This grackle has spotted you and is very pleased with your work! For having a thought provoking user page, filled with valuable instructions and examples that obviously show in the quality of your edits, I award you this Great-tailed Grackle! --User:Unfocused, 27 September 2005To the most helpful, prolific and competent wikipedian I've met during my two years in the project. Presented by Ghirla-трёп-17:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me. That's a very discreet mention of graves indeed, but readers may supplement their picture by reading the Talkpage— always a good idea when using Wikipedia. --Wetman (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that editors should not insert text using one of the systems, into an article that is already following the other as it says in the first sentence of the guideline from the MoS.
I suppose that the main issue for you is the Sicels article. The first text - arrival in 1400BC -seemed to use the BC date so I changed BCE to conform to this as only one system should be followed.........and I think that this is a reasonable change.
In addition some other changes I made such as "not quite certain" to "uncertain" (poor style and redundant words anyway) and some "would" consider to `some consider` (colloquial language) have been reverted as "tasteless"(!). Any clarification possible on this?--AssegaiAli (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is the act of changing an article's BCE/CE formula (quite a usual one in non-Christian archeological articles) to the BC/AD convention that I consider "tasteless". All I mean in that is "lacking in consideration for the judgement of others", but that's a long mouthful for an edit summary, and "tasteless" is accurate enough.
My correspondent in point of factdid change the BCE/CE convention to BC/AD in the article Sicels. And I restored status quo. Such changes degrade articles and are degrading to other editors. This is not just a matter of incivility, it is a matter of ethics.
Wetman posted a carefully-composed note at User talk:AssegaiAli hoping for guidance in a way to make the point gently that this is not done at Wikipedia. But received no help.
So the question is still: how can one make the most discreet suggestion to an editor to avoid this discourtesy (without calling it so) and elicit a wholesome and positive response? Perhaps it is not possible.
I wonder if you could tell me a really tactful way to say that this is just not done at Wikipedia, one that would get the idea across but wouldn't result in resentment or hurtful outbursts.
Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. Style guides generally recommend writing AD before a year (AD 1066) and after a century (2nd century AD); however, writing AD after the year (1066 AD) is also common in practice. The other abbreviations always appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other.
...but it doesn't seem to be very effective. If you can come up with a brief text that I might leave at Talkpages when this is required, I'd be very grateful if you'd post it at my talkpage. Thank you. --Wetman (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction of my mis-correction. If the sculpture's title is indeed "Woman" (Boston's MFA website lists the title as such, and I'd think they're a more reliable source than many other websites), either the links will have to be piped or the linked articles renamed - I'm not sure which. - Special-T (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, counting the number of Sabines I see in the sculpture has led me into error: I've mis"corrected" your correction. Too smart for my own good. Italian Wikipedia, that infallible fount of knowlege, calls it Il Ratto delle Sabine, and (more importantly) so does my Touring Club Italiano Firenze e dintorni, which is the source to follow. I think the thing not to do, which I've done myself this time! is to look Deep Inside and follow the Inner Light. --Wetman (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And... The Boston Museum of Fine Arts' website was referring to a different sculpture, so the "Woman" title from there doesn't count. Other online references seem to all say "Women", so "Women" it is, I guess. - Special-T (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I undid you. I looked up relict, and it seems to be normally used to refer to species more than to human populations. Also, while relict appears in my Webster's New World Dictionary, it doesn't appear in my Websters Clear Type Dictionary. Not being found in some dictionaries, I'd say, is something that indicates a word isn't really appropriate for an online encyclopedia.
If you're not using relict in the sense of relic (i.e. "older, or remnant of pre-existing"), then how about instead replacing relict with a synonym that more people will understand? I'm all for learning new words, but if that word stumped me, it's probably stumping a lot of other people.
Yes indeed, relict is normally used of populations, as it is in this case. Relic has quite a distinct (that means separate) meaning. Sorry to hear about the shortcomings of your Websters Clear Type Dictionary: is that a dictionary with extra large letters? What is your substitute for relict? Perhaps it's just as good. Perhaps not. Have you looked into Simple English Wikipedia? Writing within a strictly limited vocabulary presents extra difficulties— like cooking an omelet with one arm in a sling or composing a sonnet without using the letter r— and can be challenging. --Wetman (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(This one with the large-print dictionary reverted "a classical theme of relict populations existing in pockets among the Greek speakers" for the ignorant "relic [sic] populations" at Dorian invasion, irregardless.--Wetman (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a substitute for relict, as this is the first time I've come across the word, and only you and one other Wikipedia user seem to know that it is used in an ethnological context. Do you have a substitute for it? Can you rephrase that section into plainer English, if "relic" doesn't meet your standards? Y'know, using words that appear in more than 50% of dictionaries? I'm not suggesting you commit brain surgery on yourself, just wondering if you understand the sentence well enough that you'd know how to rephrase your sentence in such a way that it's going to be comprehensible for an educated Wikipedia reader. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This User's inflammatory call to raise townie hackles, in the guise of a "straw poll" [sic], was posted at User talk:Lugnuts and carefully replied to there by Wetman, who re-posted the exchange for public inspection at Talk:Dorian invasion. Since Wetman has no intention of getting into a rixe over the ignorant misuse of one word, this will be Wetman's final remark on this subject. --Wetman (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman's resources of patience and forbearance are in perennially short supply. Principles of triage require that no more of these reserves be expended than any one situation requires. Your understanding is appreciated.
This is all occasioned when an editor who didn't even have Amazons on its Watchlist, deleted the statement "Some 'Amazon' names are purely poetic invention," a statement which was followed by a litany of Amazonesque inventions by Quintus Smyrnaeus, with the edit summary "you can't know for sure".
As a courtesy to me, Wise Friends and others, please do not express your thoughts here, pro or con. I'm hoping to avoid a cause celèbre. Comments on authentic civility may be addressed at WikiAlerts above. Thoughts on competence in the field of Greek mythology, which I called in question upon this occasion— in July 2007— belong at Talk:Amazons. I hope my friends will be moderate and careful, for my sake. And I may trust in the civility of you others to vent your no doubt justified resentments, for you have often been laughed at in these pages, at the Wikihearing. Thank you all.--Wetman (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to let you know that a consensus has been reached in the Wikiquette alert regarding this matter. Please see the alert page for more information.Asarelah (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and check it out on the main page! It was my first dyk ever, and is nice to see as the lead dyk with a pic, too. doncram (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, doncram, you come as a breath of fresh air! I've deleted the flattering DYK tag you inserted, because my edits to your article don't deserve a share of main credit. Check in with me here when you're working on another one, and I'll burrow about in the articles at JSTOR and see what I come up with. --Wetman (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sad to say. The large blue box farther up this page shows my current attempt at finding a way to alert editors that this isn't done, avoiding a label like "date warrior", which would bring the Civility Police (see above also) down upon me. There seems to be no method that is tactful enough not to provoke an outburst, a sign in itself of such people's culturally-indoctrinated hostility, though it would serve no purpose to say so directly. It has been my experience that no one ever changes BC/AD to BCE: but I'd revert that attempt just as quickly. I think the best practice is to attempt to elicit these editors' cooperation in devising an improved standard communiqué, thus placing them squarely on the side of the angels. --Wetman (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm copying below my posts from Talk:Sandwich, usually one of Wikipedia's drearier arenas of vandalism, because I think some of you Benevolent Lurkers (not you other lot, who won't be amused at all) may have further clues to establish this as a Wikipedia article Cibus Hilleli Wikipedia hoax, publicly revealing all to restore our credibility, since this almost-surely hoax is all over the 'Net.--Wetman (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cibus Hilleli from Wikipedia is mirrored around the Internet and quoted with innocence by those who do not stop to wonder how much of Publius Terentius Varro (died ca 35 BCE) is actually quoted in Nonnus' elaborate early fifth-century epic Dionisiaca, least of all how a delicatessen description of a sandwich— "either of cheese or of meat"— might properly fit into epic structure eh. The approximate dates of Hillel the Elder are late first century BCE-early first century CE: he was writing after Varro was dead. The first insertion: "Indeed a form of sandwich is attributed to the ancient Jewish sage Hillel the Elder, who is said to have put meat from the Paschal lamb and bitter herbs between two matzos during Passover. " was entered by User:Paul Barlow, at 07:42, 9 April 2006 (not sourced, btw). Then, at 12:39, 26 April 2007User:138.251.18.44 (not edited since) inserted "Romans referred to the meal as a "cibus Hilleli," or Hillel's Snack. <ref>And so we find in a fragment of Varro, preserved by Nonnius, that "cibus Hilleli est illa caesna quo panis sive caseum sive carnem sepit buturoque saepe operitur."</ref>" And it wasn't noticed by anyone. Double check me, to be sure I haven't durova-ed this, but I say this is a very successful Wikipedia hoax. What a load of junk in the edit history of the unprotected page: what a dull hour for me....--Wetman (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, acting upon the hunch that this had the style of a Classics graduate student prank, and without abusing any individual's confidentiality, I got my tech support to enter a Whois? query for the IP 138.251.18.44, which reveals through the RIPE.net database, that the source of the edit...
