Talk:El Señor Presidente

Check source

Can someone please check the source and make sure there was no space between the time and the pm?

Yes, at 10:25pm on the 25th of December in 1917, an earthquake destroyed my city. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is supposed to be a space, so I will go ahead and fix that now. Thanks for catching that!--Mfreud (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Modenirty/Modernity

Could an editor with access to the Barrueto's "A Latin American Indian Re-Reads the Canon" source check the article's quote "this narrative's goal is to prove that Latin American societies, though they are aware of the blueprint of Modenirty,..." for the spelling of Modenirty, since it appears it might be a misspelling of Modernity? If the quote is correct and Modernity is what is meant, perhaps a (sic) should be added. Otherwise, never mind. Thanks. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)  Done

Heh, that'll have been me with the thumbs for fingers. Fixed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Walker reference

One of the Walker citations is still to the excerpted version: 'The Zany, who "looked like a corpse when he was asleep" and had eyes that "saw nothing, felt nothing" is critical to establishing the tone of the novel and triggering the novel's action.[23]' Can we fix this? Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I finally found the proper source, it wasn't in the Walker article but from the novel itself. As long as I cited it correctly than it should be done.--Katekonyk (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

quote/trans.

Could someone correct "around these Latin American lands or the pages the tell their history"? Great work of course, that's why people like me look for the tiniest things to fix. :) –Outriggr § 01:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, that was me. Not the most elegant of translations, I'm afraid. Other Spanish-speakers (ping SandyGeorgia?) might have better ideas than I. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I don't want to swell the FAC with a lot of relatively minor points so I'll put them here:

• Is the translation in British English? I see the article is written in American English but within the summary we have "favourite" quoted and Epilogue (not sure about that but I know the Americans generally hate "ue")

Heh. I think it's in Canadian English, which means anything goes! Heaven preserve us from "Epilog." --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is helpful national spelling chart again - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) - just in case we need it. Awadewit (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You only need to decide on the spelling of favo(u)rite (and I quite agree about Epilog) Yomangani^talk 01:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "the Zany" sounds odd. Is he actually called "the Zany" or "The Zany" or "Zany"? At one point in the summary a delusional Zany flees the town leaving his "the" behind, and the are several instances of "The Zany"

he's mostly "the Zany." --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just an ugly translation then (despite what the critics say). The usage should be consistent in the article Yomangani^talk 01:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through the entire article and it now consistently reads as "the Zany." Only at the beginning of sentences is the "the" of "the Zany" capatalized now.--Mfreud (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Zany ... also referred to as the Idiot - is he referred to as the Idiot in the same translation or different translations?

He is referred to as "the Zany" in one of the recent translations I have read but in critical reviews and analysis' that I have read they refer to the charcater as "the Idiot." In Spanish, the character's original name is el Pelele. So, all three are used...--Mfreud (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to note that; "also referred to as the Idiot in critical analysis" or something of that nature. Yomangani^talk 20:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I can go ahead and make that change but I have one reservation about it- I don't think that it is just critical analysis that refers to el Pelele as the Idiot. I am under the impresssion that el Pelele has also been translated into "the idiot" and that is why we have used the phrase "also refered to as" - because the character's name has been translated a couple different ways (both as The Zany and The Idiot). So he is refered to as the Zany in one translation and the Idiot in others... and in critical analysises I have read, they have also refered to el Pelele as the Idiot.... so should I perhaps change the phrase to: "also refered to as the Idiot in other translations and critical reviews" or it that too wordy?--Mfreud (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, and is the only wording that makes it clear that the two translations don't appear side by side anywhere. Yomangani^talk 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't think so. There's only the one translation of the book (which is the one we're using). If elsewhere critics translate "Pelele" (and I should say that's a very unusual word) as "Idiot," then they're just making their own ad-hoc translations. You can check that, of course, by looking at the articles that use that translation: they'll most likely include a footnote somewhere to say that the translations are their own. Me, frankly, I'd probably delete the reference to the Idiot. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Due to both the long delay in the book's writing and publication - was the writing delayed?

