Talk:Grantaire

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grantaire article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

To future editors

This page and probably Enjolras's page might be subjected to more edits which might need polishing.Chefs-kiss (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

I suggest that an active watch is kept on this page since it seems that random people will just add that Enjolras is Grantaire's spouse. While this might be an interpretation/fan theory this is not fact within the book. WP: NPOV Chefs-kiss (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I visit this page often so I'll keep watch to make sure it says accurate to the book. I added a few sentences saying that some fans do choose to pair them, and noted there is indeed context from the book to support this, but did not specifically say it is canon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:74B2:E810:2DD7:DDC4:8493:57D3 (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

could you either add this as a modern interpretation or delete it. while i agree that within the fandom this is a thing wikipedia isn't there to explain why the fandom does things. If it were like that the entire TS thing would be full of fan theories. This is also not mentioned in any of the manuscripts of Victor Hugo. Chefs-kiss (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did say it's a modern interpretation, but as I said, I referenced the specific lines from the book that cause people to believe this. Sorry if it's a problem. :( 2600:1700:74B2:E810:FB8F:A625:D80D:827 (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a specific part I should delete, tell me. But I'm pretty sure everything I said was a direct reference to part of the book, plus adding the fact that some people pair them. This is one of the first times making an edit, so I don't know the rules super well. But I'd be glad to learn more, so I can make sure to only add things that are allowed. 2600:1700:74B2:E810:FB8F:A625:D80D:827 (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read MOS:PLOTSOURCE. While we don't require citations for simple plot summaries (as the work itself serves as the source), commentary and analysis does require 3rd party citations. I've removed most the material you added as a violation of WP:NOR. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm new to this so how do I cite sources? All the stuff I added was from the novel, which I don't know how to cite. Is that a legit source, I'm guessing? 2600:1700:74B2:E810:F9C6:D547:4B5:2486 (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take a look at WP:REFSTART and WP:RD! They are both good places to start. Ternera (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you so much! I'm really bored now, not feeling too great and trying to find something to do lol. I'm trying to find the sources that specifically talk about the 'un coup de foudre' line again. I'm clicking through the online file of the handwritten manuscript to get the exact part. It's in French, obviously. I don't know much French. This is going to take a while... 2600:1700:74B2:E810:F9C6:D547:4B5:2486 (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a shipping forum. I suggest you spend your time on other pursuits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is not. I am not saying they are married (I saw someone was), or making things up. I am simply stating facts that were directly mentioned in the book. Even if you don't support it, most of the things I wrote are literally lines from the book. I know the exact pages, if you would like to look them up. Actually, here's one of the parts from the book I mentioned. I'm not trying to start an argument here, I'm just trying to say that it is a totally valid opinion to have, and since it's in the book that Victor Hugo wrote, it shouldn't have to be censored. And yes, I'm sorry, I should have tried to cite my sources, but I wasn't sure how, and wasn't aware you absolutely had to. :)

(I couldn't get the French version, but you can see that last sentence is similar, this is just a different translation. I think it's the Hapgood version.)

I don't know if I'm going to try to edit anymore, since it's apparently such a problem to write about lines from the book. But thank you for explaining. I'll try to figure out how to cite sources if I do though. 2600:1700:74B2:E810:F9C6:D547:4B5:2486 (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the passage you copy/pasted from the book, as it serves no useful purpose here. Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for analyzing primary texts. Again, please read WP:SYNTH; it's not appropriate for you to share your own interpretation of a work of fiction, whether on the article itself or the talk page. There are plenty of other places on the Internet for that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an 'interpretation'. It's the literal novel. I'm really tired of you saying that my sources are not valid. Okay? I don't know what to even say. You're deleting information about the novel that is accurate, simply because it does not support your beliefs about the character. I'm not putting fan theories on the page. I am not saying that anything is canon. I am referencing passages from Victor Hugo himself. I know, I should have cited my sources. Sorry about that. Now I know to do that. But if something is a true fact, and has proof to be true, why delete it? It's not like there can be too much information on a page. 2600:1700:74B2:E810:7132:626F:9A13:B3E (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other people said it would be fine if I just made sure to mention that it is not necessarily canon, and cite sources for that parts that I could. I used a legitimate source (although I did not know before to attach a link, now I do). I am not sure why you're making a bigger deal out of it. If you would have given me a chance to fix it myself, there would be no problem. But now it's gone, and I have no way to edit it as they said would be okay. A warning would have been enough for me to realise what I did wrong. I'm really sorry it's such a problem, as I said. But I am not super familiar with the format, and I need to learn how to attach links that aren't just to other Wikipedia pages. If you would kindly tell me, I'll be able to do so in the future. Perhaps check the 'be polite to newcomers' page. It essentially says that if someone new does something wrong, not to get super upset about it, but to explain that mistake politely. 2600:1700:74B2:E810:7132:626F:9A13:B3E (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR makes it clear that you may not publish interpretions of works of fiction unless you properly cite a third party reliable source. If you do so again, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I won't. But still, did you even read anything I said? You're ignoring every word. I'm new, I came here yesterday, I don't know how to use the website very well. You're apparently an administrator, you must have been here a while. It was a misunderstanding of the rules- I was unaware of the policies on citing third party sources (although I still feel you could have been less strict about it, and warned me instead of deleting everything). That seems unfair to block me less than 24 hours after my first edit. I've acknowledged that I've made a mistake, and promised I will avoid doing so in the future. But this? Threatening to block me? This seems like an abuse of power. The rules (yes, I checked) say administrators only block when someone is causing a major disruption to the article. Maybe I made an overly big argument on the talk page. But I'm not actually doing anything to the main information now, I haven't since my first edit. I was only given one warning, and after that, I would have known. Anyway, I have seen similar types of information on other Wikipedia pages. Those people didn't get blocked or deleted.

I'm done. I've given a reasonable explanation for my mistake, and promised to fix it. You repeatedly are telling me to go read articles, which I planned to do anyway, and you are ignoring my explanations. Neither of us are completely right here. You're overreacting, I was unfamiliar with the rules when I started editing. Thank you for the warning (well, I didn't get much of one), and have a good day. 2600:1700:74B2:E810:BFE3:E34A:F4E5:8C7E (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]