I respect your efforts to maintain NPOV (but by the way, good faith edits are never vandalism, especially when they give an edit summary), but the theory that the Celtiberians migrated to the British Isles has met almost no academic support. For one thing, the Celtic languages of the British Isles are not descended from Celtiberian, and although there were migrations to the British Isles from Iberia, they happened in the Mesolithic period (see Irish people article, Genetic History of Europe etc.) and from what is now Basque County, not Celtiberian-speaking areas.--Yolgnu (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My edit summary read "restored blanked sourced statements: where does aggressive POV become vandalism?" It is a genuine question. The section blanked by Yolgnu read Further migrations: "Sometime before 500 BCE Celtic tribes began reaching what is now Ireland and Britain. Anthropologists and geneticists believe that waves of different Celtic tribes migrated to Ireland and Britain over long periods of time. While many tribes came from the European mainland, a large number also migrated from the Iberian Peninsula." A footnote credited Monta Gael Hulsing, The Celts: A View of an Ancient People.
The statement is cautious and nuanced. Instead of asserting your views here on my Talkpage, why not present a report (with identifying footnotes) of published accounts that are more to your liking. With 4500 pages on my Watchlist, I spend perhaps too much time reverting overt vandalism. Nothing personal was intended: blanking sourced statements puts anyone in bad company. --Wetman (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have effected a minor modification to the cautious and nuanced statement, so that readers need not be obfuscated by the "waves of different Celtic tribes" who migrated in "large numbers... over long periods of time"; I hope it proves salutary. I regret that I am unable to greater scrutinise the dead link provided. And as to Wetman's genuine question, a rejoinder may be perused here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolgnu (talk • contribs) 06:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a dead link is not useful, and "waves" and "large numbers" were quite uncalled-for, now that you've pointed them out. So the result is a more accurate statement rather than no statement at all: that's for the good. Simon James, The Atlantic Celts: Ancient people or modern invention? (British Museum Press), 1999, addressed these issues. The book is not among references at Celtiberians. Don't his conclusions, that there's no evidence for any massive invasion, only for a patchy immigrations of small numbers and indigenous peoples' taking up 'Celtic' technology and art, coincide with your point-of-view? I hesitate to add it as 'Further reading' and see it deleted, as I haven't read it myself and have no particular axe to grind. --Wetman (talk) 06:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article's fine as it is, but you can of course add that book as further reading as you like. As to my viewpoint, I don't see why the Insular Celts should have migrated from Iberia rather than have simply crossed the Channel.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, would be loathe to trust entirely Historia Britonum: "Novissime autem Scoti venerunt a partibus Hispania. Primus autem venit Partolanus" Nennius, if it was he, did not have the advantages enjoyed by Yolgnu; but how did such an error arise? I never base an assumption on "I don't see how..." because I have many lacunae in my education, of which I am sorely aware. Lebor Gabála Érenn embodies the Iberian origins of the Irish in their own mythology: shouldn't it be mentioned at the paragraph in question? --Wetman (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to the Irish people page, where their supposed origins are discussed in detail. But I don't think we should we include creation myths here as evidence for the supposed migration, as they are very seldom accurate and are indeed soundly trunced on the Irish people page.--Yolgnu (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any idea where Sabine Baring-Gould made this quote about Monaco "The moral cesspool of Europe." I want to add it to Prince's Palace of Monaco before it goes on the main page tomorrow, and canot find the name of the book he write it in anywhere, let alone the page number. I just though you mat have an idea.. Giano (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, so clueless am I that I've always thought Sabine was a lady. But here's S. Baring-Gould, A Book of the Riviera (1905, p 214) which does have this to say, Giano: "The whole of the Riviera from Nice to Genoa—indeed, the whole of Provence— is studded with ruined castles and palaces: of these, only the most mean, that house of cards, Monaco, remains intact." In his peroration at the book's end, the French Revolution having sweapt all away as if under a lava flow (he quotes Macauley), '"The palaces of the Lacaris, the Grimaldis, the Durazzos, the Della Roveres, the Dorias, are in ruins, but in their places rise Hotels de Paris, de l'Univers, the Metropole; and the bands of bravos entertained by the nobles are replaced with Italian and Swiss waiters." (p 315) Google Baring-Gould "Book of the Riviera" Monaco, and read pp 226ff. The dyspeptic report has some nuggets of hard gossip (I never listen to soft gossip): did you know that Pope Leo XIII, when a cardinal, was an early investor in the Société des Bains de Mer? --Wetman (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait! here it is, signor contino!: "It is just the fact that the site is exquisitely beautiful that is the pity of it all. Why should the moral cesspool of Europe be precisely there? How much better were it in the Maremma or the Campagna, where the risk to health and life would add zest to the speculation with gold." (1905:244).--Wetman (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Risker can have three big kisses (I have a feeling Risker is more attractive than Wetman) problem is Google not so efficient here, I have added the quote, and reff, is there a publisher mentioned? Giano (talk)
London: Methuen & Co. according to the titlepage. I'm sorry you can't call up the text via Googlebooks. Baring-Gould is no friend to the Grimaldis, their sink of Sin and that notorious papal dissolution. --Wetman (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm sorry too, perhaps you have a more educated google than we do here, I found one of his books on Gutenberg, "Wanderings in Provence" (or something like that) which had a few mentions on the Grimaldi, but was mostly his POV on people and architecture. A little patronising, I thought - he would be banned here for racism, before we even get to civility. Giano (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good! I'm relieved that you didn't resent my turning "Old Stone" to "Old Stone House" throughout. Don't be dismayed by the "Good Article" process: I've always avoided it, after a single tiresome encounter: there's always plenty else for me to do at Wikipedia. --Wetman (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it may be even more confusing now. It may not be possible to express the idea concisely enough for a photo caption, and maybe it's not even necessary. I think what you're saying is that it was manicured way back when, overgrown in the Romantic period, and is now manicured again. Is that it or am I mistaken? (Personally, I think they've gone overboard with the manicuring just lately.) Rivertorch (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's it of course. A good caption makes the reader look again at the illustration. Perhaps you can tweak it to give it more hook! Illustrations shouldn't be just decorative, I'm sure you'll agree. --Wetman (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images should not be just decoration, and at that size they are certainly no ornament. It's a good page, but does it have to have that huge box fighting for attention with those outlandishly large images - something needs to be reduced there. Giano (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are two things that make it confusing, I suppose. One, the article has neither a modern nor a pre-Romantic depiction of the same axis in the garden, so there's nothing to compare the Blechen painting to. Two, in the painting the garden arguably doesn't look particularly overgrown. There's certainly a solid wall of foliage from the cypresses, but it doesn't intrude on the avenue, and the shrubs in the background don't really look that wild and shaggy unless one clicks twice to enlarge the image to its full size, and even then . . . Come to think of it, when one does enlarge it, it's not even clear which axis we're looking at. I thought it was the main axis, but the lowest fountain is clearly not the Fontana dei Draghi and it doesn't look like the Bicchierone above it. So now I'm really confused. Rivertorch (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The upright illustrations needed |upright| in their html to display properly balanced in scale: Giano will like them better now. The disinfobox should lie across the bottom, but that would be too discreet to satisfy the disinfobox-maker, whose box tells the reader that the Villa d'Este is in Europe or North America. The Carl Blechen painting of the central vista looks to me as if it's been viewed through a telephoto lens. The bottom-most pool is invisible in the dip. Blechen's staffage is of cardinals and courtiers in scarlet and black, making a historicising pastiche of a view, with the cypresses at full, even exaggerated mature height. Does the painting need this much "explication" in the main text perhaps, if Rivertorch is confused?