The novel was written over a long period of time... He began the novel in 1922 and did not finish writing it until the 1930s. Is delay the wrong word to use?--Mfreud (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what Yomangani is asking is if we know whether we know if he wrote it slowly, or finished writing it relatively quickly but publication was subsequently delayed. The word "delay" implies the latter, but it sounds like the former is right. If so, how about "Because Asturias did not finish writing the book until the 1940s, and also because the book never names its eponymous President, many scholars have noted that it could equally be taken to apply to the subsequent regime of Jorge Ubico." Does that work? Mike Christie (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that works beautifully! Would you like to change it to that or should I?--Mfreud (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, he did actually have it (mostly) finished by 1933. I'll think of a form of words. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify what I meant: although the publication was delayed it appears that the writing was just unhurried. He didn't meet an obstacle that prevented him writing, he just took his time over it. Perhaps something like "because of the decade Asturias spent writing the novel, the delay in its publication, and the fact that it never identifies its eponymous President, many scholars...". Yomangani^talk 20:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, is this not clear? He took ten years or more to write the damn thing. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

But is that a delay or just slowness? Yomangani^talk 01:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have followed your advise and changed the sentence. Is it clearer now what is meant?--Mfreud (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Literary critic Hughes Davies points out that Asturias frequently appeals to the senses such as the auditory - such as the auditory? What other senses are like the auditory?

• Small point - "such as" is usually used for examples and "like" means "similar to", so I think this is correct - "senses, for example, the auditory", would be another way of wording it. Awadewit (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• OK, but "appeals to the senses" alone would be enough if he is appealing to all of them, otherwise they are few enough to list rather than giving a single example which doesn't help us place it in context. I meant, does the example of "such as the auditory" help us understand the argument? Yomangani^talk

• I don't know if he appeals to all of them - Jbmurray? Mfreud? What do the critics say here? Awadewit (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

His use of onomatepea appeals to auditory senses but the book is also visually engaging in its vivid descriptions. I could go back to the source if you would like examples of other senses he appeals to but i think in order to comply with Wikipedia's like for concise, engaging prose we just left an example of one of the sense he appeals to. As far as I know "the senses" generally refers to touch, sight and sound so if you think listing what the senses are would help clarify we could do that too. --Mfreud (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I just found it odd that "the auditory" was singled out from what is a very small list whichever way you cut it. Giving one example of a sense doesn't really help in understanding the point - either we know what the senses are or we need to know all of those which are appealed to. Yomangani^talk 20:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though the confusion arises from the original source, which states that Asutiras appeals to the senses but only goes on to give the example of the auditory and not the other senses. This seems to be the reason that we have not listed and given examples of all the senses that Asturias appeals to. I will go ahead and change the sentence though to just talk about how Asturias appeals to the auditory.--Mfreud (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hugo Chávez (who is democratically elected, but has been accused by opponents of harboring dictatorial tendencies) - a cite would be nice for these accusations

I have not been able to find a specific source to confirm this statement. If it is a problem maybe we should remove it, seeing as it is not really necessary to the article.--Katekonyk (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a New York Times article that contains this: "'Chávez's detractors have claimed he is a dictator, but he proved his democratic credentials by accepting an electoral defeat,' said Bart Jones, author of a new biography of Mr. Chávez." I haven't used newspapers as sources for the articles I've written, but I would think this is good enough to support the assertion made in the article. The article, titled "Venezuela Vote Sets Roadblocks on Chávez Path", is by Simon Romero, and appeared in the NYT on 4 December 2007. Mike Christie (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Tohil's Dance" becomes the title of chapter 37 of the finished work. - became? Yomangani^talk 01:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should be changed to "is"?? Usually when speaking about literature you use the present tense so I am hesitent to use the word "became" but would "is" work better?--Mfreud (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The past tense is used in the preceding description (was entitled Tohil). While present tense is fine for criticism and the description of the novel I think the past tense is fine here (just as it is for Though El Señor Presidente was written in France). "Is" is OK too, though. Yomangani^talk 20:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good to know. I have fixed the sentence accordingly.:)--Mfreud (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image of Manuel Estrada Cabrera

I have spent most of my evening trying to find the source for two images of Manuel Estrada Cabrera. The first is the photograph which I believe was once used in this article. The second is a painting of him in later years.

