Talk:Shuggie Bain

Cover(s)

The US edition seems to have been published first, although the author identifies as Scottish and the UK cover is the one which was shown at the Booker Prize ceremony. The US and UK covers are very different. I would think that both ought to be included in this article, though the infobox only makes provision for one. Not sure how to do this (and in theory I'm on a Wikibreak anyway: just about to log off). PamD 18:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I see we now have the UK image, but no sign of the US one although it is mentioned in the text. I really think both should be included as both are significant, and very different. PamD 08:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Two non-free covers is not the norm but if you believe it is appropriate. I have restored the original and uploaded a png of the UK cover. Is everything right? Οἶδα (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: @PamD: the other cover has been removed as per a request by User:Black Kite at WP:ITN/Candidates#(Ready) Booker Prize for failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. If you wish to add it back I suppose it must be shown to be essential for the article's understanding. Οἶδα (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Οἶδα and Black Kite: I would say that the two images, both of which are discussed in the text, meet both those criteria. "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.", but clearly here a single image can't. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding": subjectie, but I'd think both images, mentioned in the text, improve the understanding of the article and the book. If it is only to have one, then the one which was prominent in Booker coverage might be more appropriate, as an exception to the usual rule. But I'm trying to have a wikibreak so not going to spend a lot more time arguing... a pity, though, if the Easterhouse image doesn't appear. PamD 09:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

We should use the first-edition cover. We don't know why the British publisher changed the cover, especially when the author spoke so highly of the original cover, but it would be highly unusual (and probably unprecedented) to claim fair use for two covers. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Easterhouse image

Older uses of the Easterhouse image at <https://www.amazon.com/Acorns-Mighty-Oaks-Hurriers/dp/B00YOCD8H2> and (from 2009) <https://joanmcalpine.typepad.com/joan_mcalpine/2009/10/httpwwwtimesonlinecouktolnewsukscotlandarticle6869366ece.html>. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The authorship of this is puzzling. Coulson says in several places that it's his image. But on jezblog.com, he says:

"All that chat about printing on the blog yesterday........ obviously got Matt thinking in terms of the old black and white prints of the past........... so he sent me a few scans of old prints.......... so here is a picture from way back........ this relies not on photoshop but on traditional B&W darkroom printing........... mind you it appears half the time we have just scanned the stuff lying about......... not the optimal final print.......... but hey.... it takes you back to see some of the old stuff........ takes me back to 'Thatcher's Britain' mass unemployment and poverty. Deprivation for many including children living in the poorest areas like this area called Easterhouse in Glasgow.......... I remember this image was used on a front page of a newspaper at the time with the headline: ' Crucified in Easterhouse'............."

And on jezcoulson.com (2015), he writes of the same image: "Seriously, I am honored to have my photograph on the cover of the new album and on the T-shirt ... The picture was made up in Glasgow on The Easterhouse Estate …… First time it was ever used was with an article about poverty in Scottish cities it was then a cover photograph under the headline 'Crucified on Easterhouse'".

SarahSV ^(talk) 21:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I've no idea who Matt is or why he has some of Coulson's prints (that apparently JC at that point didn't), but that doesn't seem inconsistent with JC's authorship (and ownership, pretty unambiguously stated on that site). Another use of it here. Holyrood magazine's online archives sadly don't appear to go that far back, but presumably not a 'fake Time cover' incident. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Title

Can anyone tell me how to pronounce this? To rhyme with "boogie" or to rhyme with "buggy"? Thanks. 216.243.55.156 (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it's as in "buggy". SarahSV ^(talk) 03:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

There's a HARDTalk interview with the author (which I'd recommend and) in which he indeed can be heard to pronounce it /ˈʃʌgi/, if a source for this is needed. (archive.org link) For balance, the interviewer with equal consistency says 'shoogie' throughout... As it's a hypocorism for "Hugh" there's been a sound change at some point, but the 'buggy' pronunciation is certainly the general one. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Awards with shortlists don't need to have longlists first.

do not undo the edits until you respond here. Create a template (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

if you want to have it say "finalist, th at's fine. just keep the color yellow, because finalist is about = to shortlist in terms of notoriety

use {{sho|Finalist}} to ensure proper color schem Create a template (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Create a template: I would appreciate it if you discussed the issue on the talk page instead of starting an WP:EDITWAR. You also did not explain why you reverted my restorations. I will reiterate the summaries of my two edits: First you removed the {{Longlisted}} template and replace it with the {{nom}} template. I do not understand this because the {{Longlisted}} template is perfectly acceptable. Secondly, and more importantly, you altered the ones which were listed as 'finalist' to 'shortlist', which is factually innaccurate for awards that were not shortened from a longlist. I would appreciate an explanation. Οἶδα (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

do not undo the edits until you respond here

Also, Create a template, it does not work like that. I undid edits you performed changing the established content of the article. You have now reverted my reversion, which starts an edit war. You have to create a consensus here to justify your desired version before you go changing the article. I did not change the article. You did. Οἶδα (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

edit war only is after 3 reversions. so I have no idea what you mean.

