Talk:Francis 1st

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 October 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Adding references

Upon the request to add references I added one, although commercial it’s a good source with a lot of interesting info.

Bloger 03:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long years vs. short

Three long years - would they be longer than three ordinary or short years? I don't want to sound nitpicky but I have to point out that much of the wikipedia vigilance is spotty; it will seize upon one article like a vixen upon a hen, whereas others seem to be completely ignored.Freiherrin (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freiherrin,

You do realize that just like going out on a limb doesn’t necessarily involve a tree and its branch, its just used for explanation , and just like ten dog years isn’t longer then ten human years, its still looked upon as longer because relative to a dogs life it’s a bigger percent, same here three years for a design to be made, is a LONG time and this is what “three long years” Invokes.

Bloger (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - Thank you for the compliment.

yes, you are right... I know that three years is a very long time for designing a pattern. Wikipedia, however, is always on everyone's case about making every article sound as neutral and "Weighty" and "authoritative" as possible and in that context you wouldn't find an encyc. britannica article stating "three long years" ... Are you interested in doing a slightly more detailed article about the NARRAGANSETT pattern???Freiherrin (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so lets say when writing about the climate of a certain place that has an average weather of lets say 35 degrees Fahrenheit, one wrights “it’s a cold climate” well one can claim that relative to Antarctica its worm, still by any normal way of looking at things it's cold, so saying it’s a cold climate doesn’t interfere with the neutrality or weightiness of the statement, so at our example three years is significant enough by any normal stretch, so fancying it up with “long” doesn’t in my opinion do any harm.

And about the Narragansett pattern what do you mean “more detailed” article, I don’t see anything in Wikipedia on the Narragansett pattern? Although it’s not a bad idea for an article!

Bloger (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]