It seems to me that the photograph was deleted prematurely. It is extremely likely that this is in the public domain. Cabrera is not old in this photograph, so it was almost certainly taken before 1909. It is also highly likely that it was published (otherwise, it would not be widely available now). This means it is in the public domain in the US (1909 and 1923 are the crucial dates in US copyright law), which is what matters for the Florida-based servers of Wikipedia.

The painting may or may not be public domain, but this should be easy to determine, once one knows who the painter was. Copyright in the US expires 70 years after the death of the author, so who was the painter, and when did he/she die? Geometry guy 22:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The appearance of Cabrera in the photo is very similar to this one held by the Library of Congress dated 1909. (which itself is probably in the public domain - the book it comes from was published in Boston in 1909). Yomangani^talk 23:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic that the date is 1909, which is the key date for works published outside the US (for publications within the US, 1923 is the key date). Geometry guy 23:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but theres a problem, for foreign works the date is actually: July 1, 1909 so we need to know what month that book was published Acer (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we'll be using that image, but it is evidence that the photograph I linked (where Cabrera looks younger) is pre-1909. Geometry guy 23:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you did want to use that image, the book was published in Boston, so I think what we would need to know is if the image was published outside the US beforehand (since the 1923 date would apply to the book) Yomangani^talk 23:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a higher resolution version of the image available? Geometry guy 23:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody could request one from the Library of Congress or there is this. Yomangani^talk 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to Geoguy) Ah, but you see that wont work. While it is pretty obvious that the picture was taken before 1909 we dont know when it was published and that all that matters for copyright. For instance the photographer could've kept the picture in his closet for 40 years beforo publishing it... Not that I think it happened but we need to be ablr to prove it.. Acer (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we might also be able to argue that the photographer must have died before 1948. Geometry guy 23:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the painting, a portrait of the ex-president was hung in the Palacio Municipal Quetzaltenango on 25 November 1925 (whether it is the same one..who knows?)Yomangani^talk 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I found another picture here: [1] Acer (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Congrats on the FA. Very cool. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys actually helped to get the rest of us working on this project. You set the standard. Congrats on the

FA!--Rabbitfast (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A massive Thank You to every single one of you out there who helped get this article to FA. It has been a great learning experience and without all your help, in so many areas we didn't understand, we couldn't have done it. Good Luck with future editing & everything else!--Katekonyk (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that!--Mfreud (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Images (redux)

So... It would be nice to be able to resolve the two issues that are still pending on images by May 5th, when this article is on the mainpage.

1. Can we find a free image of Manuel Estrada Cabrera. The relevant discussion is just above. As far as I understand, we need to find an image that was published before July 1, 1909 (if outside the USA) or some day in 1923 (if within the USA). Is that right?

2. Are we justified in using another non-free image on this page. Either:

2a. The cover image of the Spanish publication, specifically the first revised and corrected edition.

Or:

2b. One of the various images of Estrada Cabrera.

The discussion about this took place here. As far as I could see, the one person who was consistently arguing against the use of any further non-free articles (though there was no picture of Estrada on the page at the time) was ЭLСОВВОLД. And we'd reached a bit of a stand-off: ЭLСОВВОLД was not convinced by the arguments in favor; most others found those arguments convincing, perhaps for different reasons.

It was suggested that the person to decide on such things would have to be Raul654.

Is my summary accurate and fair? Where can we go from here? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A few comments... 1. Right, although the period between 1909 and 1923 is a bit of a grey area for work published outside the US. Alternatively, if we can determine that the author of an image died before 1938, the image is free. 2. I think 2a was amply justified at FAC; for 2b, the problem is that for non-free fair use, you must identify the copyright holder - it is probably easier to find a free image in this case.

