Talk:Saint Sebastian Tended by Saint Irene

References

I changed the references to include publisher name, title of webpage, accessdate etc, and Johnbod reverted it (twice) claiming "CITEVAR". The original citations will suffer from LINKROT and there seems no good policy-based reason to continually revert to poorly formatted and incomplete references. Happy to seek third party opinions on this. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Damm right I did! And you reverted. There were also various other edits, and removals of information, imposing personal preferences in a way all to typical for this trollish editor, in some cases clearly based on ignorance. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope, the references are far more comprehensive, detailed and prevent LINKROT, amongst other issues, your continual abuse of rollback and edit warring is unfortunate and should really be addressed. It's quite odd to see why you would think "[http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/102584.html Philadelphia Museum of Art page]" be somehow preferable to "{{Cite web|url=http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/102584.html|title= Collections Object : Saint Sebastian Cured by Irene|publisher = [[Philadelphia Museum of Art]]| accessdate = 21 February 2019}}". Where were the "removals of information" (sic)? Oh, and calling me a troll is a personal attack by the way. And what part of the edit was "clearly based on ignorance"? And why the continual references to "football"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Ah, because (of course) you reverted it almost immediately, you missed my edit summary to my 2nd correction of Marseilles "this is in fact the normal and traditional English spelling (see the article), used in most contexts except of course the football team, which is all some people know about". Does that help. As one example of the useful and necessary information you have now removed 3 times was the explanation of what the Caxton text was - now again missing. That's vandalism in my book. As so often. Anyone wondering why TRM is yet again in a big hissy fit might consider edits earler today in his private bully space at User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS : Undid revision 884433223 by Johnbod (talk) this user is completely unwelcome to comment here, go to the other place if there's an issue and remove ill-formatted claim from unwelcome user. Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you're definitely not welcome at my userspace, and it's abundantly clear here to see why. Still, your contravention of 3RR, your misinterpretation of CITEVAR and your abuse of ROLLBACK will be examined in due course. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

And speaking of bullying, just a quick check back on this kind of edit to my talkpage (from mid-2018) is very insightful. It's clear that the message was not received, and this passive aggressive bullying of editors who are interested in football topics continues unabated. I'll make sure this isn't overlooked when I get the whole case together. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see, because I edit a lot about football articles, you consider my opinion to be less relevant, less accurate, less worthy than your own? I understand. Well of course, now you've adjusted the Marseille article to back up your own preference here, I dare say you feel justified in edit warring (you just broke 3RR by the way) in reinstating that version of the name of the city. See you shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Why go out of your way not to help Wikipedia:Link rot? Best readover Wikipedia:Citing sources#Generally considered helpful.--Moxy (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, thank you Moxy. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Disappointing to see this edit warring and battleground behaviour from two such experienced editors. I thought it was "Bold, Revert, Discuss", not "Bold, Revert, Bold, Revert, Bold, Revert, Discuss, Bold, Insult, Insult, Revert, Report for edit warring". Judging from the edits made by both editors here and on other pages, both need a {{trout}} and/or a short break. 213.205.240.253 (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I did the right thing each and every time, so I don't need a trout or a break. I improved the article, I warned for BRD, I opened a D for discussion where I was accused twice of being a troll and treated like a vandal, I warned for 3RR, and then I initiated the report. Think again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

With respect, "I did the right thing each and every time" is battleground mentality. After your "Bold" first edit, and the first "Revert", comes "Discuss". Neither of you chose to come to this talk page to "Discuss" after the first revert or the second. You chose to edit war back and forth several times. As I said, that is disappointing.

Perhaps we can now get to a less heated discussion of whose citation style is to be preferred, and whether it is permissible to use Marseilles as a variant spelling in English. 213.205.240.253 (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. I followed the path you described after the second revert, and was confronted with abuse, accusations of trolling and vandalism, subject to the abusive use of rollback and then a clear and incontrovertible bright line breach of 3RR. So you, by all means, can discuss the merits of the various citation styles, and I will get back to improving articles which have been selected to appear on the main page. I will also continue to seek that the myriad issues from this user are all addressed at the appropriate fora. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It is plain that you disagree, but the edit history is clear. You made substantially same edits three times (10:02, 16:34, 22:23), and only after that posted here (22:25), and then made the same edits for a fourth time just minutes later (22:30). By any reckoning, that is edit warring, well beyond any normal "bold, revert, discuss" cycle. The to-and-fro is a textbook case of "I am right, no I am right" battleground behaviour. 213.205.240.253 (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

