Talk:The Relapse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The Relapse is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 26, 2006.
Article Milestones Date Process Result November 12, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This LangLit article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Hello, You Know Who You Are. Please don't FAC this article. It's not finished. There are some things still missing. It's not quite ready yet. Please don't. It's not all it can be. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 16:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Just holler when it is, you've got my support.  ALKIVAR™ 22:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

She's trying our patience. Geogre 18:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Ganymead's just found some new images, I'm gonna have to think! I appreciate it, guys, but it's not done to a turn yet. It's unready like Aethelred. Plus FAC is increasingly an uncomfortable place. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• I can't think what's making you say that. ;>D Giano | talk 11:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh please don't say that, Bish, I just put Mandan up on it! *biting nails* Anyway, you certainly have my support on this as well! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 03:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Not for Mandan so much. And look how well it did! Anyway, I'm done, here goes. Bishonen | talk 23:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote formatting

On my monitor, the footnotes were irritatingly small. I thus changed font-size from 75% to 85%. Alkivar promptly changed them back, explaining that 75% was the regular size for this. (Or something similar: I don't claim to have this verbatim.)

Well, I prefer 85%, or indeed 90%, but I thought I'd see what the MoS said about this, and thereby arrived at Wikipedia:Footnotes. This says little about footnote size, but does have its own footnotes, which we surely may infer have been very carefully considered. These are at the regular size. Further, one of the footnotes says: If footnotes are too small, then they are difficult for some people to use. See Footnotes (or endnotes) on Web pages, Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, 2003-08-22, retrieved 2005-02-19 from http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www/fn.html. Yucca's page actually says rather little, but tellingly his own links are in the regular size as we view them on screen; he approvingly presents a sample chunk of CSS that, although reducing printed footnotes to 70% of their regular size, does nothing to the size of footnotes on screen.

So not only do I still prefer 85%, or indeed 90%, but [pompous voice ON] I'm surer than before that I'm right [OFF]. Though of course I'm reluctant to get into an edit war over it. -- Hoary 10:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

MoS is not the definitive end all be all of solutions to these questions, merely a suggested guideline. What you have to realize is that common use is generally a better solution... W. Mark Felt and many of the other articles (i'd have to start browsing to make you a list) that have gone through the FAC process have been reduced to 75%. As this appears to be the "preferred standard" I tend to think this is what we should stick to. These are merely FOOTNOTES, not content to be generally read, as such readability is of a lesser importance.  ALKIVAR™ 10:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

OK then, let's suppose for the purpose of this argument that, oh, perhaps 80% of featured articles have footnotes and that 80% of these have font-size set at 75%. I still submit that 75% can easily be uncomfortably small, that it's pointlessly small (as it takes no fewer bytes, and 90% would be sufficiently small to show that these are footnotes), that such a de facto standard (if it is such) is a silly standard, and that for what the MoS is worth it tends to disagree with such miniaturization. And now I think I'll turn the computer off and go home, before I start hitting y'all over the head with quotations from useit.com. Instead I'll put it simply: Web pages aren't printed on paper. Or simpler still: Usability rocks, diddy little fonts suck! Good night. -- Hoary 10:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as "Web pages aren't printed on paper" wikipedias ultimate goal IS TO BE PUBLISHED!  ALKIVAR™ 11:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yes I see what you mean, that is very small, in fact I can't read it (even with my glasses) I would prefer them to be standard text size, but the "in text numbers" to be as small as possible, so they don't iinterupt the flow, all one has to do is see they are there and have them large enoght to click on. Giano | talk 11:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  for the record the 75% text is the EXACT SAME SIZE as the "in text numbers" no one seems to have trouble finding or looking at.  ALKIVAR™ 11:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• but you only have to click on them, not try to read them, most of us who dont have brilliant vision can make out the definitions of a number, because it's a familiar shape, but reading text is a different matter all together. Giano | talk 12:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A New Twist in the History of The Relapse

I was wondering if the Relapsarians that have done an excellent job of presenting the history of this work are aware of it's use in a new Restoration Comedy entitled - wait for it - "Restoration Comedy".

[1] A review of the premiere production at the Seattle Rep.

I saw the next production at the California Shakespeare Theatre, and it was a hoot. The playwright, Amy Freed, has linked [[2]]Love's Last Shift to The Relapse with some modern day allusions, and sly in-jokes.

[3]A rave review by the SF Chronicle drama critic.

Perhaps this new use of old material could be a nice addition to an already fine article.

Rufus Newby

"me da died last Friday, and I don't feel ta well meself"

Thanks for the compliments and the info, Rufus! The article now has a new final sentence and one more footnote.

Bishonen | talk 17:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] tearjerker?

Perhaps something less subjective could be used than "tearjerker" in the intro? It really sounds wrong in an encyclopedia article. Also, I'll point out that it's hyphenated on the main page, but not here. -Harmil 17:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you were to read Love's Last Shift, you might not think it so subjective... And according to contemporary reports, the first night audience did weep floods. I do see what you mean, but I find myself a little reluctant to actively change the word. Please do feel free to change it yourself. Bishonen | talk 19:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

I kinda agree - I don't really like the phrase "notorious tearjerker", which, especially without sources, smells a bit of POV. I think at least a source is needed showing why it's notorious - It doesn't give this away at all in its article. -- jeffthejiff 20:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this myself. Would "melodrama" serve? -- Writtenonsand 22:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)