--Wetman (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now, I had not realised I was born in a mere state of "Europe and North America", in fact what is North America doing there at all. It may sound like North America there in the Summer, but by and large it is still in Italia, which, last time I was there, was still an independent Republic. Giano (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, got an edit conflict, tried to meld the two - some changes may be lost - some disagreed with. Feel free to look it over and correct my mangled prose. Thanks for your interest. Kbthompson (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply trying to ensure that each sentence had a dominant theme, eliminating the many appearances of additive "and" in the sense of "plus also'. I wasn't intending to change any meanings, so it would seem that there was little that could be disagreed with. I must return for another look some time. --Wetman (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Accepted, and if I didn't make myself clear the first time, your help is much appreciated. I was trying to apologise in case my merge of the two diffs was erroneous. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.. what was the purpose of your comment? And you're right, of course I wouldn't have changed it if I'd noticed it was a quote. --JaGa (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course you wouldn't have. No one would change the wording of a quote to bring it into line with their preferred dating style. --Wetman (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was an honest mistake. If you choose not to believe that, fine. But a negative attitude towards others' intentions only makes the world seem uglier than it really is. --JaGa (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe JaGa and I are in complete agreement on this subject. As I posted at User talk:JaGa, "I'm sure that you hadn't noticed that the text was a direct quotation when you changed the date convention to your preferred style, because everyone knows, and you don't need to be reminded, that one never "fixes" a direct quotation. Doing so is the equivalent of intentionally misquoting a person." The issue was this edit, with the terse edit summary "copyediting", which occasioned some very cautious comment, including Wetman's. It would be regrettable if Wetman's meaning were not perfectly clear. --Wetman (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
On 2 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Berthouville Treasure, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Doug Coldwell has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I too saw it in the transcription at the website: my doubt is whether it's even possible in the actual inscription. An easy typo (we all make them, especially me), but most unlikely under the mason's laborious chisel: Jesus Christus rex venit in pace et Deus Homo factus est are very very familiar words indeed. If I translate Jesus Christ the King came in peace and God was made Man you'll recognize every word of the Latin if you look, even if you have no Latin! --Wetman (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My word, what a hoot! What do they teach Italians, in our enlightened age? Such a wonderful thought, our online local historian in Genoa muttering to himself "Cactus est? Factus est? Cactus est? Factus est?", picturing in his mind perchance the Crown of Thorns before plumping for cactus... Xn421:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear me, the tears are dropping onto the keyboard... where f and c are so close together, aren't they?. For factus est to become cactus est ("He's a cactus!") the mason has to pick up a different chisel in error. But hunt-and-pecking as I do, it's too dangerously easy. --Wetman (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it is best for new editors to find me through some specific edit, some tweak I've made to their first contribution (I keep an eye on new articles), or some remark of mine on an article's talkpage: quite a few seem to be able to. I could never claim to have the common touch, and it's probably best for me that these editors come to me self-selected in some way. Thank you for considering me. --Wetman (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An explanation in response to this - The birth year is in question. One expert (Ehrenpreis) does not list it, but the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography lists it as 1693, although one of the publishing years is 1697, which would make him four. I don't believe the national dictionary, because there wasn't another Benjamin Motte, as most of the other "Benjamin Motte" have been later ascribed to "the printer of Gulliver's Travels". Strange, right? I suspect that Benjamin died in his 50s, which would place his birth year pre 1683, which would make him at least 14 on his first known publication. I believe that it might be a typographic error with the Oxford DNB, but I don't have a source yet to verify. I'm still hunting down sources, so maybe they will fill in the gaps. :) I hope that explains a few things. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm terribly confused. My invisible comments were indeed to you, Ottava Rima, though I neglected to leave a note at your talkpage, which was amiss. A floruit is what's needed: earliest and latest dated titlepages, that was my thought. If there's a 1697 titlepage then DNB's birthdate goes out the window without regrets. Charles Henry Timperley, A Dictionary of Printers and Printing: With the Progress of Literature ... (1839) p. 702, under the year 1758, March 12 notes the death of Benjamin Motte, printer, "opposite to St. Dunstan's church, Fleet-street, London". (A description of Benjamin Motte, jnr, citizen and stationer of London, I assume, and an address, apparently describing the Cross Keys, formerly of Lintot. Here is an apprentice from Exeter, George Hall, bound to B.M. Jr, 1735.) Timperley remarks on criticism of his Abridgement of the Philosophical Transactions to which he replied in print, 1732. Not consequential for the article. But here is B.M. Sr.'s death date given as April 1738. --Wetman (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. I will have to piece together if the Benjamin Motte is the Sr or the Jr and which one published which of the works before 1707 (which have been certain to be of the same publisher of Swift's works). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add: If this can be trusted, 1691 is one of the earliest years for publication. I will have to put more research into this to figure out who is who. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd be able to insert "(working 1691<ref>Date of title page of William Hunt, ''Clavis Stereometriae'', printed by Motte (copy in the Tomash collection, University of Calgary</ref> — April 1738)" --Wetman (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I googled an ogle. Try "Timperley Dictionary Printers and Printing Motte" then use the sliding bar to get to p. 702. I'm a smart enough old man, but I'm a brilliant googler! --Wetman (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever talk to Kim Bruning, you can discuss the fact that I am computer illiterate (not by choice, computers hate me and tend to explode and such when I touch them), so I never even thought to look it up on google. lol. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the entry. It states that the person who died was the Benjamin Motte successor to Benjamin Tooke and publisher of Swift's works. Ehrenpreis cites Motte as dying in 1738. Either Ehrenpreis or Timperley have confused Benjamin Motte Jr with Benjamin Motte Sr. However, according to this, Benjamin Motte only had one apprentice, and Jr. had three apprentices immediately after.
