Talk:Dylan Thomas

Trying to get Dylan's' image to appear in the hover panel over his link on Notable Resident/People lists

For example in Laugharne Notable Residents a photo of the subject appears when hovering over this inserted link John_Powell_(judge) but not when DT's link is inserted Dylan_Thomas How can the article format be edited to achieve this? I've had a couple of trial attempts at modification but only generated fierce warnings on the previews!Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

After many trials I seem to have accomplished this edit but the two images at the beginning of the article now are very similar - also if I transfer the one from its info box that contains a citation in the caption - which seems to be regarded as a bad thing - but another more cheerful photo could be substituted?

Dylan Thomas with his mother and wife Caitlin on Gower beach

Dylan Thomas with his mother and wife Caitlin on Gower beach

Dylan at Browns Hotel, Laugharne with his wife Caitlin

Dylan at Browns Hotel, Laugharne with his wife Caitlin

Dylan Thomas with son Llewelyn, daughter Aeronwy, Mrs Florence Thomas, his mother, his son Colm and his wife Caitlin at Laugharne, 1953

Dylan Thomas with son Llewelyn, daughter Aeronwy, Mrs Florence Thomas, his mother, his son Colm and his wife Caitlin at Laugharne, 1953

I've selected one but here are two of many other possibilities for the infobox if the current image in there is switched to the top - comments invited. Apologies for my multiple minor edits, as a novice the only way I found to check whether the hover image was displaying on other pages was to save the changes with each attempt. There must be a way of using the infobox image but I couldn't find it and the properties of the original pic prevented it working in the hover image elsewhere. No idea why otherwise I would have used it and kept the caption unchanged.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sirjohnperrot: I have reverted your recent edits because the images you added and those shown above appear to be clear copyright violations. I have tagged them as such on Commons. I have restored the fair-use image File:Dylan Thomas photo.jpg; including this image in the article will prevent it from being deleted as an unused non-free image. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sirjohnperrot and Verbcatcher: I've removed the orphan tag from the non-free image to further prevent it from being deleted.

I believe the general rule is that the link preview picks up the first image it finds on the page, but there are sometimes idiosyncratic conditions where this does not work. But it seems to be working now, so no further changes should be required. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC):

Thanks Jmcgnh - but unfortunately we seem to back to square 1 on my Chrome browser at least. A photo of the subject appears when the cursor is hovering over this inserted link John Perrot but still not when over the Dylan Thomas link. How can that target article format be edited to achieve this? Now reverted but after many trials I seemed to have accomplished the change at the cost of inserting an extra image at the beginning of the article. Both pics were very similar - from the same portrait session in New York in 1952 - but if I transfer the one from its info box (which contains a citation in the caption - which seems to be regarded as a bad thing) it didn't work when moved outside. In the end I modified the caption to fit the new photo and substituted another relevant photo in the infobox. The edit has been reverted and both the photos I added removed as copyright violations. I don't understand either process and would value your further assistance Sirjohnperrot (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot, it's hard to guess why it would work for me and not for you. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

OK - any suggestions on where else to look for a solution? I'll repost the help tag on Dylan Thomas Talk with this reply anyway. Also hopefully might get help on a different aspect of the subject of links. Despite many readings of the guidance eg Help:Link#To_a_section the redirects in the Laugharne article to its internal sections on the Corporation and the Charter don't seem to work. Help appreciated to correct this problem as well - also @Verbcatcher: where did I go wrong with my image uploads whic you deleted?Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot You seem to be talking to jmcgnh and verbcatcher. You just need to use the {{ping}} template for that, not the "help me" template. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 16:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot, links to a section within the same page still need to name the page. So instead of [[#Corporation§Corporation|Corporation]] you'd want [[{{PAGENAME}}#Corporation|Corporation]] or [[Laugharne#Charter|Charter]]. (The use of PAGENAME only works on the page itself.)

As for the photos, taken after 1923, they would clearly still be subject to copyright, so - even if they are available on the web somewhere - they are not eligible for uploading to Wikimedia Commons. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot, as to hints about how to debug the 'not displaying' problem, the first step is probably to close your browser and clear its cache, then start it again to see if that has fixed the problem. I would also try with a different browser to see if there was a different result. Your goal is to find two closely matched situations, one in which the hover image appears and one in which it does not, then make small variations until you can isolate what is responsible for the problem. If in almost all cases the image appears for you for other pages and for everyone else the image appears for the page in question, it may not be worth the time and trouble to track down this isolated problem. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot, it may be worth trying purging the various caches, see Wikipedia:Purge and c:Help:Purge. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh, Verbcatcher, and I dream of horses: Thanks one & all, I've updated my image that survived your scutiny and won't upload any more until I find a way of ensuring they are appropriate. One thing at a time. As far as the hover panel goes I'm afraid purging my browser cache, changing my browser, using the Gadget tools have all failed to produce a result for the Dylan Thomas image, he just doesn't show up on the Laugharne list of notables unlike John Perrot or Judge Powell or indeed Bridget Bevan who consistently appear without any problem irrespective of browser or device. Exactly the same on my iPhone btw. I take it none of you is experiencing this issue on the links included here? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot, yes, I get images on all of those links. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

:: jmcgnh Very curious business - for me anyway. Re the links to a section within the same page for the Laugharne article - I've tried the codes you suggested in the intro but they still don't seem to redirect to the later sections - just display a 'Laugharne' label. (i.e. instead of [[#Corporation§Corporation|Corporation]] you'd want [[{{PAGENAME}}#Corporation|Corporation]] or [[Laugharne#Charter|Charter]]. (The use of PAGENAME only works on the page itself.) Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot, Apparently someone disagreed with me that the page name needs to appear in the section link. I admit I didn't try that possibility. According to Template:Anchor, they are correct.

