Talk:Shylock (Fauré)

Image positioning

@Tim riley: please see the edit summary of this edit – You can check yourself by increasing/decreasing magnification rate in your browser, and/or displaying the article in a window smaller than the entire screen of your computer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What do other editors think? I know of no WP rules on this, and will be glad of the views of interested editors. Tim riley talk 10:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Tangentially, many thanks to the wizards at the Photo lab for cleaning up the image of Portia and making the content of the photograph of the orchestra more visible. Tim riley talk 10:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, there is WP:SANDWICH, which is about a "image|text|image" arrangement; A "text|text|image" arrangement can of course produce the same effect, although, true, this kind of "sandwiching" does not seem to be explained literally in that guidance (and I don't know whether there is some other guidance literally explaining that case). The SANDWICH guidance however contains "... or be­tween an im­age and in­fo­box, nav­i­ga­tion tem­plate, or sim­i­lar" (my emphasis): the "text|text|image" arrangement is of course "similar". Anyhow, common sense is to not only work towards "ideal" arrangements on large screens, but consider other screen sizes, e.g. for readers who need text in large font because of low vision, e.g., by applying the simple tests I proposed above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Let us see if other editors concur. Tim riley talk 11:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

French verses

@Francis Schonken: You keep changing the font of the verses from romic to italic and back again. Have you finally decided which you prefer? Tim riley talk 10:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Letting the standard {{verse translation}} box take care of fonts seems best imho. Also, the "lang=" html instruction (which you used) appears undocumented at the documentation, so please don't use such exotic language indicator: does not seem to have the intended effect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy with romic for both French and English, and as long as you don't keep changing them I think all will be well. Tim riley talk 11:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I see we're back to italic again now. Heigh ho! Tim riley talk 11:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't use undocumented exotic language indicators, please use those provided by templates etc. at English Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind what templates are used, but please stop switching from romic to italic and back again. It's making me dizzy. Tim riley talk 12:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Afaik I changed to the {{verse translation}} box (and its standard italicization) only one single time, without any of my further edits having any effect on such italicization. There was an edit conflict, which may have had an unintended effect (but afaics not w.r.t. italicization). Anyhow, placed an {{in use}} tag now, to avoid further edit conflicts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Table caption

@Tim riley: please see,

• Help:Table#Captions and summaries
• MOS:TABLECAPTION

Although a table caption is "optional" it is "highly" recommended... Removing one introduced by someone else might seem a bit unhelpful in that light. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Or not, if one uses bit of common sense. You want a section header "Recordings" followed immediately by "Recordings of the Shylock Suite"? Tim riley talk 10:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Having an intro between a section title and a table is imho anyhow best, then the table caption is less redundant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC); 12:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion of what is "anyhow best". I do not share it. Let us see if other editors have a view on the matter here. Tim riley talk 11:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, about the prose between the section title and the table is an opinion (and I could have expressed that less strongly, so I added an "imho" above). That a table caption is "highly recommended" by Wikipedia's guidance is however not an opinion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

@Francis Schonken: I realise you are trying to be helpful, but do please try not to perpetrate falsehoods. I have already removed from the list of recordings something you added that was not, in fact, a recording, and now you are attributing to the Taper source (which I have yet to add to the list of sources and will do when you are kind enough to remove the w-i-p banner) something it most definitely doesn't say. I happen to think what you have written is almost certainly accurate, but I purposely chose my less specific wording because I could not find a reliable source for saying what you have said. We owe it to our readers to reflect our sources scrupulously. Tim riley talk 12:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, will remove the {{in use}} tag. But please then, stop the reverting of my edits. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

As I think your new layout was unhelpful and illogical I have reverted. Perhaps other editors may like to express a view here. Tim riley talk 12:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you garnered about four reverts by now, so normally I would have gone to your talk page for an appropriate warning. I hope peace can return after I have now re-added the {{in use}} tag. The layout issues are discussed in other sections of this talk page, so I'm not going to re-initiate a discussion about the same here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I really don't think it is a matter for censure to revert falsehoods perpetrated by another editor. I hope the article can be kept factually accurate. Tim riley talk 13:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I see you have taken possession of the article again. I despair. I've taken it off my watchlist and you can what you like with it as far as I am concerned. Tim riley talk 13:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What I had written was covered by a source you had removed (the Muziekweb source on the recording); anyhow, your version, "In 1967 George Balanchine used the orchestral music from the Shylock suite and Fauré's Masques et bergamasques for his ballet Jewels for the New York City Ballet", is not covered by any source, having a quite important factual error, apart from also being an unjustified over-interpretation of the source used for it (Taper, p. 433). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)