The Drama Llama
|
In the Rasa (aesthetics) page the shloka i have written is just telling just the names of the navarasas(9 rasas) in Sanskrit which is written in english in left side. so i think we can keep that shloka there Sreekanthv 14:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK, but you need to explain this for the reader. They can't be expected to know that. The Drama Llama 02:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Photo and welcome
editThat is a fantastic llama photo you've got there. Did you take it yourself? That aside, just wanted to offer greetings of welcome, and thanks for your comments and edits on my the article Mie (pose) which was originally written by me. It's always great to have someone from outside one's specialty look at something and help make it more accessible to the average reader. I think we all tend to get too deep into our specialties, and it's easy to forget what someone outside that specialty may have trouble understanding, or what ought to be explained differently. Thanks. Welcome to the 'pedia, and keep up the good work! LordAmeth (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problemo, thanks for saying hi! And obviously I didn't take the photo, since it's a photo of me. Sheesh. :) The Drama Llama (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:The Oxford Shakespeare.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The Oxford Shakespeare.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes there is, Mr Robot. It takes humans TIME to write a rationale, Mr Robot. Go away, Mr Robot. The Drama Llama (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Llama,
I've reverted your recent edits to First quarto and Second quarto so they're no longer redirects. I agree that the two articles are absurd as they stand, but they do contain some useful information and Quarto is just a disambiguation page. Let's make sure we preserve the information and get it merged into somewhere appropriate and do this right. I've had looking into this on my todo list for a while and just haven't gotten around to it.
My current thought is to merge First quarto, Second quarto, and Bad quarto into Folios and Quartos (Shakespeare). It's probably then not a bad idea for the redirects on the old pages to point at the latter rather then the Quarto disambig page; as far as I can tell the terms are most commonly employed within the field of Shakespeare scholarship (I may be wrong). Further, I've been pondering whether it makes sense to merge First Folio, Second Folio, and False Folio into Folios and Quartos (Shakespeare) like the quarto articles. I'm a bit ambivalent as that may push the size of Folios and Quartos (Shakespeare) over the top, but on the other hand it may also just give it enough breadth on comprehensiveness to make it FA material.
What are your thoughts on this? --Xover (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I semi-agree, although the problem is that 'first quartos' and 'bad quartos' can apply to other playwrights as well as Shakespeare. Since the explanation at bookbinding is pretty basic, I think it would be better to have articles called quarto (text) and folio (text), where you explain what they are in general, with examples from several authors, and then rename Folios and Quartos (Shakespeare) to Early texts of Shakespeare's plays, to explain only the Shakespeare-specific stuff. The Drama Llama (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. Well Quarto is certainly applied generically, but I can only recall seeing it modified with First, Second, and Bad quarto in the context of Shakespeare. For my own edification, do you happen to have handy any non-Shakespare related articles that use those terms? --Xover (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, any Renaissance play that had more than one quarto text will need to be discussed using the terms "first quarto", "second quarto", etc; for example, look at any edition of The Spanish Tragedy, which went through nine quartos. 'Bad quarto' certainly originated with Shakespeare texts, but it can be used for others with similar problems; e.g. search for the term in this edition of The Bloody Brother. The Drama Llama (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I decided to take the plunge and do all the above. See what you think. The Drama Llama (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Riverside Shakespeare
edit
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Riverside Shakespeare, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Bsnowball (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Leanord Digges
editHi,
I'm currently trying to add Leanord Digges to the telescope article, btu I have no references adnI can't find much on the internet. Could you be so helpful as too provide yours? InternetHero (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I was writing about a different Leonard Digges, his grandson, so I can't really help you. But any library should have a copy of the The Dictionary of National Biography, which is the best place to start. Good luck.The Drama Llama (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Quarto (text)
editHi. I wanted to describe a book I was writing about as "quarto", so naturally assumed it would be a good idea to wikilink. Unfortunately, I think the description currently in the article Quarto (text), which I see you wrote, is wrong. You give the size as about 8.3" x 5.8". If you compare with the article octavo (book) you'll see "Demy octavo (8¾" by 5⅝")", which I think is right. Wiktionary is also right. I could just correct it, but maybe you'd prefer to check your sources and have another go? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- The wikipedia article Book size is useful, clear and right. The article Paper size is so full of information I find it barely comprehensible. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The article Box set (theatre) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Unreferenced and seemingly unnotable dictionary definition - nothing links to this article and seems related only to the "fourth wall" which already explains the open wall concept without reference to this article.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Edward2VHS.gif
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Edward2VHS.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Edward2VHS.gif
edit Thanks for uploading File:Edward2VHS.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)