoil. Last year I was in Dresden and had my best camera along. I was all set to take pictures of a certain triptych, only they did not allow any photography in the museum. Still, it is an amazing and beautiful work of art, and I am not sure I would have sought it out if not for your article - thanks. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm jealous! I've never seen a van Eyck. I do remember that long conversation on the talk page and maybe we mentioned something about how difficult it is to take photographs in museums. I'm not surprised. What did surprise me was when I visited the Getty a year or so ago van Gogh's Irises was unviewable, because the crowd in front were all holding up cameras - it would have been a great commercial for iphones, but not the best atmosphere to view a painting. The medieval wing, on the other hand, was almost empty (but no van Eycks). Thanks for thinking of it and sharing the story. Must have been a fun trip, otherwise. Victoria (tk) 18:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having read the article, I was looking around the gallery in the museum for a large triptych (and not finding it), so it was funny when I realized this little thing was the painting. It really is a jewel. I went back to it a few times. Some places in Germany sold photo permits - wish they did in Dresden. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a devotional piece small enough to tuck away while traveling on pilgrimage from Bruges to Jerusalem. A nice thing about doing these articles on Wikipedia is that we can showcase them with crops etc., so the tiny jewel comes across as much bigger. Of course the opposite is true too, I suppose, i.,e the Beaune Altarpiece. It's good to know about the permits. Victoria (tk) 11:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Still involved in recovery mode for our house after 1 month vacation: pulling chin-high weeds from out garden by hand, turning the soil, in addition to all the other housecleaning/furniture moving/etc. But I'm actually getting closer to having free time. I am genuinely sorry for leaving you alone.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds serious! Don't worry about it. I've littered the page with inline comments re refs, so have left you a treasure hunt to find them. One thing, is that I didn't realize the bundled refs took a different syntax than the sfnp refs, but I had to unbundle some for various reasons. I'm thinking we should just stick to snfp throughout - but that's up to you as the ref guru. There's the issue too of adding refs to notes, though there are now fewer notes than before. I'm out for the night, and possibly for a few days. Good luck with the household chores. Victoria (tk) 01:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I like bundled because those multiple^[1][2][3][4] things annoy the heck out of me. But I am not the refs guru. The final word goes with Ceoil and Modernist and maybe John. I may have time soon. Maybe even tonight, cross your fingers. Will try to help as much as I can  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There aren't any with that many. Yes, I like to bundle refs, but look at FN188 in this version of the article, [3], with note & then ref inside or something. If that's how you all decided to format, then I've screwed it up royally. Also, there was a citation needed tag some two to three hundred edits earlier that was inside the bundled ref, but the ref was there. Verifying, figuring out, fixing, etc., took about 5 hours. Anyway, feel free to undo anything I've done or I can undo when I get back so you don't have to trawl through about a 1000 edits. Victoria (tk) 03:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• hey apologies again. I see you're unwatching & you're too damn tired to fool with Vinnie. I hope you're taking a nice break. Editors are more important than content, which is a somewhat impersonal way of saying (to put it more directly) that you are more important than Vinnie. :-) Apologies again and again if my inaction added to your weariness.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't worry about it. It's been a hard FAC, I'm coming off a long illness and found that my stamina hasn't quite returned to previous levels. It's best to step away when it feels too overwhelming. Victoria (tk) 13:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sent via wiki mail, so perhaps to an old account. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. No, not an old acct (got changed three years ago); it's current. I found it. Victoria (tk) 10:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you, or anyone else, notice these comments I made re images: [4], [5], and the work left for inspection in my sandbox, [6]???? I didn't want to clog up the FAC so posted there but am about to pull those comments. A simple "yes, might work" or "nope, hate it" is fine. Victoria (tk) 11:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