Raul654 has no special status apart from being featured article director: passing the FAC with the current images was his call; where we go from here isn't, except for when the article gets featured on the main page or if it is brought up for review.

So, I recommend restoring the second cover image, and tracking down authorship/dates for images of Estrada. The sources for this article and history books for the region may be good places to start. The painting must surely have a known author. We also have a couple of promising photographs. Geometry guy 10:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note on (1) above; the copyright periods in some Latin American countries seem to be some of the longest anywhere (up to 100 years in places IIRC). I don't think we should assume a 70-year rule. EyeSerene^talk 10:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

US copyright law is what matters because that is where the servers are: we may need to double check whether copyright status in the original country affects US copyright status, but I don't believe it does in most cases. Geometry guy 10:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I may have expressed myself badly, or I may be confused about how copyright works for WP (either one is perfectly possible!). As I understand it, material is protected under the copyright laws of the country in which it is published. If there's multiple publication in different countries, these may be protected differently, but to preserve the copyright owner's rights there are international agreements to enforce this protection. Thus material protected under, for example, UK copyright law, cannot simply be purloined for use in, say, the US by claiming it now comes under US law; its original protection still applies and under the agreements, will be enforced.

However, Fair Use may be argued in certain circumstances for material that still retains original copyright, and, because WP's servers are in Florida, this is the US definition of Fair Use. The original copyright status and holder should still be acknowledged though (hence the presence of all those tags on WP:TAGS/FU).

If I have any of that wrong, please correct me. What I was getting at with my earlier comment is that the fact that US image copyright may expire after 70 years is irrelevant if the image wasn't published in the US. It may still be under copyright in its country of publication - which would mean Fair Use rather than assuming it's now PD. EyeSerene^talk 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia copyright information is atrocious. WP:PD would probably be the “governing” page here and it is only a guideline, not policy. WP:PD sets forth “When a work has not been published in the U.S. but in some other country, that other country's copyright laws also must be taken into account” and, somewhat to the contrary, that “the primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States” – imprecision and loopholes through which Hannibal could comfortably march. My impression had been that iff the copyright laws in or the country of origin itself are not known, one should default to U.S. law. The guideline implication, however, seems to be that the U.S. essentially always rules the day, which seems inappropriate, if not of questionable legality.

Regarding use of the image from the internet (which has no accompanying author or first publishing information), the upload date is currently the oldest date of first publishing of which we can be reasonably certain (i.e. in the absence of proof to the contrary, we have to assume image was first published no earlier than, say, the 1990s). The way for it to be PD, then, would be if it was PD before it was uploaded. As the upload is the first known publishing, the image was unpublished prior to that date (an obvious statement, but important as a forthcoming co-condition). The death date of the author is also unknown. When both of those conditions are the case, the criterion is 120 years from date of creation. The image would need to have been created 120 years before being uploaded to have been PD at the time. Long story short, I don’t think there a PD case to be made with just the internet image and no additional information (i.e. more research is needed). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To call all this complicated is an understatement. What Wikipedia should do is write some kind of a flowchart: "Is it published before X? If yes, then... If no, then..." That would be helpful for us simpletons. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Cornell is your friend. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's useful, thanks. (Though I still think a WP flowchart would be cool!) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I use these links; El Cobbola, are they accurate? Mike Christie (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the Google Books version of Guatemala, the Country of the Future, by Charles Melville Pepper. The frontispiece has a portrait of Estrada Cabrera; it's not great but I think is usable. The book was published in 1906 so it would be public domain. Mike Christie (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

