User talk:ImaginesTigers/Archives/2021/June

This is an archive of past discussions about User:ImaginesTigers. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Slutty slutty vampires

The following images may be of interest to you:

Admittedly, they're not all that slutty, but they do involve Dracula being at least a little bit seductive. No worries if not suitable - I tried! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Of the three, I'd probably say the second has the best shot? But they all look so bad. I was hoping for, like, fan art from a hundred years ago. That said, no reason not to just shove in number 2 and wait until something better comes along. Thanks, PMC! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I know, I was looking for something like that, but sadly there were not a lot of people publicly producing slutty vampire art a hundred years ago. Whether or not this is a sign of a better or a worse civilization, I'll leave up to you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Worse. It means civilisation is worse. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Pending Changes Reviewer

Someone capable of your content work is clearly capable of handling the userright. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, NBB! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

London

Can we add Dracula to the category "Novels set in London?"MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: No—Dracula is set in Transylvania, then Whitby, then concludes in Transylvania. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, I got confused. What about "Novels set in Whitby?" I wanted to put it in the category "Irish novels adapted into films" simply because it's been adapted into so many films. Is that reasonable? What about other LGBT categories like "1890s LGBT novels" and "Irish LGBT novels?" MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: "Irish novels adapted into films" is already on the page. In no way is Dracula an LGBT novel—it’s just often explored as a part of queer readings. Being set in Whitby is not an essential, defining trait of the novel. It is just some of where the action takes place, alongside various rivers, a town in Eastern Europe, a castle. There's no need for all of these categories. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience. Since you like horribly maintained, high-importance articles and have at least some interest in old horror, would you like to work on the article "The Monkey's Paw?"MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

I'm afraid my next three articles are already teed up. I don't like to work on back-to-back articles in the same general subject area, if I can avoid it. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

May I ask what you are writing? Just out of curiosity. I won't edit anything you don't want me to edit out of courtesy.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Still a lot of work to be done on Dracula, so that's all I'm working on for now. You can see what's still to be done on the Talk page! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I discussed Arthur Machen's The Great God Pan as a book that allegedly influenced Dracula by copy-pasting material from the article for Pan (which I co-wrote).MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

I don't think this belongs on the page. For WP:FAC, the sources have to be unimpeachable. I'd like it if the article reflected what is widely agreed upon by either notable Gothic fiction specialists or well-esteemed Dracula scholars. Happy to discuss on the article's Talk page if you object. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you think the article should include a discussion of more recent reception of Dracua and how it's considered a classic?MagicatthemovieS (talk)MagicathemovieS

I'll get to it, thanks. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 02:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Commas

[1] Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Commas remove ambiguity! They redeem straight, stilted, staccato sentences! Come back to the light. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Commas can break up straight forward, readable prose into artificial, chunky, difficult to grasp penny packets. Abandon your shackles. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Commas are so versatile that not using them, even when it makes the prose easier to read, is silly! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I am struggling to believe that you just wrote that! Or were you being ironic and I missed it? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

No irony at all! One that jumps out at me as "wh-wh-wha" was: as Edward III was being crowned a Scottish force. He was being crowned a Scottish force?! How-what-now?! COMMA! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers, obviously if you cut a sentence off part way through you can make it look silly. The full sentence is clear, unambiguous, flows and not at all in want of a comma. Often, I find, commas, or similar, break, interrupt, or disrupt flow to, as now, the point, or near point, of unintelligibility, incomprehension, or, as now, near illiteracy; but, of course, they remove ambiguity, so, apparently, all is well. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

In full context the sentence made sense, but there's no reason not to add that comma. Because I read it chronologically, right, and that is how the sentence goes, and as it was written, that is what I saw. Well-written sentences don't confuse the reader at any stage in them, which that comma facilitates :p Commas communicate flow and reading pace. As for the monstrosity you have fashioned above, that's arguing against something that nobody is advocating for. :p — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

So, we are in agreement, we should be using semi-colons instead, right? :P. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be So; we are in agreement; we should be using semi-colons instead; right? :P. Best Wishes; ? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn't! Semi-colons connect full, independent sent---- WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO ME? — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Question on Cugat's drafts image for Gatsby article

Hi ImaginesTigers,

I wanted to seek your guidance regarding the ongoing The Great Gatsby FAC review. The fair-use of Cugat's cover drafts image was challenged and removed on the grounds that relevant critical commentary was missing from the article. Do you think it is worthwhile for me to expand the Cover Art section to include such critical commentary and then petition for the image to be re-included? Given that this is one of the most famous novel covers of all time and Cugat's development of those drafts is delineated in several books, I believe a paragraph or two explaining the developments of the drafts would be warranted. — Flask (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Flask: You know the text's history more than I do. If you think that the article is better with that in it, then put in the work to get it back! That said, I'm mindful of the article's length, and it’s already over "consider splitting this up" territory. A lot of that is likely due to the images (it’s much more highly illustrated than other articles). At the end of the day, though, it’s a call you have to make. People tend to kick up fuss at FAC about fair use images if there's more than one—would this be the only fair use image? — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively: you could put it into a new article. You could put a lot of this into new articles, bringing The Great Gatsby's size down. Your call, though, as always. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: Thank you for your reply and your guidance. Yes, it would be the only fair use image, although I'm debating whether it is the one I should include in the article. Today, I received a high resolution scan of a 1915 photo of Max Gerlach from the NYC Municipal Archives and their written authorization to use the photo on Wikipedia. It is not public domain, and its use would fall under {{Non-free with permission}}. As such, I'm assuming it would be wiser to create a separate Wikipedia article on Max Gerlach and use the photo there instead under fair use. Consequently, I'll re-add the Cugat image to the Gatsby article with appropriate commentary explaining the development of the drafts. — Flask (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)