replied...Modernist (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has done a full translation into Greek[7], hope not with that new WMF innovation dept garbage tool. Note that the title is 'Flemish Primitive painters'; grand, not en-wiki. Ceoil (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was done in sections but I have no way of telling whether machine translated. Pinging Nishidani who knows all kinds of languages and might be able to tell us if it's gibberish or real sentences. Victoria (tk) 13:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was done, basically at one go, by an administrator on the Greek Wikipedia, Ttzavaras, back in January. It's not machine-translated, but fluent modern Greek. The author is a native Greek speaker, a graduate of Athens Uni, and an old-timer (b.1953). You can contact him in English or French I gather since his page indicates he is fluent in both.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed! Thanks for looking Nishidan. My other half speaks Greek, but ancient only! Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending me there by the way. van Eyck's Arnolfini was my first introduction to painting, since it was hung in one of our bedrooms, a trip down memory lane. After my parents' death, I'd wake up every morning and reflect on their choice of it to mark their marriage.Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nishidani for verifying. I thought you'd be the person who'd know. What a story! Victoria (tk) 14:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was done purely manually: the editor copied the English text without proper attribution for the license and then translated it. This means, by the way, that you are entitled to have it deleted as a copyvio, if you choose. I assume that's not your desire, so w:el:Template:Ενσωμάτωση κειμένου ought to be added to the talk page, like this: {{Ενσωμάτωση κειμένου|en|Early Netherlandish painting}}. If s/he'd used the content translation tool, the translation would have been the same (because the Content Translation Tool does not require, or in many cases even offer, machine translation – it's main function is to convert links and templates to equivalent pages on the local wiki), but it would comply with the license.

Also, if you are generally interested in translation, then I will point out that what this editor did would have qualified for speedy deletion here. Saving a non-English copy of an article from another Wikipedia is "A2", or {{db-foreign}}. There isn't even the 10-minute suggested time delay that we give to "no content" articles. Given that speedy deletions usually happen within 10 minutes of page creation, he probably would have found the page deleted before he got the first section of translations saved (17 minutes after the initial save). WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am more and more coming to agree with you and Iri's position. The section header for one is driving me bananas. Otherwise, will level this sect. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't. Look here! It's simply rearranged without a single word cut. I was about to post it somewhere, but here will work. Victoria (tk) 21:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.s you're welcome to work there. Flinging sand is sometimes fun! Victoria (tk) 21:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yout version is very good, and thanks for the bail out (cough). As we are at it, I could live with loosing the Bacon para. I added that back in around 2009, for the sake of Bacon rather than Vince. Yeah, I know. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other news, hopefully the last word on BRIT Eng: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtEKUWRpUWg, also good call in asking Cas for prof opinion. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to keep Bacon - other than Matisse, he's one of the few very well known names who's explicitly cited VVG as a major influence. ‑ Iridescent 22:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about I copy over and you take it from there? I left an empty header with no title, and haven't checked it. At this point, though, empty header? Eh, who cares? Victoria (tk) 22:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the sopund of that. What the hell. & tks. Mentioned the bacon for reason that might resemble shoe horning trolls remorse. Now legitimised! Ceoil (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree with Iridescent to keep Bacon. I must go for a while. Can somebody else think of a title for that header besides "some kind of words here"??? Victoria (tk) 22:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus would batter me to death with a leather-bound copy of the Manual of Style for saying it, but "In popular culture" would probably actually be appropriate as a header. ‑ Iridescent 22:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The evil bones in my body are agreeing. You suggested this before, and you were right. Lets do it. I will also gleefully roll in my grave. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done [8]. Should we move it over? Victoria (tk) 23:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no, hold off. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, good thing I decided to read the message first. It was that close! Might be interesting though, now, that I think about it, to see how it looks in the article. Anyway, let me know when or go ahead copy if I'm not here. Victoria (tk) 23:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its been there in forms before. Spun out I expect, or deleted by one of us! Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not following. You mean the "In popular culture"? Victoria (tk) 23:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. O no, wait Ceoil (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Looking at the article always helps. Got it. Sorry. Victoria (tk) 00:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, this is sorted now, right? I added back another small bit about the letters b/c I liked it, if that's ok. One of us should reply to Brian before the end of the day. I won't be around much next week. Victoria (tk) 15:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'm having second thoughts and think I might have missed Iridescent's point. Might reangle it again more towards your initial version. Thinking - which is always a slow process. Oh, and well deserved below :)! Ceoil (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly what I threw together in the sandbox was a terrible rush job and once I start doing things like that and not taking the time to think through clearly, it's a sign to step out because it's best to get it right rather than spinning. Thinking is good and should take time. I regret rushing, but stuff came up unexpectedly in rl and I thought I'd try to do as much as I could before stepping out. That was a mistake. It's always a mistake. Re below: it's for all of us imo. VvG is the posterchild for teamwork. Thanks to you for pulling everyone together, spearheading, making it happen, and all the work. I'm truly impressed. Be proud of yourself. P.s I'll be gone from editing until early September, but will peek in every now and then. Victoria (tk) 18:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Well done for being a great co-worker on Vincent van Gogh. It's been a great experience working with you. John (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John! That's really nice of you. I don't remember when I last received a barnstar and am stupidly pleased. If I say so myself, we've been a great team and put in a great effort. Thanks for your work there too, and Ceoil's, and M's, and Lingzhi's, and Casliber's, and Brian's (lists are deadly - I'll leave out someone!). Wish we could have a group absinthe party. Victoria (tk) 18:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just fixed the headings on Talk:Jane Austen, as unfortunately your recent edits nested them improperly, making the page harder to use for people relying on assistive technology. You can find a guide to the correct use of headings at WP:BADHEAD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not alter the contents of my Talk page by deleting text you may have previously added. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a long haul, but you prevailed!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already said what a great pleasure it was to work with you Victoria. What a great feeling to get to the end of such an exhausting yet rewarding process. The group absinthe party was a nice idea. We should really do it some time. --John (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VvG