I haven't done anything different than what I've done for hundreds of articles.

the established version doesn't align with practically anything I've seen. first, finalists were red, which makes no sense. that's like treating them as not getting to the final stage of the selection process. second, longlist does not need to be purple using {{nom|Longlisted} is fine, and I've seen it before and use it all the time. just because {{longlist} is accepable doesn't mean it has to be used. less colors simplifies and streamlines the experience of reading the results. you can see in the version before I even touched it that there was one longlist that was already red. third, I already said that you can use {{sho|Finalist} instead if you want. I won't revert that modification. Create a template (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit war =/= 3RR. But that is beside the point. Notice I haven't further reverted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "practically anything I've seen" or "I've seen it before and use it all the time". Awards tables for literature are fairly rare and something editors have only introduced into articles recently. There is no standard. And, to be honest, they are not that helpful and often seem to go overboard. Case in point the other page your edited, On Earth We're Briefly Gorgeous, which is frankly obnoxiously long with its tables (added by another editor).

But back on topic, I'm not sure why you are talking about 'finalist'. If you look you will notice that I did not change that in these edits. I simply changed back to {{nom}} because, as I explained in my edit summary, it is innappropriate to use style="background: #FE9; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no2"|Shortlisted for awards that were not shortened to a shortlist. These specific ones I edited were simply billed as finalists. They were not "getting to the final stage of the selection process" as you claim. If there is no longlist there cannot be a shortlist. The awards you changed do not even claim to be shortlists.

Also stating "just because longlist is accepable doesn't mean it has to be used." is not something I'm going to take very seriously. You say "streamlining", I say altering the meaning of. Οἶδα (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm getting sick of this. so i'll be extremely clear.

1. I'm not completely sure about what you mean by 3RR, so you'd have to explain it to me. I get that I made a modification, you edited some of it back, and then I reverted that. So I'm guessing the reason that you haven't done a revert of this or made any further modification is that you think that in doing so that would entail the beginning of an edit war, or that one has already begun. i don't really care about the technicalities of who would be the initiator of an edit war in this situation, only that you don't unnecessarily edit it back without hearing what I have to say about it.

2. "ou have to create a consensus here to justify your desired version before you go changing the article" when you say this, do you just mean when there is a situation where people contest how something should be written? because if you had a problem with it from the start, why didn't YOU write something here in the talk page instead of wholesale modifying some of it back?

3. it is not as rare as you might think it is. I've seen a lot of tables and they were made before I've made any edits on the pages. a lot of times, they use something like {{nom|Longlist} or {{sho|Finalist}. the templates are used to set colors, but additional text can differentiate between something that is a finalist vs something that is actually shortlisted in a longer vetti process. I agree that there is a lack of standardization, which is why I'm trying to establish standard and follow for every article I edit. When I say "streamline" I mean make there be less obnoxious colors like purple, and keep it simpler with red = "nominated" (like in Locus, Goodreads) using {{nom}, "longlisted" {{nom|Longlisted}; yellow = "shortlisted" {{sho} and "finalist" {{sho|Finalist}; green "won" {{won}. it's simple and differentiates the three different levels of success that a book has with re to an award.

4. the page you gave as an example is fine in terms of length in my opinion, as it is being exhaustive, but not inaccurate. I would alter plenty of things with the table, and the reason I didn't yet is because it seemed like a pain to do so. one of the major things i'd do is get rid of {{longlist}. that's the low-hanging fruit to me that is really the only obnoxious thing about that table besides including the organization that gives the award, which is overkill, if we're talking about overkill. they also use {{CFinalist} which is a different color, which is a bit annoying, but at least it isn't red, using something like {{nom|Finalist}, which is a pretty dumb way to color finalists in my opinion

5. "billed as finalists. They were not "getting to the final stage of the selection process" as you claim.". finalists by definition have gotten to the final stage. that's why they're called finalists. the judges, panel, organization, presenter may NOT have had a stage before the finalists, but the fact that they're finalists means that it's the final (sometimes only) stage. which means that they are very close to winning the award - as close as shortlisted works are for awards that have longlist and then shortlist.

