This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Samuel Pepys article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 31, 2006, May 31, 2007, May 31, 2008, May 31, 2009, May 31, 2010, May 31, 2012, May 31, 2013, May 31, 2015, and May 31, 2016. |
This article was reviewed by
The Guardian on October 24, 2005. Comments: The review rated it 6 out of 10 and was probably based on this version of the article. The errors noted in the review are listed below and were corrected in the article. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
We all know that External links classifies links to social networks as links to be avoided.
There is a daily twitter covering the entries of Samule Pepys' diary of same date, in 1668. The owner of the twitter account, and the related website is an individual, so it can't be said this is an 'official website'.
However more than 20,000 people are currently following the diary in this format, and many of them wouldn't probably read the book on one of the website listed here. For instance the book has been downloaded only 528 times from Gutenberg.
So, is it acceptable in this case to have an external link to the twitter ? -- Jardeheu ( talk) 02:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Let's discuss it in the External links Notice board.-- Jardeheu ( talk) 05:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I can see 2 reasons why the diary's twitter attracts currently more than 20 000 followers while the original diary has not even beeen downloaded a thousand times on Gutenberg (sources: twitter and Gutenberg sites): The first, as mentioned by Dabbler is the attractiveness of a push medium. The second could be the much written about shortening of the attention span of readers. Simply, for many people twitter is 'better' because they wouldn't read pages after pages of XVIIth c. English. Pepys is not an exception: Samuel Johnson has 30 000 followers. Jardeheu ( talk) 09:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
You are really increasing the burden of proof by asking me to find the viewership of the other sites ! It seems to me that we get back to the question of in-principle acceptability of links to twitter, which was accepted in the External links Notice board. Anyway I found that the first link, and the most prominent, is by the author of the twitter. I wrote so, which I hope is OK with you. My attempt at a link was blocked with a 'lockpad' icon. Does it mean that any attempt at linking to a twitter account is doomed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jardeheu ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Since nobody else is entering this discussion and I am convinced of the usefulness of the link I put it back and let the redactors opposed to it delete it. Thanks for your comments. Jardeheu ( talk) 13:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Samuel Pepys. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Note 1, under Notes section, is now invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.59.41 ( talk) 13:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The article uses somewhat inconsistent formatting when referring to sources more than once: a mixture of {{ sfnp}} and plain-text short footnotes in various styles. I propose converting all the long-form references to CS1 ({{ cite book}}, {{ cite web}} etc.; most of them already follow this format) and the short footnotes to use {{sfnp}}. Any comments? Wham2001 ( talk) 17:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Samuel Pepys article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 31, 2006, May 31, 2007, May 31, 2008, May 31, 2009, May 31, 2010, May 31, 2012, May 31, 2013, May 31, 2015, and May 31, 2016. |
This article was reviewed by
The Guardian on October 24, 2005. Comments: The review rated it 6 out of 10 and was probably based on this version of the article. The errors noted in the review are listed below and were corrected in the article. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
We all know that External links classifies links to social networks as links to be avoided.
There is a daily twitter covering the entries of Samule Pepys' diary of same date, in 1668. The owner of the twitter account, and the related website is an individual, so it can't be said this is an 'official website'.
However more than 20,000 people are currently following the diary in this format, and many of them wouldn't probably read the book on one of the website listed here. For instance the book has been downloaded only 528 times from Gutenberg.
So, is it acceptable in this case to have an external link to the twitter ? -- Jardeheu ( talk) 02:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Let's discuss it in the External links Notice board.-- Jardeheu ( talk) 05:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I can see 2 reasons why the diary's twitter attracts currently more than 20 000 followers while the original diary has not even beeen downloaded a thousand times on Gutenberg (sources: twitter and Gutenberg sites): The first, as mentioned by Dabbler is the attractiveness of a push medium. The second could be the much written about shortening of the attention span of readers. Simply, for many people twitter is 'better' because they wouldn't read pages after pages of XVIIth c. English. Pepys is not an exception: Samuel Johnson has 30 000 followers. Jardeheu ( talk) 09:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
You are really increasing the burden of proof by asking me to find the viewership of the other sites ! It seems to me that we get back to the question of in-principle acceptability of links to twitter, which was accepted in the External links Notice board. Anyway I found that the first link, and the most prominent, is by the author of the twitter. I wrote so, which I hope is OK with you. My attempt at a link was blocked with a 'lockpad' icon. Does it mean that any attempt at linking to a twitter account is doomed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jardeheu ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Since nobody else is entering this discussion and I am convinced of the usefulness of the link I put it back and let the redactors opposed to it delete it. Thanks for your comments. Jardeheu ( talk) 13:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Samuel Pepys. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Note 1, under Notes section, is now invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.59.41 ( talk) 13:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The article uses somewhat inconsistent formatting when referring to sources more than once: a mixture of {{ sfnp}} and plain-text short footnotes in various styles. I propose converting all the long-form references to CS1 ({{ cite book}}, {{ cite web}} etc.; most of them already follow this format) and the short footnotes to use {{sfnp}}. Any comments? Wham2001 ( talk) 17:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)