		Barnstar of Fine Art
		To Victoria, congratulations on Vincent van Gogh - its always an amazing pleasure to collaborate with you, and you have been a good friend over many years. Modernist (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		Barnstar of Fine Art
		To Victoria...because. Your exhaustive research, attention to detail and critical view were perhaps the reasons why we were able to get it so far, and why we can have nice things. Go Victoria. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's nice of both of you! I'm sorry haven't handed out any barnstars - but, well, congrats and all that! I'm a little exhausted tbh ... Victoria (tk) 23:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Nicely done! Montanabw^(talk) 04:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Thanks from me as well! Will make something pretty when I'm more awake. Kafka Liz (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC party for Vincent

Thanks everyone! Let's raise one to FAC and to Vincent! Thanks to to Ceoil, Modernist, John, Lingzhi for enormous amounts of work before and during FAC. Thanks to all the reviewers: Aa77zz, Brianboulton, Iridescent, Johnbod, P. S. Burton, Editør, HappyWaldo, Cassianto, Sandbh and Seppi333, whose comments transformed the article (which, imo, is when FAC really shines).

Thanks to the coords: Ian Rose and Laser brain for all your hard work and for input.

Special thanks to Casliber for pitching in with little notice to buff a difficult section.

To Martinevans123 I owe an apology to for being exceptionally cranky right after the cat threw up on my bed during a series of edit conflicts!, thanks for noting mistakes.

Thanks everyone for all the help, work, input, comments, collaboration. This is an example of how FAC works and works well, in my view, and should be celebrated.

Please stop into Vincent's cafe this evening and have a few rounds. I think he would be thrilled to see us all there. And thanks M for the sunflowers above, and John for this idea (in other words, it's all your fault!). Victoria (tk) 19:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Victoria! I am opening a bottle of Cidre de Calvados that I brought back from my holiday in July. I also attach a photo I took earlier in the holiday with the article in mind. I realised it had plenty of images already so I never proposed it at the time, and I share it with you and the wonderful conoms and reviewers in a spirit of amitié. Santé! --John (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! Cider is perhaps a bit less, shall we say dangerous?, than absinthe. I was afraid absinthe would put me flat on my face! Thanks for the pic - nice to see the real place. You were a rock on this one. Seriously. It was a joy to watch your copyediting. Victoria (tk) 19:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iechyd da, Victoria. A lovely idea although, as usual, I made only tiny last-minute pedantic tweaks. A sick cat would probably improve my general editing. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC) p.s. still counting those sunflowers... [reply]