So I made three reverts and stopped, unlike the other user who made four reverts, including attempting to hide one with "various" as the edit summary. Anyway, we're moving on now. It's clear that there are a number of systemic issues here, your ongoing accusations are noted, but I'm really not interested in your anonymous opinion I'm afraid. At least I didn't break 3RR, make a number of personal attacks, abuse rollback etc, as all I was doing was making the articles which appear on the main page more professional and useful to our readers. Bye. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggested some time ago that we all move on "to a less heated discussion". Shall we do that now? That might be easier if there was not a tendency in some quarters to personalise every issue. 213.205.240.253 (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, being called a vandal and a troll (twice) really is unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Abusive use of rollback on this article

Johnbod continually uses the rollback capability contrary to its purpose, in this case he's using it to assert an editorial preference for the version of reference formatting he singularly prefers, indeed against good advice like WP:LINKROT. If other editors experience such abuse of tools here, I would encourage them to file a report at WP:AN as I intend to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I've only used it once, to re-revert a trollish edit. See you at ANI - you know your way around there. Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Not at all, just a quick look at your edit history shows you've abused rollback several times. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, it won't be ANI, it'll be AN (for the rollback abuse) and ANEW (for the contravention of 3RR). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR

Johnbod, the very guideline you're citing states "The following are standard practice: improving existing citations by adding missing information, such as by replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it aids verifiability, and fights linkrot;" --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

And how would that apply here, especially when information was actually removed? Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Considerably more information to facilitate retrievability was added, as I demonstrated. You could simply have re-added the one fragment which you deemed so important and worthy of breaking 3RR, violating the terms of use of Rollback and numerous personal attacks. I see this is a common problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's keep this simple. Are you both in agreement that citations are better with full bibliographic information? If we are, then you needn't continue arguing. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I indeed agree that citations that are formatted to reduce LINKROT are far superior to those which are not. Especially for items which we are featuring on the main page of the encyclopedia. Plus, it would be a shame if people took one look at some of the ways in which such fundamental necessities are implemented and believe we weren't a serious encyclopedic project. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

So Moxy, Dweller, are we in agreement that the format of the references that I included are preferable to those which Johnbod edit warred and violated 3RR over to restore? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Trying to ignore the unnecessarily vituperative interpersonal comments, can someone explain to me the advantages of, say,

<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/102584.html|title= Collections Object : Saint Sebastian Cured by Irene|publisher = [[Philadelphia Museum of Art]]| accessdate = 21 February 2019}}</ref>

which displays as

"Collections Object : Saint Sebastian Cured by Irene". Philadelphia Museum of Art. Retrieved 21 February 2019."

over

<ref>[http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/102584.html Philadelphia Museum of Art page]</ref>

which displays as

Philadelphia Museum of Art page

The URL and "publisher" are the same, so what benefits are brought by the addition of a citation template, title (same as the title of this article, naturally, as the article is discussing "One of the earliest paintings of Sebastian being nursed ... (now Philadelphia Museum of Art)"), and access date? How does that "fight linkrot"? 213.205.240.253 (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The advantage is that if the link to philamuseum.org moves, you can search for it via its title and access date. Alternatively, if the URL goes completely dead and you want to use the Wayback Machine, the access date helps you identify the most accurate copy you should use as an archive-url. A while back, Transport for London changed all their URLs so a lot of web citations broke; by having the title and access date to hand, they were trivial to fix. Without that information, you don't know what the title or the date is, and you're screwed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(Coming from a different report on the matter) Also, it provides the necessarily uniformity per MOS when you include book and other non-online media citations. Bare URL citations are okay for developing an article but as the article advances down the quality of improvements, it definitely should switch to one of the standard citation styles (which may be a templated version or not). --Masem (t) 17:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both, but it is not clear to me how adding the access date helps very much: the edit history of the article amply demonstrates when that web page was looked up by the author.

I can see that adding a title might be a good idea, but in this case it is clear from the article that it is the catalogue entry for a painting of St Sebastian and St Irene, held in the permanent collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Art since 1917, so I am struggling to think of circumstances when that information alone would not be enough to find the relevant page at the museum's website. (Neither alternative above is a bare URL, by the way: we are just discussing how best to dress up the URL.)

So that brings us to the hobgoblin of consistency :-/ Enough said.

Perhaps I could try an alternative:

<ref>[http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/102584.html ''Saint Sebastian Cured by Irene''], Philadelphia Museum of Art</ref>

which displays as:

Saint Sebastian Cured by Irene, Philadelphia Museum of Art

Would that suffice? 213.205.240.253 (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be better. And just that, I was making the referencing better and yet ownership issues, 3RR, rollback abuse and multiple NPAs ensued. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Good. Perhaps others might like to comment.

