User talk:Bertaut/Archive 2009

Welcome to the Shakespeare WikiProject

Incidentally, I'd like to welcome you to WikiProject Shakespeare. As you can probably surmise from the sad state of The Taming of the Shrew we're a tad understaffed, so anyone with an interest in the subkect is welcomed with open arms. Glad to have you on board! --Xover (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I already did some work on the The Two Gentlemen of Verona page, and no one told me to stop, so I figured the stuff I did must have been okay. The Shrew page does need some work alright, so I'll give it a go over the next week or so. Bertaut (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Shrew edits

Just a quick note to tell you… well, that you're awesome. :-)

I don't really have time to look closely at the changes, but I can tell it was a lot of work: so even if I should disagree with 90% of it I'm still very very happy to see an interested editor take on the job. What little I had time to look at was superficially fine, so I don't think you need to worry too much about that. Wikipedia has some very particular ways of doing things, so if you're used to places like IMDB you may find it a painful experience when other editors start digging into “your” baby. My advice is to just assume they're acting in good faith and trying to be helpful (even if they should appear to complain, whine, disparage your work, delete half of it, etc.): odds are they'll be doing those things based on style or policy issues that are peculiar to Wikipedia, and will be happy to explain why or correct themselves if it turns out they've made a mistake. I mention it only because you've obviously put a lot of effort into this article, and you stress that you're used to IMDB and similar, and I know it can be a frustrating experience when others start poking and prodding at a piece of work you've struggled over.

Anyways, I'll be sure to take a closer look when I can find the time. --Xover (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hey Xover, thanks for the enouragement and advice and whatnot, very much appreciated. I've actually found the same thing on IMDb, 95% of people are just trying to improve the FAQ, whether they be a grammar maniac or whatever, so I have no problem whatsoever with people changing something I've done (the fact that I've spent so long working on it, isn't an issue really). In actual fact, I enjoy seeing somebody has corrected something or improved something, as it means someone is actually reading it, and reading it seriously enough to want to improve it. And at the risk of sounding clichéd, that's pretty rewarding. Over the next couple of (years?), I might do this on all 39 of the plays (including Edward III). Obviously, stuff like Hamlet and The Tempest are fine, and need virtually no work, but the three Henry VI articles, for example, are very poor(and Henry IV isn't much better), as are some of the lesser known plays, like The Merry Wives of Windsor and The Two Noble Kinsmen, even something like King Lear could do with some work; there's no reason why the Lear article shouldn't be as good as the Hamlet one. Anyway, I'm reading the plays chronolgically as they appeared in the Oxford Collected works (but I'm using the individual Oxford editions of each play (except Edward III cause that's onyl available in Cambridge, and Richard II, cause that's not in Oxford yet, so I'm using Arden and their insane footnotes!). So The Two Gentlemen of Verona and The Taming of the Shrew done; third up is Henry VI, Part 2. But that's a few weeks away yet!!!

But again, thanks for the advice and the welcoming atmosphere and everything. Much appreciated Bertaut (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)