Yes, you're right, we still have to get those sunflowers corrected, but dear god, I ran out of steam. Once I recover, will haul out the books again and take a look. You never know with cats, whether they're really sick or only trying to be bothersome, but that might have been the final straw for me (or perhaps for the cat who was sick of the books piling up in the area he thinks as his.) Victoria (tk) 20:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Party baloons on me. Jesus Christ Victoria it was hard won. let's tear the house down, to an extent that Prince would have blushed :) Ceoil (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up for tearing the house down. Victoria (tk) 01:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I recommend Franciscan Well Brewery, inner Cork, or danone macroom, well better. Ceoil (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you're at either of those, please have one on me. I am a little in the mood to start saying things I shouldn't re things that are demotivating around here and that's without alcohol, but I'll sit on my hands. Victoria (tk) 02:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats everyone :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: My daughter would be chuffed if she saw Bacon on the main page ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely work, and praise is long overdue. Well done! Kafka Liz (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz and thanks for stopping by. It's always nice to hear from you. Victoria (tk) 15:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I am a little in the mood to start saying things I shouldn't" - yeah, these things eb and tide but seem to be coming to a head. We *should* just be able do our content work, and not have to worry, but no. OWN is a key argument against local stewardship and respecting the judgement of the main editor - I cant loose you in the same month that Tim left after he was targeted. I think the "aw shucks" defence of certain editors is about to crumble, and though all this strife might seem dispiriting, hang on there. Ceoil (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about wading into it, but it's really not worth the aggravation. Still, the drumbeat of own is very demotivating. During the FAC things got unexpectedly busy for me and I came in here with blinkers on, focusing on what needed to be done and then leaving, but now have had some chance to catch up. I am sorry to see that we lost Tim riley to the infobox wars (pinging him because I forgot to yesterday and much of the VvG style section is the result of his PR comments, so he deserves to be at this party too) but he's not the first. I do understand his feelings - I remember asking for a self-block one year when I'd had enough of that infobox stuff. The thing that I'm concerned about now are those quote boxes we use for literature articles (apparently for decoration instead of to illustrate writing style) but I really don't have the fortitude to comment. So, short version, you won't lose me yet. I made a commitment to help with Austen and intend to keep it, but I'll be working very slowly. Victoria (tk) 15:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• With all due respect to those damaged during the IB wars, IMO quote boxes and cquotes are consireably more evil than IBs. The latter may be ugly, but the former frame the tone and thus the POV of an article. They are a way of subverting UNDUE and NPOV.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ling, I don't necessarily disagree. But we use them in literature articles and I don't know how to get around that issue. If I'm writing about a painting's style, I can slap the image (or even better, a crop of the painting) into the style section. How to do that in a literature article without pulling a section as an illustration? Whenever I do that I always take from critics so it's not as if I'm highlighting sections not being highlighted in secondary sources. Often I'll ref with "quoted in blah blah" because I'm much too lazy to find a quote in a book and frankly don't think it's my job. But I do think it's ok if I read three or five or ten secondary sources and the same quote is used again and again. Am I totally wrong?? Victoria (tk) 15:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• UNDUE & NPOV really aren't major concerns if there are no controversies which editors are deeply invested in. I may be wrong, but I can't imagine people coming to blows over whether Jane Austen's work is Romantic or Realist or whatever...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I could come to blows over the infoboxes there because from what I'm reading (and I've been doing a fair amount) her novels aren't neatly packaged as a Romance novel as the infoboxes are telling us (and that's one godawful article), see i.,e Northanger Abbey and Emma, but when writing about her satire & parodies there are specific passages mentioned again and if properly sourced I can't imagine people coming to blows over them. But without quote boxes we lack a good way of illustrating. Well, we can use blockquotes but honestly, those are ugly and don't always format well. Anyway, I think with the case of all these things, it's doesn't have to be an all or nothing scenario. I have seven articles on my watchlist with infoboxes that show genres I disagree with (per good sources) and that info is scooped up and populated at Wikidata. Yet, if I try to delete the fields or (horror of horrors) the infoboxes (because not a single one of those articles warrants an IB) then all out war will break out. That's just stupid. Victoria (tk) 16:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If you don't believe editors could come to blows about genres, try watchlisting a few music articles for a while (or just add "Merseybeat" to the genre field in the infobox on The Beatles, count to ten and run for cover). Each of these incoming links to Wikipedia:Genre warrior is a separate discussion relating to somebody warring over genres, and there are probably ten times as many in which nobody happened to link to that page. People get astonishingly oversensitive about these things. As I mentioned at the main discussion, I'd be strongly against deprecating quote boxes. There are numerous instances when you need to include a piece of text in an article, but don't want it cluttering the body text—having a piece of text included is no more "giving undue weight" to that text than including a particular image is giving undue weight to that image over another. (At some point, the penny is going to drop with a certain group of people as to exactly what the implications of "Wikipedia articles should not include small boxes which contain specific pieces of information selected from the article and give them more prominence than other elements which aren't included" are, and all hell will break loose.)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your wonderful work on Vincent van Gogh. And for being part of what is now known as Wikipedia's Dream Team. A hearty congratulations. CassiantoTalk 17:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]