Talk:Book:Unseen Academicals - Revision history

Old Dickens: Two households, both alike...

2018-07-19T15:47:58Z

Two households, both alike...

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 19 July 2018
Line 92:		Line 92:

	--[[User:ArchchancellorJoe\|ArchchancellorJoe]] 16:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:ArchchancellorJoe\|ArchchancellorJoe]] 16:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

			==Fishing from the same barrel?==
			Toronto's ''Shakespeare in High Park'' features a football-themed ''Romeo and Juliet'' this summer. Probably just a coincidence... --[[User:Old Dickens\|Old Dickens]] ([[User talk:Old Dickens\|talk]]) 15:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Old Dickens: /* Now published */

2016-07-11T18:28:44Z

Now published

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:28, 11 July 2016
Line 17:		Line 17:
	no objection to "losing" the previous page content, esp. as it will still be there for retreival in the depths of history. --[[User:AgProv\|AgProv]] 19:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)		no objection to "losing" the previous page content, esp. as it will still be there for retreival in the depths of history. --[[User:AgProv\|AgProv]] 19:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

	Since the book is published, I suggest we move the entire stuff to something like "[[Unseen academicals pre-release discussion]]" and start on a proper Book: Unseen Academicals, liberally pasted with '''Here Be Spoilers!!''' ~~(unsigned comment by [[User:Jagra]], 16:24, 10 July 2016)~~		Since the book is published, I suggest we move the entire stuff to something like "[[Unseen academicals pre-release discussion]]" and start on a proper Book: Unseen Academicals, liberally pasted with '''Here Be Spoilers!!'''
	:Many book discussions start before publication, and why not? We haven't used spoiler warnings for many years; everything here is a spoiler. I did like the original site notice that warned of spoilers and possible nuts, but I can't find it. --[[User:Old Dickens\|Old Dickens]] ([[User talk:Old Dickens\|talk]]) 18:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)		:Many book discussions start before publication, and why not? We haven't used spoiler warnings for many years; everything here is a spoiler. I did like the original site notice that warned of spoilers and possible nuts, but I can't find it. --[[User:Old Dickens\|Old Dickens]] ([[User talk:Old Dickens\|talk]]) 18:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
	::Ah I didn't actually write that comment, I was linking a [[Special:LonelyPages\|orphaned page]] and saw a convenient phrase, also was '[[May Contain Nuts\|may contain nuts]]' originally [[Discworld & Terry Pratchett Wiki:General disclaimer\|on a page like this?]]. [[User:Jagra\|Jagra]] ([[User talk:Jagra\|talk]]) 14:10 UTC		::Ah I didn't actually write that comment, I was linking a [[Special:LonelyPages\|orphaned page]] and saw a convenient phrase, also was '[[May Contain Nuts\|may contain nuts]]' originally [[Discworld & Terry Pratchett Wiki:General disclaimer\|on a page like this?]]. [[User:Jagra\|Jagra]] ([[User talk:Jagra\|talk]]) 14:10 UTC
			:Hmm. Perhaps it was the [[User:Iron Hippo\|Swedish Engineer]]. Now I'll have to sort out what's duplicated or if the whole page can be deleted. The spoilers and nuts warning was in the site notice (at the top of every page). --[[User:Old Dickens\|Old Dickens]] ([[User talk:Old Dickens\|talk]]) 18:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

	== Book Template? ==		== Book Template? ==

Jagra at 14:14, 11 July 2016

2016-07-11T14:14:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:14, 11 July 2016
Line 19:		Line 19:
	Since the book is published, I suggest we move the entire stuff to something like "[[Unseen academicals pre-release discussion]]" and start on a proper Book: Unseen Academicals, liberally pasted with '''Here Be Spoilers!!''' (unsigned comment by [[User:Jagra]], 16:24, 10 July 2016)		Since the book is published, I suggest we move the entire stuff to something like "[[Unseen academicals pre-release discussion]]" and start on a proper Book: Unseen Academicals, liberally pasted with '''Here Be Spoilers!!''' (unsigned comment by [[User:Jagra]], 16:24, 10 July 2016)
	:Many book discussions start before publication, and why not? We haven't used spoiler warnings for many years; everything here is a spoiler. I did like the original site notice that warned of spoilers and possible nuts, but I can't find it. --[[User:Old Dickens\|Old Dickens]] ([[User talk:Old Dickens\|talk]]) 18:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)		:Many book discussions start before publication, and why not? We haven't used spoiler warnings for many years; everything here is a spoiler. I did like the original site notice that warned of spoilers and possible nuts, but I can't find it. --[[User:Old Dickens\|Old Dickens]] ([[User talk:Old Dickens\|talk]]) 18:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
	::Ah I didn't actually write that comment, I was linking a [[Special:~~Deadendpages~~\|~~dead end~~ page]] and saw a convenient phrase, also was '[[May Contain Nuts\|may contain nuts]]' originally [[Discworld & Terry Pratchett Wiki:General disclaimer\|on a page like this?]]. [[User:Jagra\|Jagra]] ([[User talk:Jagra\|talk]]) 14:10 UTC		::Ah I didn't actually write that comment, I was linking a [[Special:LonelyPages\|orphaned page]] and saw a convenient phrase, also was '[[May Contain Nuts\|may contain nuts]]' originally [[Discworld & Terry Pratchett Wiki:General disclaimer\|on a page like this?]]. [[User:Jagra\|Jagra]] ([[User talk:Jagra\|talk]]) 14:10 UTC

