Talk:It was a dark and stormy night/Archive 1

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 11:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Proposal  :	Dark and stormy night → It was a dark and stormy night
Rationale :	The article is about the phrase "it was a dark and stormy night", not the setting (i.e. a night which is dark and stormy). It was previously about the setting but this was corrected in this edit by an anon, so the article title ought to be fixed too.
Proposer :	Meandmyself 13:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~".

• Support per nom. David Kernow 17:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support, though you might just go ahead and do it. Twinxor t 18:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain - I'm not sure that the proposed title is much better, as it makes it considerably longer and more complex, however I don't specifically object. DWaterson 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

There was a redirect already so an admin was needed to make the move.Meandmyself 03:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Run-on sentences" refers to what?

First paragraph of article: A run-on sentence is a sentences that mistakenly joins two (or more) independent clauses with a comma (or commas). I don't think that's what the writer meant. In the context, he or she probably meant sentences that are long and elaborate: they run on and on. The opening sentence of Paul Clifford, cited as an example, isn't a run-on.

Oh, I think I originally wrote that description. IIRC, I was referring more to the use of long sentences with numerous sub-clauses punctuated by commas, rather than the grammatical error itself. Feel free to correct. DWaterson 10:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Another comment on that first paragraph: I hardly think the "citation needed" is needed when the sentence, by means of its entire structure, which is separated into a number of subclauses, where each one in turn provides an example of the very structure intended - and far better than I can do it... perhaps we should pull it? Number774 (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Any chance

Is there any way shape or form we could legally get a Snoopy cartoon in here? jengod 03:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Lightning Photograph

This article is about a phrase and a specific style of writing. I don't really see the point of the picture of the lightning bolt, as it doesn't really enhance the article. It seems to me to be equivalent to putting a picture of a live cockroach on a page about Kafka's Metamorphosis. I would think a picture of the author, or, as was already suggested, the Charlie Brown cartoon would be more appropriate. Simpsone4 18:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The 'lightning flashing on a stormy night' caption is particularly pathetic.-AlKing464 07:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

(Image:Lightning NOAA.jpg) removed. Femto 15:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What Picard said

Upon reading the line, Captain Picard observes, "It's not a very promising start, is it?"

It was years ago that I saw the episode, but I vividly remember Picard's exact words as "Not a promising beginning." Of course, even vivid memories are not perfect. Can anybody verify what exactly he said? - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's in the episode "The Royale" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.160.112 (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Euphemism

The term is mis-used in the 2nd sentence. Abu Amaal 18:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "signifier" which I think is the right word. Eleland 18:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny article

That's it, really. A.Z. 22:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

First use in Peanuts

Just added the date of the first Peanuts strip to use the phrase as cited in the External links. Can anyone confirm that this was indeed the first use? Alan R. Fisher 08:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comma

Is this correct? A.Z. 23:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Another use of the line

I know that one of Spider Robinson's novels began with the line but I don't recall which one. If somebody can identify it, this should be added to the article. MK2 (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Usebox for fans of this genre...

Feel free to use this userbox!

• User:Xenocidic/Stormy

This user really enjoys dark and stormy nights.

use {{User:Xenocidic/Stormy}} to add this to your userpage (who's using it?)

Comments welcome! xenocidic (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

French

In both the 1997 Wordsworth Classic edition and Richard Pevear's 2006 translation of Alexandre Dumas's The Three Musketeers, chapter 65 begins with this phrase. In the original French, the opening line of the chapter is C'etait une nuit orageuse et sombre. -- Fine, as far as it goes, but can someone provide a literal translation of the French for the benefit of us non-Francophones? 91.107.164.71 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"It was a night stormy and dark." DWaterson (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But since French adjectives normally go after the noun they modify, whereas in English they go before, a literal grammatical translation would in fact read, simply, "It was a dark and stormy night" (or "It was a stormy and dark night", but I think the first is much more likely as it flows better in English). But yes, that's exactly what it says. - furrykef (Talk at me) 09:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Who penned it?

Y'know, the book "Clan-Albin: A National Tale" by Christian Isobel Johnstone begins: "In a dark and stormy night in November, 178--, ..."