It seems that the work I listed above (the 1691 work) may be from Benjamin Motte Sr. who gave his last apprenticeship in 1712 (the records only go to 1710). Benjamin Motte Sr. would have had Charles Motte (B.M. Sr's apprentice in 1712), Benjamin Motte (Benjamin Tooke's apprentice) and Andrew Motte (the mathematician).
If in 1716 Benjamin Tooke died and passed the business to Benjamin Motte Jr., then the Oxford DNB might be correct to claim B.M. Jr. was born in 1693 (making him 23, a reasonable age to assume a business).
However, many of the records do not distinguish between the (apparently) two individuals. If DNB is correct, then those works before 1712 are probably produced by B.M. Sr. Three works attributed to his production would most likely need to be dropped and moved to a stub of the father, with a disambiguation page made.
The problem before me lays this - I can't cross into OR, so it would be hard to distinguish between the two individuals. Even if Ehrenpreis confused Sr. with Jr. by attributing the 1738 death, then it would mean that Sr. was printing for 26 years without any records. The other possibility is that Ehrenpreis read the wrong date or Timperley did.
You've got the printer of Swift et al., the successor of Tooke and subject of the article, Benjamin Motte, Sr. (died 1738). And there's a son Benjamin Motte Jr (died 1758) who was also a printer, recorded at his death in 1758 at Bernard Lintot's old premises in Fleet Street (see below). The reference to apprenticeships that you'd report is Ian Maxted, The British book trades 1710-1777: an index of masters and apprentices. Devon Library services, 2001 (on-line). When Timperley 1839 notes the death in March 1758 of Benjamin Motte, printer, "opposite to St. Dunstan's church, Fleet-street, London", he is recording Motte Jr's death but mistaking him for Motte Sr, printer of Swift et al.. That's the confusing error. The address given, across from St Dunstan's, corresponds to Jacob Lintot's Cross Keys address, which later became 27, Fleet Street. I know this because I I googled "Benjamin Motte Middle Temple Gate Notes Queries" and brought up Notes & Queries 1855, under the heading "Swift, Pope, Benjamin Motte, and Middle Temple Gate". --Wetman (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, a new monkey wrench. Penguin's 2001 edition of Gulliver’s Travels claims it was originally published by Benjamin Motte Jr. The plot thickens. :) The more I dig up, the more I wish they used a numerical ID system back then. I shall spend quite a few days looking through more works on the matter. Thanks for your help so far. I'm sure that once this can be sorted out, Wikipedia will have more information on the fellow than anyone ever imagined existed. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the link you added about Andrew being his son is contradicted by the one reference I cite under "notable publications" that cites the printer (Benjamin) as being brother to Andrew, the translator. I think your link, when it says he was the son of printer Benjamin Motte is referring to Sr. and not Jr. I'm beginning to sort it all out, and I will put up a proposal on the talk page sometime early next week and link you to what information is what. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me urge you both to put little stock in Ehrenpreis. His biography is nearly fifty years old by now, and he used sources that themselves had mistakes in them. Similarly, do not trust the 1898 DNB. The new DNB has corrected several thousand substantive errors and a big dose of skepticism with primary sources. For the specifics of Motte, I recommend Arthur Cash's book on Swift's printers and the bibliographic history of Gulliver Travels. Beyond that, part of the "successor to Tooke" is a question of Jr. taking over from Sr., and Jr. was not dead in '38. Motte is successor to Tooke as "Swift's printer." This is a financial arrangement and not just an authorial preference, as copyright went, essentially, to the bookseller. Remember that "printer" meant dozens and dozens of occasional pieces for every major work. All of those pamphlets, all of those poems, were Tooke, then Motte, but GT was first published by Motte. Again, Arthur Cash can settle that matter in a trice. Ehrenpreis is a lousy source in that regard. Geogre (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, because Claude Rawson seems to say the exact opposite of you on the nature of Ehrenpreis's biography, and he is currently the main source on verifying if Ehrenpreis is credible or not. Other admin have seen what Rawson wrote to me on the matter, and that is enough to settle any doubts. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An excerpt from Swift: The Man, the Work, and the Age: "He chose Benjamin Motte, who had succeeded to the publishing establishment of Swift's old friend Benjamin Tooke." This is verified again on page 739. This is no legal record of Sr. being involved with Tooke, nor is there a legal record of him existing beyond 1712.
Now, I find it amusing that you recommend Arthur Cash when you claimed: "The last person I know of to even bother with it was Sutherland in 1910. The information on the debate cames from Arthur Cash (not cited because he's a lunatic and not someone I'd recommend to a general reader wishing greater information on the Tale in general)" here. You are a contradiction of yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you really are being an idiot. I wish you weren't, but you are. Arthur Cash is a lunatic; he's a wild man; his observations on critical matters are idiosyncratic. I've met him. As a critic, I wouldn't use him for much of anything, and that's why I don't recommend him for wide reading. As a scholar on Swift's bibliographic history, he spent more time on the exact publication, particularly of Gulliver, than anyone else.
As for Rawson, you are welcome to use him, if it pleases you, but I wouldn't. He's a disciple of Ehrenpreis's, so I'm not the only one reserving judgment. You might as well be using Traugutt as Rawson. You're welcome to stay in the 1960's with the psychoanalytic biographers, but I really encourage you to inform yourself a little, attack less, and take correction gracefully. Wikipedia demands cooperative editing, nothing else. You are obdurate, belligerent, and often wrong; that matters because you are also a poor writer, so people actually need to correct what you drop on the site. Geogre (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only one who is often wrong is you, Geogre. The Swift scholarship disagrees with you. My associates in Swift studies disagree with you. The leading expert on the matter disagrees with you. The only one who is attacking is you. You can say what you want, but you lack the authority on the matter, and all of the actual authorities disagree with you. I find it amusing that you are talking about cooperation, when you are unwilling to listen to others, POV push quite often, don't use actual credible resources, and constantly attack those that do. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre, do us all a favor by listing the title of this book by Cash, the page number, and a small excerpt on what you think actually verifies your claim. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize you both had so much negative history. Chapter, verse and quotes all round would surely improve the article, which is the only real point. Please be temperate— and doesn't it seem that Arthur Cash (bibliographically knowledgable), Rawson, Ehrenpreis, and the new DNB can be harmonised into a simple report on what has been published on Motte (with lone contrary opinions in footnotes)? --Wetman (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, your friend in Swift studies. Well, that pretty much says it all. You still haven't looked up any of these titles, have you? Have you gone to the library yet? Have you looked at sources post-1965? If your friend thinks Rawson is the final word, then he's free to do so. I sure wouldn't, but, then, I may be more experienced at this than your friend. I made a recommendation, above, on the last major study of publication habits, and you went typically berserk. <shrug> So long as I don't have to clean up after you, I don't care how ignorant you are, or how proud of it you may be. Geogre (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see that you actually want to look something up! That's great news. I won't give you page numbers, though, because, frankly, I was trying to give advice, not supply footnotes for people who don't want to read.