	== Book Template? ==		== Book Template? ==

Jagra: /* Now published */

2016-07-11T14:10:34Z

Now published

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:10, 11 July 2016
Line 19:		Line 19:
	Since the book is published, I suggest we move the entire stuff to something like "[[Unseen academicals pre-release discussion]]" and start on a proper Book: Unseen Academicals, liberally pasted with '''Here Be Spoilers!!''' (unsigned comment by [[User:Jagra]], 16:24, 10 July 2016)		Since the book is published, I suggest we move the entire stuff to something like "[[Unseen academicals pre-release discussion]]" and start on a proper Book: Unseen Academicals, liberally pasted with '''Here Be Spoilers!!''' (unsigned comment by [[User:Jagra]], 16:24, 10 July 2016)
	:Many book discussions start before publication, and why not? We haven't used spoiler warnings for many years; everything here is a spoiler. I did like the original site notice that warned of spoilers and possible nuts, but I can't find it. --[[User:Old Dickens\|Old Dickens]] ([[User talk:Old Dickens\|talk]]) 18:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)		:Many book discussions start before publication, and why not? We haven't used spoiler warnings for many years; everything here is a spoiler. I did like the original site notice that warned of spoilers and possible nuts, but I can't find it. --[[User:Old Dickens\|Old Dickens]] ([[User talk:Old Dickens\|talk]]) 18:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
			::Ah I didn't actually write that comment, I was linking a [[Special:Deadendpages\|dead end page]] and saw a convenient phrase, also was '[[May Contain Nuts\|may contain nuts]]' originally [[Discworld & Terry Pratchett Wiki:General disclaimer\|on a page like this?]]. [[User:Jagra\|Jagra]] ([[User talk:Jagra\|talk]]) 14:10 UTC

	== Book Template? ==		== Book Template? ==

Old Dickens at 18:30, 10 July 2016

2016-07-10T18:30:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:30, 10 July 2016
Line 11:		Line 11:

	== Now published ==		== Now published ==

	Since the book is published, I suggest we move the entire stuff to something like "[[Unseen academicals pre-release discussion]]" and start on a proper Book: Unseen Academicals, liberally pasted with '''Here Be Spoilers!!'''

	Would it not be more beneficial to simply delete the content of this page as a when it becomes irrelevant? personally i do not see the benefit of keeping old stuff online --[[User:BOZZ\|BOZZ]] 13:27 1 October 2009 (UTC)		Would it not be more beneficial to simply delete the content of this page as a when it becomes irrelevant? personally i do not see the benefit of keeping old stuff online --[[User:BOZZ\|BOZZ]] 13:27 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Line 19:		Line 17:
	no objection to "losing" the previous page content, esp. as it will still be there for retreival in the depths of history. --[[User:AgProv\|AgProv]] 19:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)		no objection to "losing" the previous page content, esp. as it will still be there for retreival in the depths of history. --[[User:AgProv\|AgProv]] 19:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

			Since the book is published, I suggest we move the entire stuff to something like "[[Unseen academicals pre-release discussion]]" and start on a proper Book: Unseen Academicals, liberally pasted with '''Here Be Spoilers!!''' (unsigned comment by [[User:Jagra]], 16:24, 10 July 2016)
			:Many book discussions start before publication, and why not? We haven't used spoiler warnings for many years; everything here is a spoiler. I did like the original site notice that warned of spoilers and possible nuts, but I can't find it. --[[User:Old Dickens\|Old Dickens]] ([[User talk:Old Dickens\|talk]]) 18:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

	== Book Template? ==		== Book Template? ==

Jagra at 16:24, 10 July 2016

2016-07-10T16:24:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:24, 10 July 2016
Line 12:		Line 12:
	== Now published ==		== Now published ==

	Since the book is published, I suggest we move the entire stuff to something like "Unseen academicals pre-release discussion" and start on a proper Book: Unseen Academicals, liberally pasted with '''Here Be Spoilers!!'''		Since the book is published, I suggest we move the entire stuff to something like "[[Unseen academicals pre-release discussion]]" and start on a proper Book: Unseen Academicals, liberally pasted with '''Here Be Spoilers!!'''

