Talk:Samuel Pepys

Link to the twitter diary

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)

As Jardeheu has moved the discussion back here, let me point out that there are already sites containing the whole Diary listed in See also External links section, one of which already provides daily extracts. I cannot understand how a small truncated section of a daily entry provided by Twitter is better unless it is to argue that it is a push medium so the excerpt arrives automatically rather than one where people go and seek out the daily dose. Either way does the Twitter feed not give a very insufficient indication of the actual content of the Diary? Dabbler (talk) 22:56, 12 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)

But what are the statistics for the other Pepys Diary sites listed? Just to compare Gutenberg and Twitter is hardly reasonable as the other sites are more attractive than Gutenberg's presentation. I am probably prejudiced against Twitter because of the shortened nature of the postings. Is it really presenting Pepys and his diary to ignore the full impact of his prose, Pepys wrote in the 17th century not the 21st and even in shorthand he wrote more than 140 characters per day. Dabbler (talk) 16:07, 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)

I wasn't really demanding that you produce the statistics, just that what you had produced to date were incomplete and therefore could not be used as a reliable guide to the relatively popularity of Twitter to complete Diary websites. I have no clue as to why or how various sites may or may not be linked to Wikipedia, or whethwer you could link the Twitter feed here. I just don't believe that the Twitter link would really be a useful addition, but as it is only the two of us debating, I wonder if we will ever come to a conclusion! Dabbler (talk) 15:29, 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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114221738/http://emc.english.ucsb.edu/ballad_project/ to http://emc.english.ucsb.edu/ballad_project/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225233235/http://emc.english.ucsb.edu/ballad_project/index.asp to http://emc.english.ucsb.edu/ballad_project/index.asp

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) 05:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Notes

Note 1, under Notes section, is now invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.59.41 (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. Wham2001 (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Reference format

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)

Since nobody has replied I will put this proposal into practice (perhaps not all tonight, though). Wham2001 (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Done, though I did not attempt to rationalise all the references to the various editions of the diary. Most of that material should be re-cited to secondary sources in any case. Wham2001 (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia has a ban on the use of primary sources, particularly good ones such as Pepyss' diary: it counsels caution instead. But it seems odd that secondary sources which quote directly from the Diary should be more acceptable. This is discussed at WP:USEPRIMARY. Hasn't the idea that "secondary good, primary bad" been discussed and rejected? Thomas Peardew (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)