I see that I got Cash (Sterne guy) confused with another. Perhaps Case, as he did do a four essay set on GT, but I'll have to get back to you on the exact title. (By the way, I am sometimes wrong. I don't mind that. When you learn what a comma splice is, we can talk again.) Geogre (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Wetman, this is a fellow who, upon a comma splice being corrected, came to tell me that it was not a splice, that that was never a conjunction, and that there were loads of sources that said he was right. <shrug> There are plenty of brittle personalities out there, but I don't talk to them. Geogre (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I proved by basic grammar works that "because" is a conjunction, and that the lack of a comma before "because" is seen as "elitist" and non-standard in today's usage. You got a professor confused because you don't have the works infront of you. You aren't using evidence. You are making claims that aren't verified. This is why you are wrong, Geogre. I have put in the research in this matter. You are wrong quite often, and it comes from the fact that you don't feel the need to check your sources before making claims. I enjoyed it when you tried to defend Cash after it was pointed out you called him crazy. I thank you for that entertainment. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, awfully elitist to use proper grammar. We don't want any of those elites around here. No, no. We want to seem as common as possible. That you cannot understand the difference between "recommend for wider reading" and "did the work on bibliography," then you may well be amused to take morphine for your headache. It's the non-"elite" thing to do. Geogre (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proper grammar requires it to be associated with grammar rules, and grammar rules of the modern period look down on your approach and emphasize the use of a comma. This was something you were unwilling to accept. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
George, do you normally "recommend for a wider reading" authors who have not written on the topic and do you normally cite bibliographies that do not exist? And when you do this, do you normally claim to have met them and vouch for their abilities especially when no library owns a work by the individual on the topic you claim? I don't think anyone can understand the difference between multiple falsified attributions to an author who wasn't a member of the field in question. Thats just me. I'm sure you find it perfectly appropriate, because you have brought him up quite a lot to verify your claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for this current situation. It seems that some will never accept the Dublin school of thought on 18th century Irish writings. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman, take a look at Herbert Davis's edition of the Prose Works. Start from there and then do an MLA search. Don't rely on 50 year old biographies or their students. So far, the search facilities I've been using have been unwieldly, and going back into my own work is out of the question where I am now. Geogre (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having been unaware of a Senior Motte and a Junior, and having identified the wrong one as Swift's publisher, I should meekly retire, with my ears quite pink. I was just reading (JSTOR) Donald Cornu, "Swift, Motte and the Copyright Struggle: Two Unnoticed Documents" Modern Language Notes54.2 (February 1939:114-124) quoting a letter in which Swift in aftertime (1733) expresses his dissatisfaction of Motte's "mingled and mangled" edition in a letter to his friend Charles Ford. Some mention might be made in the article of Swift's dissatisfaction with Motte's Gulliver. --Wetman (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will be sure to bring it up when I give a brief summary of Motte v. Faulkner. Also, Wetman, not even Swift identified Motte as a Jr. or a Sr., and it was only upon the records of the masters/apprentices and the death notice that there was such a determination that could be made. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered that myself, but my only source gave that specific name. Remember, 1825, so who knows if the building still exists or not. I will try to dig up another item history of the manuscript. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
I am unclear as to why the external link provided for a Nineveh article was removed. The comment says "undid comedy" but I don't find Dan Carlin's podcast on the judgement at Ninevah to be funny, or comedic. How was the addition of the link incorrect? thanks.
Have you seen these photos of the Bastard's study [1], apparently in one room they aimed to show their provincial clients what was available to them - fascinating! Giano (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! I'm sorry. You have no idea how much time I spend reverting trash, and in this case I reverted to the wrong version, something I've done before, goodness knows. Have you fixed my blunder? I can't see where it is in the article. I should know by now there's no p in sculture.... --Wetman (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of the article West Virginia Prehistory, which begins "Antiquity West Virginia, in a broad sense, can be characterized as evolving through acculturation and assimilation with a few of demi-cultural exception," Wetman simply suggested that the limitation of the scope to West Virginia creates an artificial subdivision that is unrelated to the subject, and undercuts any encyclopedic approach. He is unable to help beyond this. --Wetman (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 11 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Medusa Rondanini, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you for noticing! I was careful not to make changes in the meaning, as I know nothing in this field. I did know J-F Regnard, though! But Brussels lace calls out for your attention. --Wetman (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I have time, that's on my list for today. Maybe you'd cast an eye over it when I'm done? You've done such a good job on the previous two... Loggie (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is something there now, thought the originization is really poor. Still, it turned out much longer than I was anticipating, and thus I'm ready to call it a day. Link: Brussels lace Thanks again for doing this, Loggie (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what prompted me to write "non machine made", instead of "handmade"? This would be why I'm not an English major, I think. That and my inability to spell. In my own defense, when I'm not looking at obtuse references, I do much better.
About the importing of lace into France- the exact quote I have is: "Merchants nevertheless found means to smuggle it across by sea to English ports and then sold it here, and exported it into France as "Point d'Angleterre"". The other ref, after going on about the smugglers (smuggling into England), just says that it existed under that name in fashion articles of the day. It doesn't mention regulations forbidding the importation of foreign lace in France, or anything about how the lace got there- what I'm confused about at this point is why calling it English point would have done anything about the rules against foreign lace in France. I think the article reflects the source now, though what you wrote make so much more sense to me.
I'm not everybody's cup of tea, but you seem to know what you're writing about. My tweaks are simply washing your windows so the light comes through. --Wetman (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I come at all of the textile arts from a purely hands on view, and know little about how things are done in industry/with machines. What I've gathered while reading sources for these articles is that the first machines started making the lace net 1804-1810 or so, but that it was a leap from the machines that made the net to machines that could make a more complicated lace, and that these machines didn't come into being until the 1840s-1850s. So, a machine made in 1844 is probably one of the earliest, for Chantilly at least. I'd need to do quite a bit more reading to find out if it is the earliest though, so I'm willing to nix the bit about Mr. Brown (with his unique name), though a note about the mechanization probably wouldn't hurt. Also, do you think we can nix the stub template now? Loggie (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my suggested addition. Never let yourself be tyrannised by templates of any kind. It's no longer a stub when you feel that it is already lightly covering the whole subject. I couldn't find "Brown" by googling him: I wonder why... --Wetman (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got rid of his name, as I don't think it added much... Tønder lace and Blonde lace could use your finishing touches, I think. Thanks again for doing this- it is so nice to have someone else look over these. Loggie (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There. Do look over my edits and edit further any that are introducing changes in meaning that I didn't intend. --Wetman (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Done! Vet my tweaks for accuracy and edit them further. Til now all I knew of lace was in the Oxford Companion to the Decorative Arts.--Wetman (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. It's the old adage: learn something new every day. Or, an average of every other day with the lace articles... However, I think it's continuity and grammar which are what I need checked most, which don't require knowledge of the subject. Loggie (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question of deciding the relationships among your ideas, arranginging them in a structure that expresses those relationships, and then saying exactly what you mean. The process should be simpler than it is. E.B. White and William Strunk Jr. The Elements of Style is a wonderful book to have in the house, even in paperback. You can read it all in about an hour. Every pithy word is a pleasure.--Wetman (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I get to a location in which books in English are common, I'll look into it. In the meantime, I finally figured out the difference between a gimp thread and cordonnet (see here), so you aren't the only one learning new things about lace.... And Bucks point is awaiting your perusal, if you'd be so kind. Loggie (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks-I did the move as you suggested, I agree that putting lace in the title is better. If you ever get tired of proof-reading for me, just say so-I appreciate it a lot, but don't want to impose. So, if you're willing: torchon lace. Thanks again, Loggie (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Loggie, I'm not going to get tired of proof-reading your interesting lace articles. It's just the kind of mutual editing that moves the encyclopedia forward. I say that because I've looked at Torchon lace and don't see anything that needs tweaking by me. But keep me posted. --Wetman (talk)
Hello, I've been translating an article about Temple of Artemis in Ephesus to Hebrew (I'm rather sure you wrote it, although I had no patience to trace through a few hundreds of edits), and there I encountered such a sentence:
As was Cybele, the goddess at Ephesus was served by hereditary hierodules called megabyzae, and by (korai)
As far as I understood, hierodule is a kind of religious prostitute, while Kore is a kind of cult statue. Could you please explain what was meant by the sentence? Were both hierodules and korai sacrificed to the goddess, or the cult simply involved both elements?
