Talk:Tommy Atkins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

I'm currently waiting on permission to use the image located at http://www.victorianweb.org/painting/misc/woodville1.html Mintguy (T) 03:33, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the poems and song be at wikisource? Lisiate 01:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any reason why they shouldn't be here aswell? - Is it not encyclopaedic to have them in reference to the rest of the article? Jooler 14:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[Belated] Well, they do make the article a long scrolldown, but I guess that's a question of aesthetics. Lee M 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] References

Can the theories on the term's origin cite their sources, and provide explicit and linked references please? Sliggy 00:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The urban myths can't. The other origins except the letter from Jamaica are cited - Jooler 09:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
See http://collections.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.1262, which uses How the regiments got their nicknames by Tim Carew; illustrated by Nicolas Bentley. - London : Leo Cooper, 1974 as a source. Jooler 09:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom and Jerry

Yeah, I've often wondered if there was some link. But other than the sheer attractiveness of the idea, is there any evidence this is true? Disney history or interviews? Otherwise it's just unfounded speculation, and should be phrased as such and moved further down, or deleted. JackyR 17:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It is just my speculation - I'm not sure I've been told it by anyone else. But it seems quite convincing to me! Please edit as you see fit. Ben Finn 12:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I continue to try and verify this as either fact or fiction. Feel free to remove it though until I have some sort of decent answer either way. --Kickstart70·Talk 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full text of poems

This article contains the full text of three poems (or, rather, two poems and a song) which I think ought not to be there. The guidelines tell us we shouldn't include copies of text like this, and since they are simply included without comment I think that there is no benefit to keeping them rather than copying them to wikisource and linking to them. I tried to do this with the Rudyard Kipling poem, but Jooler reverted my change. So, commentary will be appreciated: ought the poems to remain, or ought they to be linked to instead? --Sopoforic 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry and Red flag for a song quoted as part of a broader article about the subject of the article Jooler 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
As I have noted on your talk page (repeatedly) and as Shimgray mentions, it is appropriate to quote the lyrics when the article is about the song itself and when the article also includes commentary, as is the case with Red flag. It is not appropriate, ever, to simply include a copy of the text without comment, as has been done in Tommy Atkins. Several different people have removed those poems, and you continue to revert the changes without justifying why it is helpful to have them in the article, or explaining why it doesn't violate the injunction against including copies of primary sources. --Sopoforic 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I read the "you should..." in that guideline as "you should quote from", not "you should include wholesale". (One day, I will get around to writing an article on Tommy itself - there's certainly material to work on - but I feel I ought to note that Danny Deever manages quite fine with one verse and a link to wikisource) Shimgray | talk | 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources is generally a pretty sensible guideline. There is reason for including the full text in articles on the work itself, but in this case the poems aren't the fundamental purpose of the article and they just seem to pad it out pointlessly. I concur entirely and have cut them - I'm sure I did this once before, back when it was just Kipling. Shimgray | talk | 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Look at the talk page of that guideline - there is a large amount of opposition to it and I am also in that camp. Jooler 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The opposition seems to date heavily from 2003/4. There's very little noticeable recent objection to it, and the guideline as stated certainly seems in line with common practice as I've seen it. Shimgray | talk | 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed there was opposition--four years ago, before wikisource was created. Strangely enough, there was no more opposition after that. --Sopoforic 00:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikisource is not for out of copyright poems and songs. It is for long works and the texts of treaties and other official documents. Jooler 00:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
No, wikisource is specifically for out of copyright poems and songs as well as treaties etc. It says so right on Wikisource:What is Wikisource?. --Sopoforic 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I had asked Jooler for reasons why the poems should be kept, and he responded (on my talk page): "I have already explained. I see no reason beyond bureaucracy (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy) not to include them. Jooler 00:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)"

One reason to remove it (besides that the guidelines suggest that it should be removed, which is a pretty good reason absent any argument for keeping it) is that it unnecessarily lengthens the page; we like to keep the pages brief, where possible, which is one reason we split up large articles. In this case there's nothing to split: there is only the text of the poems, which is better linked to. --Sopoforic 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's iffy editorial style, if you ask me. It pads out the centre of the page with only tangentially related text, which the reader has to wade through to see if there's any other content, and it maes the article seem substantially more like a collection of random bits and less like a coherent whole. There is a time and place for inclusion of primary sources, but where those primary sources are "some poems about the topic" rather than "the work under discussion", this doesn't seem to be it. Shimgray | talk | 00:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I've put all three on Wikisource; if there isn't any more support for keeping them here by tomorrow, I'll remove the full text ones again. Shimgray | talk | 00:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
...and nothing. Okay, out they go pending a really good reason. Shimgray | talk | 09:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Jammy Sailor

There was a Thomas Atkins who was the sole survivor from the Mary in the Great Storm. He was washed on board the Stirling Castle which then sank and again he was one of only a handful of survivors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Storm_of_1703 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.35.103 (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)