And that was published in 1815. Perhaps Mrs. Johnstone deserves some credit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.107.172 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree

It seems to me that the phrase began to be "popularized" in the 1960s. Any occurrence of it prior to that is inherently significant, and does not need a SOURCE to verify that! How many such examples would we be rejecting (pre-1960s) if their "significance" is not sourced?? So to me the rejection of it is extremely poor judgment; and I resent having my earnest contribution discarded on your blithe whim. 108.1.68.189 (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source stating that the phrase began to be popularized in the 1960s? If not, then your claim appears to be original research rather than something we can apply to the article. In any case, Wikipedia articles should not contain indiscriminate lists of items, any list we are going to include in this article should be limited to significant uses of the phrase, significance determined by third-party sources making note of it. Doniago (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Your reply is premised on the assumption of your stance's own validity! But then I shouldn't be surprised, I guess. Let me state that my list item is NOT "indiscriminate"! Should I bother continuing with a "brick wall" discussion? Probably not. (Pardon my change of IP address; I have no control over it.) 70.17.167.254 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If your item is not indiscriminate, would you not agree that the best way to establish that is by providing a third-party source establishing such? Otherwise, how is a reader to know that your item is not indiscriminate? For obvious reasons, Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. I'd encourage you to review WP:WHIM and WP:IPC, which both touch on adding "list" items. Otherwise, given your apparently strong feelings on the matter and the lack of other editors' participation thus far, you're welcome to contact any pertinent Projects and ask for other editors' involvement, or raise the matter at the third opinion noticeboard. As for my own credentials...as stated, I'm not a reliable source and you don't appear inclined to believe me in any case, but I've participated in many discussions of this nature and the conclusion has always been that any claim that a work is significant should be bolstered by a third-party source establishing the work's significance. Doniago (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

1854

"It was a dark and stormy night of November...." in Persons and Pictures from the Histories of France and England, from the Norman Conquest to the Fall of the Stuarts by H. W. Herbert, according to the BYU Corpus of Historical American English.

Re-use

The article claims the opening was re-used by W.W. Jacobs in 'The Monkey's Paw'. This is incorrect; Jacobs' story actually begins: "Without, the night was cold and wet, but in the small parlour of Laburnam Villa the blinds were drawn and the fire burned brightly." The passage quoted in the article is referenced to a blog called "Critical Practice" (by Andrew Pegram), but the blogger clearly states that the story there (beginning "It was a dark and stormy night") is his own re-telling of the Monkey's Paw ("for 8 year olds"). As it is an unpublished and insignificant re-use of Bulwer-Lytton's opening I have removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeypawn (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Snoopy's use of the phrase

Hello! I added Snoopy's habitual use of this phrase, with two references; it was reverted on the basis that "neither source establishes that this is a significant ref, sorry; welcome to discuss at Talk". I'm puzzled. This is far better supported than the existing references to Madeleine L'Engle (which merely quotes the phrase's use in a book) and Wade Mainer (which has no reference at all). What is required to establish this use of the phrase in an actual book title as "significant"? Sorry if my tone sounded annoyed; I'm not. I'm just really curious to know, what standard is being applied? --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the history, I see that you have often reverted this (Snoopy) and other references in literature, usually giving your reason as "no reference provided". There used to be a whole section of uses of this phrase in literature and culture, but it was all deleted (by another user), except for the remaining references to L'Engle and Mainer which were not in that section. What is the rationale here? --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd recommend looking over WP:IPC, but the gist is that when we claim that a pop culture reference is significant, whether it's Snoopy, Mainer, L'Engle or Homer Simpson, we need to include a third-party source that can be used to establish the significance. The Simpsons referencing Citizen Kane isn't significant if nobody takes note of it...but if The New York Times writes an article in which it's mentioned, then we have grounds for declaring the reference significant. Hope this helps! Doniago (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The rules at IPC seem to be honored more in the breach than in the observance. (No need to mention my use of this phrase at the Hamlet article. ;-D ) By far the most common situation at Wikipedia is that verifiable "popular culture" references are added to the article, with verification, but without the need for some scholar to point out the significance of the connection. Even the other famous phrases from this same author, Almighty dollar and The pen is mightier than the sword, contain popular usage references which are included on their own merits without needing a third party to point out their significance. The same is true at virtually every other quote article I have ever seen (for example I'll be back, Where no man has gone before, Go ahead, make my day, The lamps are going out, A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, etc., etc.) I'm not pointing these out to say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but rather to say that a Wikipedia-wide usage like this looks to me like consensus. WP operates by consensus and rules are supposed to be based on usage. It looks like there is a STRONG tradition here that the use of such phrases speaks for itself, and does not need to be subjected to a three-fold test such as that listed at IPC. I agree that we shouldn't include "exhaustive, indiscriminate lists" or passing mentions, but surely when a mass-market book title refers to this phrase (because a highly notable character like Snoopy used it over and over as a personal catchphrase), that is significant in and of itself. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW I note that the Snoopy connection is mentioned here; does that qualify as a third-party source establishing the significance of Snoopy in this context? --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that's worthwhile as a source, unless another editor cares to dispute it. And while I'm well aware that there are a plethora of articles that include IPC sections with list items with no evidence of significance, I feel (probably predictably at this point) that that's an indication that those articles need improvement, and a reflection of the fact that there are many more editors willing to add IPC references than there are editors available and/or willing to trim them down. If you feel strongly about this it might be worth discussing, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture? Please let me know if you choose to start such a discussion! Doniago (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add it back. I don't mean to be obsessive about this, but IMO it was Snoopy (along with San Jose State University) who kept this phrase alive for current generations. The L'Engle quote is pretty well known too, but IMO the Mainer reference should go - as both trivial and unsourced. What do you think?