You picked the guilty one! "Something Cybele and the "Lady of Ephesus"— whom the Greeks identified with Artemis, by interpretatio graeca— had in common was that each was served by temple slave-women, or Hierodules (hiero "holy" doule "female slave"), under the direction of a priestess, who inherited her role, and also by young virgins (korai)." No one was sacrificed to the Lady of Ephesus. ...And I've moved "megabyzi/megabyzae" to Talk:Temple of Artemis, as it looks like an old error I introduced. --Wetman --Wetman (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some are a bit shadowy, yes, such as William the Englishman. Makes you wonder how they came up with the list for the Albert Memorial. Probably as controversial as all "best of" lists have been. I would love to find out why Nitocris was on there. All the answers probably lie in the interaction between the views of those at the Royal Academy at the time, and the academic and archaeological views of the day (1860s). Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm worried about with Hermodorus, is whether there is another Hermodorus that is better known and more likely to have been the one intended. When identification is not immediately obvious, there is always the worry that we will link to the wrong person. I am trying to avoid that, and the basis is the list in the official history and the names carved on the actual memorial. Unfortunately, even then, there are sometimes several possibilities. Would you have the time to confirm whether some of the links are correct or not, or suggest those who would be able to confirm cases where there is more than one possibility, or the person in question is obscure enough that I may have linked to the wrong person? Carcharoth (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. Someone mentioned here, that "Giuliano di Ravenna" might be Iulianus Argentarius (a redirect that you created, pointing at Basilica of San Vitale). Could you look at the statue of him on the left-hand side in this image and see if you think that he looks like a Greek or Byzantine? Also, would this have been a suitable person for the Albert Memorial designers to use to represent Byzantine architecture in the "sculptor" part of the frieze? Carcharoth (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good catch of "Giuliano" of Ravenna! I hadn't twigged. The names, precisely as inscribed— "William Torel, etc—, should make up the displayed list in the article, with piped links to the identifications. I'll go through the list as you suggest and see whether I detect any misconnections. The official history might idenmtify the committee who came up with the names: the list-making process is as enlightening about mid-C19 academia as the actual list. --Wetman (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The piped link approach is sort of what I was doing. I see from here that you've started correcting the talk page list. That talk page list is actually a wikified copy of a (sometimes poorly transcribed) copy of the list from the official history (which is slightly different from the carved names). My intention is to eventually do a separate article on the Frieze of Parnassus, and to do it as a list, with: (1) carved name; (2) Wikipedia article link; (3) Dates; (4) Brief comments; and so on, in table format. If I can get a clean transcription from the official history, that could make another column, or be used to add footnotes supporting the identifications made in the table. That should make things slightly clearer. I know the convention is to leave it the way it was spelt in the source, but I think splitting the source-name and the Wikipedia article name across two columns might be a better approach here. I'll do that sometime later tonight. In terms of checking misconnections, the article is better to work from than the talk page list, which I haven't done piped update to yet. Carcharoth (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've listed the identifications in my edit summaries, so they'll not be lost. I'll continue at Albert Memorial directly, as you suggest. The list should transcribe the incised lettering exactly, as it's a quotation. That way a reader can check the accuracy of our identifications. --Wetman (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 15 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George A. Frederick, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I think it's right as it stands now. I read that article on the painting in Paris, wondering whether the Master from Cologne had gone to paint it in Paris, but nothing to that effect was mentioned. --Wetman (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please check the correction I made to your earlier edit? (I've never heard of Adfam, but I've been wrong before...) Also, the article now says that "the entries covering the years 716-770 are missing". The chronicle is, however, a source on the Battle of Tours (732) (e.g. [2]), as the article claimed in earlier versions. Do you know more about that? Rl (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were right about "Adfam": I catch most of my typos, but some always seem to escape my net. The articles at "De re militari" are usually dependable: in this case the website, which you cite, says "The ensuing Battle of Bordeaux is recorded in the Annals of Aniane and the Chronicle of Moissac, which contain the same account." It cites Chronicle of Moissac in MGH SS 1:291, which I can't check, can you? I had deleted the Wikipedia article's assertion "Among other events, the Chronicle of Moissac recorded the Battle of Tours," because Roger Collins, Charlemagne (University of Toronto Press) 1998:6, the reference I cited, says that the Chronicle of Moissac is missing the entries covering the years 716-770, which are filled, I presume, by interpolating the relevant years from the Chronicle of Aniane. Thus the "two" Chronicles would in fact be but one, if Collins is not mistaken about the missing leaves. I simply deleted the statement on this basis. Shouldn't this exchange be at Talk:Chronicle of Moissac? I'll post it there, so that other editors can join in. --Wetman (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed back your modifications BEFORE I realized YOU did the changes. I thought perhaps someone changed it by accident. It didn't seem to make sense to me - so I chanced it back. I know you had good intentions, so perhaps I am missing the meaning of the changes:
* ...that the two-inch tall Teenie Weenies peopled a Chicage Tribune comic strip written by William Donahey for over 50 years?
Maybe you meant something close to this since the word "peopled" doesn't seem to be in the right place. Is this really the wording you meant? Maybe you meant:
I was merely trying to work around the seeming disjuncture of number between subject and verb in the wording
"...the Teenie Weenies was a Chicage Tribune comic strip written by William Donahey for over 50 years about two inch people living under a rose bush..."