	Would it not be more beneficial to simply delete the content of this page as a when it becomes irrelevant? personally i do not see the benefit of keeping old stuff online --[[User:BOZZ\|BOZZ]] 13:27 1 October 2009 (UTC)		Would it not be more beneficial to simply delete the content of this page as a when it becomes irrelevant? personally i do not see the benefit of keeping old stuff online --[[User:BOZZ\|BOZZ]] 13:27 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Old Dickens: Old Dickens moved page Book talk:Unseen Academicals to Talk:Book:Unseen Academicals without leaving a redirect

2012-12-26T19:16:57Z

Old Dickens moved page Book talk:Unseen Academicals to Talk:Book:Unseen Academicals without leaving a redirect

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:16, 26 December 2012
(No difference)

Old Dickens: 34 revisions: getting the hang of it

2012-12-26T17:49:53Z

34 revisions: getting the hang of it

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:49, 26 December 2012
(No difference)

AgProv: rationalising link

2011-04-18T09:32:47Z

rationalising link

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:32, 18 April 2011
Line 77:		Line 77:
	==Football and Foot-the-ball==		==Football and Foot-the-ball==

	I vote we have 2 separate articles. There is the ancient and outlawed practice of kicking each other in order to get a leather object to a post at one end of an agreed area. Then there is the new-fangled game under creation during the events of {{UA}}. I think keeping one article will be confusing, especially considering where you reference [[Dimmers]], [[~~Dolly\|~~Dollies]], [[Pork Packers]] etc ''as well as'' two sets of rules, champion players, traditions, events of the big game... what do we think? --[[User:Knmatt\|Knmatt]] 13:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)		I vote we have 2 separate articles. There is the ancient and outlawed practice of kicking each other in order to get a leather object to a post at one end of an agreed area. Then there is the new-fangled game under creation during the events of {{UA}}. I think keeping one article will be confusing, especially considering where you reference [[Dimmers]], [[Dollies]], [[Pork Packers]] etc ''as well as'' two sets of rules, champion players, traditions, events of the big game... what do we think? --[[User:Knmatt\|Knmatt]] 13:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

	Two articles seems like confusion to me. I'd prefer one showing the development of the game from ancient to new versions. See Wikipedia's {{wp\|Football\|''Football''}}, which covers many more varieties and their history. --[[User:Old Dickens\|Old Dickens]] 14:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)		Two articles seems like confusion to me. I'd prefer one showing the development of the game from ancient to new versions. See Wikipedia's {{wp\|Football\|''Football''}}, which covers many more varieties and their history. --[[User:Old Dickens\|Old Dickens]] 14:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Old Dickens: /* Series */

2009-10-31T00:14:31Z

Series

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:14, 31 October 2009
Line 43:		Line 43:
	::::A man was ''relieved'' by another man? Or even by himself? Can you see [[Nobby]]'s dirty grin??--[[User:Knmatt\|Knmatt]] 11:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)		::::A man was ''relieved'' by another man? Or even by himself? Can you see [[Nobby]]'s dirty grin??--[[User:Knmatt\|Knmatt]] 11:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

	It's a baseball thing, not given to the British to understand (any more than we can figure out when a cricket match ends). It doesn't even involve the ritual grabbing of the jockstrap, actually. --[[User:Old Dickens\|Old Dickens]] 14:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)		It's a baseball thing, not given to the British to understand (any more than we can figure out when a cricket match ends). It doesn't even involve the ritual grabbing of the jockstrap, actually. --[[User:Old Dickens\|Old Dickens]] 14:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC) - I lie. The next pitcher, having relieved his teammate, probably will come in fiddling with his jockstrap, but that's not why it was called relief in the first place...oh, never mind. --[[User:Old Dickens\|Old Dickens]] 00:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


	== Shakespeare annotation (or not) ==		== Shakespeare annotation (or not) ==