(Just to note in passing that we might find it quicker and easier to resove the substantive issue if there was less emphasis on who might be right and who might be wrong, and on who did what to whom and when and how - that is, less battleground attitude - and more emphasis on agreeing a consensus way forward. Just my two pennies. But I suspect we might need considerably more than a tuppence of oil to calm these troubled waters. I'll sign off by wishing everyone a happy weekend. Cheerio!) 213.205.240.253 (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The access date should be visible on the page without having to access the history. Not that your sources here can change, but that's the iffyness of web sources - they can be changes post-publishing, they can outright disappear (though caught by something like Wayback), so an accessdate is a critical component of a reference to a webpage. And since a user could print this page , and thus not have access to the page history, those accessdates should be visible. (Separately, we also like tools and editors that periodically review web sources to target them for archival and to verify the pages are still there as to be update access dates without otherwise changing the citation). --Masem (t) 20:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• No, No, No The whole frigging point is that the TEXT being referenced is "One of the earliest paintings of Sebastian being nursed is by Josse Lieferinxe in about 1497, part of a cycle from an altarpiece in Marseilles (now Philadelphia Museum of Art)". If the link doesn't work, any teenager will naturally just search on Google using the key data there, rather than frigging about with wayback.

• In the same way, TRM still cannot grasp (and some new idiot has currently AGAIN reverted to remove the crucial info) that what you need to know about the Golden Legend quotes is that they are from the Caxton translation, well out of copyright, & widely available on the web. With that they can easily be found on other sites if Fordham goes down. But it is precisely this information that TRM several times reverted to remove. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Johnbod, the information that Caxton was the translator and other details can all be added in the template (see this edit) and provide the other details that The Rambling Man was adding and you were removing. If this were a matter of CITEVAR, your reversions could be justified... but it is not. You can remove the templates but must not remove the information that avoids linkrot that was added, which I suggest is also where Dweller was heading. EdChem (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You still don't seem to get it! Per citevar, there is no need for a template at all. The important information was what TRM et al have removed. Some above understansd this, some do not. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You can remove the template if you like, per CITEVAR. You cannot, however, remove the information it contains that addresses link rot. EdChem (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the citation templates, per CITEVAR, but retained all the publication information and added some additional details and wikilinks. EdChem (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite?

I'm unfamiliar with the stories involved, but this sentence doesn't make sense to me: "The episode takes place between them, when after the archery, Irene, who is normally accompanied by her maid, is shown either taking an unconscious Sebastian down from the tree or post he was tied to, or when they have got him to a bed and are treating his wounds." Can someone who knows the material improve? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think I got it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, I really disagree with your edits here [1], where you remove the changes I did in the lead today, and I'd like input from other editors. My view:

• "stories" is better than "lives" since this comes from religious text, hagiographies. "Lives" in WP:s voice implies that "yep, that happened as written". Same with "in the story" vs "though".

• " in his story he had, he always survived this," what does that mean? My version is clearer.

Comparing current, "your" version

• Though Sebastian is famously tied to a tree or post and shot with many arrows, in his story he had, he always survived this, to be killed with stones some time later;[3] these are sometimes called his "second" and "first martyrdom". This episode takes place between them, after the archery, as Irene, who is normally accompanied by her maid, enters the story. She is shown either taking an unconscious Sebastian down from the tree or post he was tied to, or when he has been got to a bed and they are treating his wounds.

to "mine"

• In the story, Sebastian is famously tied to a tree or post and shot with many arrows. He survives this, only to be killed with stones some time later.[3] These events are sometimes called his "second" and "first martyrdom", and the episode takes place between them. In art Irene, who is normally accompanied by her maid, is usually shown either taking an unconscious Sebastian down from the tree or post he was tied to, or tending to his wounds.

You reintroduce unnecessary unclarity etc. "these are", what are? If the episode is between them, they are of course after the archery, it can't be otherwise. " She is shown" is unclear since we just mentioned that she entered the story.

Finally, you removed two [clarification needed] tags i put in the article. "whose rediscovery was ongoing during this period" Are we talking the period of the martyrdom, the writing of the hg:s or the painting of most of the paintings? Put a span of years or something there. "one of the first northern" may be clear to you, but I think many readers with me have no idea, and neither this article nor Dirck van Baburen gives any clue.

Well, that was quite a screed. Opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

We probably need a North of the Alps, a key term in European history and art history, which could be linked there. I suppose from Sweden the Low Countries are far in the south, but that is not the normal perspective in English. As grammar would suggest, it was the catacombs being rediscovered, during the period the paintings were first made. I had a go clarifying the text but can't face looking at it again at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)