Of course I do realise that Teenie Weenies was the title of a comic strip. The disconcerting jar could be avoided I thought. I do still think somehow it might be rephrased. --Wetman (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of this second rewording (above) I wrote? If that sounds good to you I will use those words.--Dougtalk21:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'd never say "people... was", I don't think it's important. I'm just in the habit of adjusting wording in the wings before DYK items come onstage on the Main Page. --Wetman (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it, thanks! I just put up a new article on Accolade (knighthood). If you have time, take a look at it and tweak as necessary. Meanwhile I am trying to think up a hook. I believe I will go for a walk and think about it.--Dougtalk21:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's on my watchlist and Johnbod's too. The article should be developed as a report on published analysis of the Mid-Victorian Cultural Establishment, of which the pantheon is an illustration.--Wetman (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. "published analysis of the Mid-Victorian Cultural Establishment" - I'll try and keep my eye out for stuff like that, but I'm going to concentrate more on a short section on the history of construction and materials and other stuff directly related to the memorial. I've probably taken the art history side of things as far as I can (which wasn't very far). I'll watch and hope! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds inflated I agree, but if you simply write what you imagine everyone knows, you'll soon enough be challenged from some position of Irrefutable Ignorance. So I pretty much keep to reporting the gist of articles. etc. --Wetman (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had forgotten one of the external links. See here. That sounds like Mid-Victorian Cultural Establishment to me. :-) I've also added a bit on the details seen on the sculptures. It was nice to suddenly spot Trajan's Column there! I'm sure there are other tidbits hidden away as well. There is stuff carved on the wall behind the figures that is difficult (well, impossible, actually) to identify, and which may be generic in any case. Still, it is nice peering around the photos - you see far more detail there than at the memorial itself, unless you pay 5 quid to go on a tour. Actually, maybe if I did that I'd find out who the De Courcy bloke is... Carcharoth (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New to me! Tupper's excellent commentary seems wonderfully apt in its detailed motivations. Central Homer instead of a historically more accurate central Virgil, is the substitution that the Victorian Establishment inherited from the Enlightenment. Thomas Carlyle's On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History (1841) strikes the right chord for the context of this "ring" of adulation: history as a collection of biographies of great men (as here). --Wetman (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand your question. "The Section" refers to "The Section of Painting and Sculpture." The shorthand may have been used to avoid confusion with this program was renamed as "The Section of Fine Arts," but the use of the shortened term may have pre-dated that renaming, which is why I didn't include that in the article. If I've been unclear, I hope you'll help me clarify--JohnPomeranz (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Section of what?' is the question an ordinary reader would ask. That this is a section of some department of the United States govenment seems clear from the context, though not stated, as it should be. What department of the United States government? that's part of the introduction. Each Wikipedia article has to stand on its own. The reader needs to see what article is the umbrella that encloses this "section". A concise summary of this article should appear in the article within which it's nested. Looking in an index, how would a reader find material that was merely indexed under "section"? Does that help?--Wetman (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wetman, and thanks also for your help editing. Rather than clutter your page with cross-posts, I've continued the conversation on the article's talk page. I hope you'll keep up your welcome efforts to improve this new article. --JohnPomeranz (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Though they are grown under cooler, moister conditions, many shrubs and flowering perennials of the garrigue are mainstays of the English "mixed border". What does this refer to in the Garrigue article? Is there a WikiP cross-reference? Does this refer to an English garden? Please respond at Talk:Garrigue if you could do so, or perhaps make the necessary adjustment. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thanks for that. I was just rescuing a disam 2-liner I did that was about to be regularised to death. If you have a spare moment on JSTOR, I am missing some of the Dutch Gift items, as I can only peek at the front pages of Denis Mahon's "notes on" - all on the talk there. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing! I've read two articles and a note and worked them into the Dutch Gift, but would you re-edit my unintended duplications of your work? I'll come back to the Dutch Gift, but just now it's time for my nap. --Wetman (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done that. Great stuff! I think all the Italians are presumed to be ex-Reynst, & the recent RC catalogue is kinder to the Titian Holy Family than Sir Denis must have been. I'm missing 4 of the 14 Italians Mahon says are still in the RC. Plus if we start with 24 Italians, with 14 in the RC, I only have 2 of the 10 outside it - the Guercino & the NG Bassano. Plus nothing on the furniture, but that may be untraced. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Furniture" in 1660 connotes textiles rather than woodwork as it does to us, though a finely-inlaid cabinet would be an appropriate diplomatic gift, as one had been in the 1636 Dutch Gift. Those twelve Roman sculptures I suppose would have been reduced to lime in the Whitehall fire. --Wetman (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a ghit on an inaccessible text talking about "state beds" - I think furniture was from the "Inge Broekman, Helmer Helmers" ref & used in the modern sense - no doubt Cromwell had sold all the good beds too. One of the statues "remains in England" according to a cited Halbertsma note, leaving it unclear if others are elsewhere, sunning it in Malibu perhaps. But I think they had time to get the smaller stuff only out of Whitehall. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G. Jackson-Stops in Furniture History, perhaps. Those state beds-- in which the Dutch led the French and the English-- where there are carved and gilded details etc., as at Hampton Court, began a generation later. The 1660s beds were still dependent for their rich effects on their hangings and rich gimp and trimmings, like the State Bed at Knole, made up for some royal occasion and pinched as a perk by the Duke of Dorset. --Wetman (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?
It's not me nominating this - it looked OK to me but I don't know 'notability' well enough to argue, so thought I'd check you'd seen it was nominated. Cheers... -Hunting dog (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wetman. Dunno, it said 'Sactus' in Bowyer's book. I'm going to have a look at the window tomorrow- might find that it is Sãctus.Ning-ning (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a photo on my user page of the legend- I'd be interested in your opinion of the last word- looks to me like "albeg". Ning-ning (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See National Portrait Gallery for another list of busts of famous people, this time on a building. I'm also looking for people to write about French chateaux, of which I have some pictures. I've asked Giano, but if he doesn't want to do that, could you suggest anyone? Carcharoth (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC
An all-British canon this time, as of 1896. Giano is quite sick of Wikipedia nowadays, for which one can scarcely blame him: if only he truly didn't care what dishonest and ignorant people say... I'd write about any chateaux on which I have some kind of preparation already. I could at least provide some condensed stubs. Where can I look at the images? I've seen Commons:User:Carcharoth (Commons), but it looks as though you're not warehpousing them there.--Wetman (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Giorgione can't have been his - surely Gabriele's brother. Hope you don't mind the rearrangements at Vendramin. I can't get any ghits for the Cardinal's "Fondaco V" - do you know where it was? Btw, so far only one of the Dutch Gift, a Cariani, seems traceable back to the Vendramin collection. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything in my paragraph that's salvageable, when applied to the right Andrea Vendramin? I was following Borenius' article too closely to remember Andrea's death date was 1476 and that the Andrea Vendramin being discussed by Tancred Borenius, with the BL's C17 illustrated caralogue in hand, was the patron of Titian. My reference to the "Palazzo Vendramin" through Googlebooks was a C19 walking tour of Venice, not a v. good source. My copy of Venice and Its Lagoons was loaned to a late friend years ago who was writing a book on Venice, and it's never been returned. Is Ca' Vendramin in Santa Fosca, now a hotel, actually the place? I'm only now catching on what you "G-hits" means. Very slow-witted all round today. --Wetman (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the unadorned title "Palazzo Foo" followed the main palace of the head of the family around - older ones, if not renamed completely, and ones of cadet branches, were given distinguishing additions to their name, "in Santa Fosca" "dei Carmini" etc. So from 1740 "Palazzo Vendramin" I think meant the Grand Canal Wagner one. I'm prepared to take the hotel's word for it re Gabriele's palace for now; I think I may have seen a Michiel ref that he lived in Cannaregio too - or maybe not. But it doesn't sound as if he lived with his brothers Andrea & Luca. Where the pre-1740 "Palazzo Vendramin(s)" where the Doge & Cardinal lived I don't know. One of your bits mentions Andrea's C16 collection being in "San Gregorio" which is presumably the parish of that church in Dorsoduro, so maybe he had the one now in the hands of the University, which seems to be quite large? I can't spot my Blue Guide at the moment, probably in the (ahem) attic annex. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 28 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samite, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 29 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gerobatrachus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I just put up a new article on Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium - a subject I believe you have more knowledge on than I do. If you have time, please take a look at it and do any tweaking you feel is necessary. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Thanks, I'll check back here later.--Dougtalk12:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! No, actually I've never actually read any of this. But I tweaked the opening. Does each of the nine books have a particular theme? If so, that might be worth discussing. --Wetman (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tweaking. Your question is an excellent one - and I have looked into it. As far as I can figure, each Book does not have a theme, just a particular Chapter. What I did find interesting also was from an article from Princeton University Press where it says "The first use of a hierarchical organization system is attributed to the Roman author Valerius Maximus, who used it in A.D. 30 to organize the topics in his book, Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium libri IX (Nine Books of Memorable Deeds and Sayings)." I used that as an alternate hook for DYK. --Dougtalk18:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further into your question, in the Introduction under How Valerius Organized His Book it says "The entire work is divided into nine books and the books are subdivided into chapters. Each of these chapters deals with a specific topic and contains several stories that illustrate that topic." --Dougtalk