PD, indeed! (He's on p. 25, too). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That was a very good find, I think we should definately use it! PS: is the photo on page 25 the same as this one: [2] ? I cant quite tell Acer (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks very much like it to me. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good find! Though I can't see the image myself, as I get only "snippet view" from goolge books. (What's with that, eh?) Moreover, the book is not in our library for the purposes of scanning the image. Unless there are other alternatives, I can order it via inter-library loan and scan the image. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I had the same problem myself, I was able to get around it by using a proxy. Go here: [3] and enter google books URL :books.google.com/ in the field then search for the book as you would normally, it should do the trick. Acer (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that works! (Now what's with that?) The text is hilarious, by the way. No sense of Estrada being dictatorial in the slightest according to Mr Melville Pepper. Anyhow, I'll try to extract the image and upload it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded it as I was doing something else on commons anyway Image:Manuel Estrada Cabrera.png Yomangani^talk 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! I've stuck it in, though others may want to play with positioning and format. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just uploaded a portrait version for use in the infobox in Cabreras article: Image:Manuel Estrada Cabrera portrait.png PS: Assuming that the image from the website I linked above([4]) is the same found on page 25 of the book does that mean that we can use it? the quality is much better Acer (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(partial unindent) Yes, it is irrelevant where we get the image from as long as it is the same image. Geometry guy 18:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) To answer the other question, go ahead and restore the third edition image. There’s currently a storm brewing over NFCC#8 and, although the impetus is wording not germane to my objection, making NFCC#8 determinations would probably best be left until the criterion has stabilized. I would note, however, that I still disagree with its inclusion; I simply don’t feel my understanding of the topic is/was materially impacted by its presence. If the experts on the topic, however, believe the image necessary, there’s no harm in its inclusion until things settle. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thanks for this. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's good news about the Estrada image, and thanks ElCobbola: I think that is a sensible line to take on the second book cover.

Concerning EyeSerene's comments, it is not just that WP guidelines are confusing, it is also that copyright law is widely misunderstood. The main international agreement concerning copyright is the Berne convention: this does indeed attempt to harmonize national copyright laws, but not in the way many people believe. In particular, it does not state that the copyright law of the country or countries of origin (or publication) applies outside that country, quite the opposite! Instead nations are required to provide the same copyright protection for work produced abroad as for work produced nationally. The main exception is that some countries have signed up to the "rule of the shorter term" which means they don't have to protect copyright for longer than the provisions in the country of origin, even if they provide longer copyright protection for nationally produced work. However, contrary to the perception that the U.S. rides roughshod over international copyright, the U.S. has not signed up to the rule of shorter term. Instead, U.S. copyright law has many provisions to protect the copyright of international works, and these are what we need to double-check.

The bottom line is that U.S. law is what counts not because the U.S. rules the day, but simply because Wikipedia is published in the U.S. Geometry guy 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good find! You're quite right Gguy, I had that bit backwards - copyright is protected in Berne Convention and UCC member countries by the law of that country, not the law of the originating country. Wikipedia's copyright policies could be clearer though - they're pretty good in explaining the GFDL and how to enforce things from our side, and following them I've successfully got WP material taken down from an infringing website in the past, but I agree with elcobbola that some of the guidelines apparently contradict themselves. I think it's a Foundation issue that has yet to be properly tested. EyeSerene^talk 19:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been busy for a day and look what happens! Is this all resolved now? Awadewit (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I reckon it is. Easy enough in the end! (Though we're waiting for confirmation of something called NFCC#8, which is a mystery to me, but ЭLСОВВОLД will no doubt fill us in at some point!) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NFCC#Policy; then if you have a courageous spirit, see the talk page. More importantly, see Acer's question above: there's an image comparison between a website and a book image which needs to be done by someone with access to both. Geometry guy 20:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a play with the image (cropped it down, despeckled it, converted to grayscale, tweaked the colour curve and sharpness, and converted it to JPEG per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format). Don't know if it's an improvement? EyeSerene^talk 20:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Titles of English-language editions