6. "it is innappropriate to use style="background: #FE9; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no2"|Shortlisted for awards that were not shortened to a shortlist" OKAY then just use style="background: #FE9; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no2"|Finalist or {{sho|Finalist} and I won't revert the edit! I've already said that three times now.

7. ""just because longlist is accepable doesn't mean it has to be used." is not something I'm going to take very seriously". I'm not saying to have the text be anything other than "Longlist". I'm just saying that {{nom|Longlisted} is just as fine as using {{longlisted}, if not better, and it makes it so that there's less coloration, sticking mostly with red, yellow, green making it easier to ascertain how often the book got close or not close to winning the final prize. {{nom|Longlisted} still shows as it getting Longlisted, so the meaning has not been altered whatsoever, only the color of cell. So you are either not getting what I'm saying or purposefully and dishonestly representing my points. Create a template (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not particularly enjoying all of the directions of the discussion either. I will further not change the article from its current state to respect that feeling. However, you have been persistent so the rationale should be explored. Since you are clearly interested in exploring it and did so in detail I will similarly respond to each point:

1) 3RR = three-revert rule. The reason that I haven't done a revert of this is indeed that one has already begun and that I don't engage in edit wars whatsoever except in extreme instances of vandalism. I understand that you don't care about the technicality of who initiated the an edit war (I actually agree) but you should know that your assertion that I do not revert your restoration of your edits is misguided. But I will state again that this is beside the point because I have not further reverted and would rather discuss the exact content in this dispute. However, you started the entire conversation by admonishing me from doing something I would be technically permitted to do, which is to restore the page to its established version before you altered it so that a consensus can be made on the talk page before any alterations are made. This is the standard cycle of making a bold edit, an editor reverting that bold edit, and a talk discussion being opened for consensus. I have found that most editors respect and expect to receive this courtesy. I have come across and appreciated plenty of your edits to literary awards articles in the past so that is why I commented saying that I wished there would have been a discussion started instead or at the very least an edit summary. The page being restored to its established version does not preclude me from hearing what you have to say about it. I am not interested in being combative so I think we should focus on your article-specific points.

2) Because I did not dispute the article before your alterations? It was a simple revert. The first edit was admittedly not fully explained (because I did not understand why the Longlisted template was being suppressed because you included no edit summary) but I believed I explained my second reversion. I am not sure exactly what you are asking me. I am not going to open talk discussions every time instead of making single reverts of edits changing established content. If the topic were more controversial as well as involving an editor like yourself then perhaps I would have done so out an abundance of courtesy. I never expected that your edit would create a talk discussion of this magnitude.

3) If you are really this passionate about the communication of colors then I will allow your desire to prevail. It was not my understanding that these templates served chiefly to add color. I figured if a Longlisted template existed it ought to be used where it applies, especially instead of a template which I felt was not synonymous with the other.

4) The accolades table on that article is less problematic but the exhaustive listicles do not particularly improve readers' understanding of the subject in my opinion. Moreso what I meant was that a lot of the time when I see accolades tables in literature articles I question their use as substitute for prose. If I had understood that your main position is with the color of the Longlisted template I would have approached this discussion differently.

5) This is where my main dispute seems to lie. And the above text will mostly distract from the discussion, which I of course will take responsibility for. I would prefer if we focus on this. I agree with everything you wrote here. Of course finalists by definition have gotten to the final stage (whatever that may entail from award to award). But I was suggesting that by listing these finalists as shortlistees the implication seems to be that a longlist was also published. However, continuing off from before, if this is all about color then I suppose {{sho|Finalist} can be used as you said earlier. However, how do finalists differ from nominees? Is this not just a matter of semantics? You stated above that having a 'finalist' appear red with the {{nom} template incorrectly implies "not getting to the final stage of the selection process". How can we determine a "nomination" indicates this? If an organization publishes a list of "nominees" (with no shortlist) or a list of "finalists" (with no longlist), how are these materially different?

6) Addressed above.

7) I apologize that I have made you sick of me. That was not my intention, Create a template. I was truly not getting what you were saying. Both in your edits, and your messages here. I understood your edits to be good faith, but with no edit summaries I did not understand why you made these changes. And when combined with these initial talk messages, it only confused me more. But that is my fault. I regret for this to be our first direct conversation. I apologize again. Οἶδα (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Remove useless purple color of {longlist}}

only ever use nom to give red color. this simplifies and streamlines color coding with red worst, yellow pretty good, green best Create a template (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. You posted this after I drafted my reply. Can you point to a guideline which admonishes users from using these templates? Οἶδα (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)