Talk:Coronation of Queen Victoria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeCoronation of Queen Victoria was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 30, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 2, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Coronation of Queen Victoria (illustrated) in 1838 was described by the writer Harriet Martineau, who was present, as "highly barbaric"?

DYK views[edit]

9,598 views on the day Johnbod (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"&c"[edit]

&c needs to be corrected to etcetra but some robot keeps blocking the change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.103.80 (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quotation dude. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coronation of Queen Victoria. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019 changes[edit]

(copied from User talk:No Great Shaker#top) Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to just revert all your changes here - undiscussed and inconsistent changes of citation style (see WP:CITEVAR), removal of references and replacing them with probably inferior ones, removing references then adding a cn tag. WTF?? Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rewriting the article to try and move it up to good article standard. The Worsley book provides the opportunity to do that. As you say, citation style was inconsistent and I simply want to make it consistent. I did remove a couple of inaccessible or irrelevant citations and the cn tags are there as notes for me to either source or remove the statements. The article certainly requires compliance with mos:quote by merging the queen's comments into narrative without quoting her directly. I suggest you remain patient for, say, a week while I complete the main draft. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm saying - you don't seem to be listening. I don't agree that the quote needs breaking up in these particular circumstances - that is just your opinion. Nobody else has raised the matter over several years, and the article has been largely the same for 6 years, and fairly highly-viewed, with over 100 vpd on average. I repeat that changes judged to be net-negative may be reversed. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am listening. I am also trying to improve a rather poor article without being rude or confrontational. As for MOS:QUOTE, that is clear enough as a guideline and my "opinion" simply complies with what it says. If there is another policy or guideline which allows for exceptions, please be kind enough to provide me with a link to it. I am still working on the article, time allowing, and I will make changes as and when I am ready to do so. There are thousands of articles on the site which have not been edited for several years, but that only means no one has been interested in editing them, not that they cannot be expanded or improved when someone does become interested.
It seems to me that you are only expressing your opinion, which is your prerogative, and you could do that politely without using "WTF" and making reversal threats. I don't attach much credibility to arguments which open with the F-word, or F-initial on this occasion. If you are unable to abide by WP:CIVIL, I would prefer it if you keep away from this page and make your comments at the article's talk page, which is on my watchlist. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that your changes have hardly changed the text, it is presumably still "rather poor" according to you, and a long way from GA! It is clear from the edit history that the article has been maintained, and slightly expanded, since creation - as shown by your edits immediately being picked up. Please stop saying "Thank you", when you clearly mean the reverse - it's just annoying. I will copy this section to the article talk page as you suggest. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to insert the revised lead and narrative sections that I have already done now or would you prefer that I wait until the entire draft is ready? I don't mind either way though I did intend to do it all in one. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.queenvictoriasjournals.org/home.do. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Amitchell125 16:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

What nonsense - the text was written in 1838 and published in 1907 - this is not copyrighted, and anyway a reasonable amount of quotation is allowed. It has been restored. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitchell125: The copyright notice looks clear enough to me and I agree that the section must be removed as its inclusion is a violation. If the perpetrator (above) continues to behave in such a stupidly arrogant manner, I think administration should be requested. Thanks again. As regards the rest, I'll wait until you've fully reviewed the remaining sections. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request away, and see what happens! Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For heaven's sake. Johnbod is right, if they were published in 1907 then Queen Victoria's journals are now in the public domain. Anyone can slap a copyright notice on public domain works. Doesn't make it legally true... Firebrace (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Firebrace: You may wish to read User talk:Diannaa#Coronation of Queen Victoria - copied text, User talk:Diannaa#Crown copyright? and Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Talk:Coronation of Queen Victoria/GA1 - should be closed. You may then wish to withdraw your comment above and avoid legal issues in future. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright violation has been removed again and if there are any more restorations the whole issue will be escalated. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the website. Here is a book of Queen Victoria's letters:
  • Arthur Christopher Benson, ed. (1907). The Letters of Queen Victoria. Vol. 1. p. 148.
Personal copyright in the UK is life of the author (1901) + 70 years, and Crown copyright is first date of publication (1907) + 50 years. Not that it matters if we are only going to reproduce one letter, but in case you are wondering, Arthur Christopher Benson died in 1925. Now you can stop fretting. Firebrace (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page name[edit]

We should have this page renamed Coronation of Victoria, to align it with the other British coronation pages. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let's. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're bloody not. This can't be a serious proposal... Firebrace (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coronation_of_Queen_Victoria&oldid=1206796322"