I've read that the 1963 first British edition was called "The President" and the 1964 first American edition was called "El Señor Presidente", but I'm not sure about the later editions. It would be good to have this information filled in. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this is a good question, but I'm not entirely sure of the answer. Nor am I entirely sure how many translated editions there have been. The current US edition is entitled The President, for what it's worth. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Atheneum has only been an imprint of Macmillan since 1984 [5]. Is this incorrect?--Pharos (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, dunno. All I know is that the copy of the book that I have (bought sometime in the 1980s) is Macmillan / Atheneum. Help me through the link you're providing there... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Item F433.--Pharos (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Well spotted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the history of Atheneum is pretty complicated. It's currently an imprint of Simon & Schuster for children's titles (see Simon & Schuster#Footnotes.)--Pharos (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And meanwhile, the Worldcat links were taking me to error pages. (Not that I think they're really necessary, either.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

They just had photos of the covers, which is how I was sure of the titles they were published under. I guess I linked to them wrong.--Pharos (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I just had a butcher's over there. I'm still not sure that the citations are needed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Language templates

Why were these language templates added throughout the article? I can't find the edit/editor that did them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

They were added here. accessibility issues, though I have no idea what they are Acer (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

hmmm. Thanks, Acer. Well, unless someone can explain by what guideline we need this clutter, we should revert. I'd like to know the reasoning, since as far as I can tell, they're not adding anything for our readers but they are cluttering the text in edit mode, and I'd like to know if there's any valid reason I should enforce the use of this template at FAC. Unless someone presents that, I suggest reverting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a note the user's talk page pointing here, so they can clarify the issue. Acer (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Acer. As far as I can tell, they're not adding anything except italics, and we can do that with italics; templates slow down the load time and muck up the text in edit mode. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Some time ago, I asked somebody why they were adding the {{lang}} template to an article, and was told they aid editors who use screen readers. Template:Lang#Rationale says the same, as well as a few other reasons. - auburnpilot talk 15:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, there! I am the editor who added those language templates. The purpose of the {{lang}} template is not to add italics, but to add a "hidden" HTML lang attribute to specify that those sentences/words are not in English. This is mainly semantic information (sometimes the browser needs that info to choose the adequate font, but not in this case), required by some applications e.g. screen readers as correctly said by auburn. Please, revert again those changes, this is important for accessibility reasons. Cheers —surueña 15:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, they haven't been reverted. Do you have a Wiki guideline that requires us to use them? Are you aware that Wiki software has a template limit, and adding these to a highly referenced article could cause the limit to be exceeded? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But mostly the words you've added to this template are not in Spanish, either: they're proper names. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they're in the references, too, which is real clutter. I'm not sure if it's too late for the "undo" button on that edit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I undid the use of this template on proper names. I'm still not sure I see the point of them on (every instance of!) the book title. Would it be OK if it was there the first instance, for accessibility issues? Though on the template talk page, the issue seems to be about searches. I'm not sure I understand the purpose exactly. It's not as if there are chunks of text in Spanish. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That semantic info is not only needed in search engines, it has many other uses (also by your browser). The template documentation has a good summary, but there are more. It's true that there is not a consensus even inside the W3C about whether the lang attribute should also be used for proper names. However, all the flowing proper names are Spanish words, so IMO the must also be tagged with the lang template: [6].
I didn't know that there is a template limit in Wikipedia, thanks for pointing me this out. However, IFAICT this limit is just for malicious pages crafted to cause a DoS attack, so even this article which contains many templates is very far from reaching the limits (see the following data generated by MediaWiki in the source code of the following version [7])

 NewPP limit report
 Preprocessor node count: 13460/1000000
 Post-expand include size: 99612/2048000 bytes
 Template argument size: 41107/2048000 bytes
 Expensive parser function count: 0/500

Cheers —surueña 08:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to everyone who has helped to protect this page from vandalism! We really appreciate it. Happy Cinco de Mayo! :) --Mfreud (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mfreud! How did you enjoy your day on the main page, eh?! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Incredible that this all happened in a few months! :D EyeSerene^talk 09:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on El Señor Presidente. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070525183138/http://tell.fll.purdue.edu/RLA-Archive/1992/Spanish-html/Bauman%2CKevin.htm to http://tell.fll.purdue.edu/RLA-Archive/1992/Spanish-html/Bauman%2CKevin.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)