(laughs) You're not even close to being obsessive IMO. No worries! Ergh, I think the L'Engle bit needs to be sourced to something better than the mere existence of the text, and the Mainer reference needs a source as well. In their current state I'd say both of them should be removed, but I'm willing to give it some time before I make any changes, especially since we're having a conversation about it. I am tagging the article though. Doniago (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'm just going to go ahead and remove the Mainer reference. Nobody seems to have bothered in the past with tagging and allowing time; things were just deleted if they didn't pass muster. I'd say that is the case with Mainer. As for Snoopy and possibly L'Engle, IMO they are both referenced enough and we don't need that evil IPC tag at the top of the article. According to the history this article deserved that tag at one time, but after Ten Pound Hammer brought down his hammer, it was pretty much all gone except for these two (which will be one in a minute) --MelanieN (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW thanks for the referral to IPC. Interesting reading. I thought the greatest insight was from the person who said (paraphrasing) that we have two kinds of people at Wikipedia: the editors/writers who want the encyclopedia to be kept "encyclopedic" and want to banish all "trivia", and the readers who love that stuff. IMO we need a middle ground. --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I still think L'Engle needs to be referenced to something more significant than "Yep, the book exists". I'm not going to make a federal case of it though, at least unless this article starts to look like a WP:EXAMPLEFARM again. As for a middle ground...I might agree, except that there's a plethora of sites where users who want to discuss that type of thing can - IMDb, TVTropes, wikias... Doniago (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't totally understand what you are looking for in a source that establishes the significance of the connection, but is the New York Times good enough? --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That would fit the bill quite nicely indeed! It's a bit like the "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody's around, does it make any sound?" "If X is referenced by Y, but nobody notices, is it a significant reference?" For our purposes, the answer to the second question is No. It doesn't matter that the reference occurred, it matters that a secondary source took note of it. Hope this helps! Doniago (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I understand. I have cited the reference and removed the IPC tag. Thanks for your input, I think the article is much improved! --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas

In this novel from 1844 , translated by William Barrow into english, the sentence "It was a dark and stormy night." appears as the first sentence of chapter 65. This chapter is entitled "The Judgement."199.33.32.40 (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. If any independent reliable source has commented on it, we can add it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I just read the Peaver translation and it begins Chapter 65 the same way, "It was a dark and stormy night." I think it's worth adding to the article, even if Dumas didn't coin the phrase. I have no idea whether Dumas read Paul Clifford, or whether he independently came up with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.180.4 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Are there editors in the house?

Probably not, this is Wikipedia, after all. Read on...

Opening sentence:

".., written by English novelist Edward Bulwer-Lytton in the opening sentence of his 1830 novel Paul Clifford."

Third sentence:

"The phrase comes from the original opening sentence of Paul Clifford..."

I spy repetition, piss-poor(*) style and piss-poor editing. Do I win a prize?

(*) "Piss-poor" is a medieval English phrase, roughly translated as, "not as good as it might be". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.215.120 (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)