The Laugharne page no longer has sections named 'Corporation' or 'Charter', so that's why the section links do not go anywhere - the anchors they are looking to find no longer exist. You can add those anchors with {{anchor|target}} or you can change the links to go to the current name of the section.

One more quibble is that the 'Laugharne' in the 'Laugharne Corporation' section header is possibly redundant. It's an arguable point, but I think I prefer to see it the way it currently is. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The respectable area of uplands

The article states he was born in 'the respectable area of the Uplands'. There's no citation for this, this is surely just an opinion. I assume the author of those words means Uplands was respectable when Thomas lived there. I suggest removing the opinion from the article. 51.9.104.161 (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

'Respectable' is a rather old-fashioned term. The Uplands article describes it as 'a relatively salubrious area', which is similar. Are these simply terms for a middle class area? If Uplands was middle class when Thomas was there then it would be better to describe it as such. This would not necessarily be 'just an opinion', but would be verifiable from survey data. Or a reliable source may have described the area in this way. If we can't find a source for this then I would be content for this to be tagged with 'Citation needed', as it is a non-contentious statement and this is not a BLP article. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Walking Trails Section

I'm concerned this section is approaching WP:TRIVIA territory, broaching WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP, and isn't consistent with WP:EPSTYLE (particularly in regards to "Inappropriate lists").

I wasn't able to find any significant scholarly discussion or coverage on his walking trails aside from promotional material on tourism websites. I assume this is why the section currently lacks in-line citations with only notes and external links (I've added templates to identify the claims that require verification, which is all of them tbh)? The introduction is pretty vague and sounds like WP:OR; there doesn't seem to be a clear explanation as to what the bulleted items actually are, and if they in fact form a coherent list? If the necessary sources exist, perhaps there is a way to incorporate information on Thomas's walking habits, or the significance of walking in his work, but I'm not sure this section has legs, or if it's the best vehicle for the information (puns intended). I was hesitant to delete it outright, but perhaps WP:BRD is the best move here. Happy to engage in discussion about how to improve the section if an editor would like to reinstate it! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Walking this night in the white giant's thigh, poem on his birthday, that sort of walking? Doesn't mean he had "trails" of course. Just ruminating, not disputing. I don't have any horses in this race [puns intended].Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Columbine shooter?

What is a ' Columbine shooter' please? Sdgard (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sdgard Columbine shooting perpetrator. DankJae 01:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

Sjc, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Poetry, and Wikipedia:Good article nominations notified

• Greetings, This is an informal attempt, a Before opening a reassessment, to call attention to some issues concerning the Good article criteria (GACR) #1 and #3, and even the B-class criteria #1 and #4. The article has enjoyed 1,668 editors, with 417 watchers, and 48,927 pageviews in 30 days, so this should not be too complicated.

The following categories indicate issues:

• Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from June 2024
• Articles with unsourced statements from January 2019
• Articles with unsourced statements from August 2020
• Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from August 2020
• Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from August 2020
• Wikipedia articles needing clarification from August 2020

External links: The article sports an external links tag (June 2024) that the use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, which has grown to 17 "External links".

External links: This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.

Second paragraph of lead: Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

• • Please note: Removing and moving excessive links to the talk page for possible discussion is not BRD but maintenance. Appendices, such as this one and the "Further reading" section can be omitted without affecting article promotion.
• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
• ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.

There are citation templates that need removing.

• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

If any of the excessive links can be included in the article that would be a good thing, however, there are far too many reasons (above) why limiting the section to three or four (even with with consensus if needed) should not be a problem. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Very good idea to post this and notify GA-ers. I've slimmed down the Ext links a bit; I think there is actually good reason to list the ones that remain, being official sites, major archives and genuine DT curiosities. I guess if Shakespeare had lived in the 20th century we'd have just as many. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Reply: Well, there is almost always justification why the "External links" section gets bloated, until it is too large. Thanks for any attention you have spared though. Mainly the section is often just ignored, like when someone adds "another good one" as exemplified by WP:ACREEP. Of all the policies and guidelines listed above, meaning over time there were likely even more severe issues, I may have missed WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, concerning Normally, only one official link is included and possibly more under a very few limited circumstances. A problem is that when the section has too many links it becomes a comprehensive web directory.

If my concerns generates attention I am, most of the time, good with that. If not, I will probably just take steps to start a review. At present the article will likely fail. Have a great day, -- Otr500 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)