BTW - the picture you uploaded in April of 2006 on Cornelia and the rich lady with the elegant jewerly fits right in with my research in the Section on Parenting and the first story. I expanded the caption on the image to reflect this. The picture is also being used in the article I started on Aemilia Tertia. This article is developing into a faily large article and I am hoping to get an accolade on it. I switched around the hooks. --Dougtalk21:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I wasn't involved in the fray, but looking at the heated talkpage discussion I detected two things that seemed not to be on anyone's radar: we should remember that consistency is not for everyone a virtue in itself, but only inasfar as it helps orient the Wikipedia reader. And, second, the criterion for article titles is, "How will the moderately well-prepared Wikipedia reader search for this information." All else is often personal vanity. And I said so. --Wetman (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the new Nicholas Penny NG catalogue covering the Titian, which has a big family tree, I see mention of yet another Andrea, c. 1565-1629, who was a collector - son I think of one of the boys in the Titian. Is he the one with the 4 vol publication of his cabinet? He was the one with the 1629 inventory, the Giorgione that went to Prussia, and the stuff Reynst bought? Can't work out which branch owned the theatres. This made me giggle - bottom p 95 [3]. Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. As there is a baroque architecture, surely there is also, following upon a Counter-Reformation Church, a Baroque Christianity. My source on those engraved volumes was simply telling me "Andrea Vendramin" without further disambiguation. --Wetman (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've located an article with the collection's later history among the Vendramin heirs. There must be an Andrea son of one of the three brothers of the Andrea who was brother of the collector in the family tree in the National Gallery catalog you mentioned. It's clear now — to me, perhaps it already was to you — that there's but one Vendramin collector and one collection, though many greedy heirs. More later, when I get back to those books of engravings, though I doubt they were dated. --Wetman (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks - there are Andreas everywhere in the tree, so no doubt. I'll get the Penny at some point. I saw the puzzle as to which in the Titian actually is Andrea, or Gabriele, is discussed at great length, apparently without clear resolution. The Goldoni interior is pretty is it not? I've never been inside - canal-side Strawberry Hill, if original from the 1720s. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia dog ate my post. I checked my sources again: there was nothing abour "engravings" in the illustrated catalogue. One collection, several Andreas, seventeen illustrated volumes of the collection c. 1627, of which six are with the Reynst collection in the Netherlands— and apparently four in the British Library. Would you vet my edits at Vendramin? --Wetman (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this - this link from 1979 talks of only 6/17 volumes remaining (col 2), but I think they mean the BM (or now BL?) ones, as these include "De Picturis", which per Borenius is in London, and "De sculpturis" and "De antiqorum tumulis". But they don't give a location in the bit I can see. I think the London ones may be the only survivors known now, so I've taken out the 6 further ones. On engravings, you may have been confused because in the 1660s the Reynst collection (or highlights thereof) was published with engravings, from drawings made before its dispersal arond 1660. Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my Wikipedian depression, and following some bizarre links today, I stumbled across this Columbarium of San Francisco, apparently "a beautiful example of Neo-Classical architecture." I make no comment on the beauty because I have never before seem anything quite like it. "It is the only non-denominational burial place in the City of San Francisco with space available." - I'm not surprised!
I particularly liked this section [4] - Emmitt must be a cheerful soul to live with. Not often am I at a loss for words. Thought it may appeal to your sense of humour too. Giano (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no - I have just been looking at its website, one only has to "click" to "secure a niche in history" - I'm interested. Giano (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking over the vases at the top of the pantry cupboards with a wild surmise. They'd never barbecue me sufficiently to get me into a teapot, I'm sure of it. But that irascible and diminutive antiquarian the comte de Caylus had himself entombed in a sarcophagus in I-don't-remember-who's garden, prompting Diderot's epitaph:
Ci-gît un antiquaire acariâtre et brusque. Ah! qu'il est bien logé dans cette cruche étrusque!
"People have used cookie jars, teapots, brandy decanters and piggy banks to celebrate the memory of loved ones." It strikes me as a bad use for a good teapot. But who would spend Eternity in a bad teapot?
__Wetman (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you bother to read their own site, and everyone should, the solemn placing of the receptacle into the "niche in history" in an "inurnment" which is all very well, if one is "inurned" in an urn, but what if one does choose a teapot or an empty beer can. I find it all very worrying. I just hope when the golden trumpet sounds I am a long way from San Francisco. The other thing that worries me, is that the Neptune Society keeps rabbiting on about "loved ones" this is a revolting expression. One does not have "loved ones" ever. One has friends, family and acquaintances. If one is lucky amongst those there may be one or two of whom one is quite fond, and may indeed cherish - but "loved ones" No! - and it is certainly none of the Neptune Society's business who one loves or does not. However, I am glad to see there are testimonials from satisfied customers, including one who has used their services twice - now that is worrying! Giano (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soul-in-a-jar: "It gave me a warm feeling that you take such good care of the souls of our loved ones,” reports Loved-One Susi S at the website. "I left my heart... in San Francisco," according to the song: "where you may visit with it at the Columbarium of San Francisco". I should be writing radio ad copy. I'm sorry to think that when "your niche in history" was coined, the copywriters did not fall about weeping with laughter. An opportunity lost. Once I was introduced to a lovely small collie, whose name turned out to be Barclay. I just about wet the terrace, but struggled to recover, when I saw from the looks about me that no one had ever considered the dog's name anything other than high-toned and English-sounding. "Barclay. Barclay the Collie": it still makes me cry a bit. --Wetman (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably a voice from inside the teapot: "This was my second time [using Neptune] and I want you people to know that Leatta and her staff were wonderful to me." I think on my next ecclesiastical page I will use this: "colorful stained glass windows that scatter rainbows over the tiled floors." I see they also do "special events" with "refreshments and door prizes." I wonder what the prizes are? Ah well the American way of death, I suppose. Personally, I think it far more tasteful and respectful to "loved ones" to hang them up on a clothes hanger. Barclay the Collie.....Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear. Giano (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was just looking at adding some information about The Wild Garden to the William Robinson article, when your addition suddenly and magically appeared at the exact same moment! Here is a very good analysis of The Wild Garden from Google Books that I was looking at: [5]. First Light (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you work that into the article, with a reference? It was your editing that brought him up on my Watchlist! --Wetman (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any help welcome here; we have remarkably little on this, with members of the great patrician families routinely being called "aristocratic" (well maybe) or "noblemen". Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, I didn't see that you were the main editor of Conscript Fathers. It is simply another way of saying "Roman Senators", is it not?. I see from the page history that it was originally started to supply an article to fit a heading from Nuttall's Encyclopedia, with the edit summary "Once, there were 14,650 articles in the Nuttall Encyclopedia that weren't in Wikipedia. We've almost filled in the gaps!" In this case the gap was already filled. The overarching article, within which all the others should fit, is Roman Senate. One section of that has a hatnote link to its main article— that is, its more detailed sub-article— Senate of the Roman Republic. And so on. I see, however, that you've spent a good deal of time over Conscript Fathers. --Wetman (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have brought up some excellent points. I will try to answer them the best I can - as I could have very well missed some points that I overlooked or don't understand. Also ancient Roman history is not my specialy and I am out of my realm here. I did write this up in good faith and did not know there might have been very similar articles already going on the topic. Yes, I do believe I am saying "Roman Senators" - where I am giving a history on how they developed. Probably my article should be merged into the article of Roman Senate. I'll take your advice on this as I know you are much more knowledgable on the subject then I am. Yes, the term "Conscript Fathers" came from the article List of 19th century English language idioms letter "C". It was originally a REDIRECT of the letter "C". Here it was described as "members of the Roman Senate." In the article Senate of the Roman Republic there is nothing mentioned of "conscript fathers" nor "patres conscripti" - however there is in Roman Senate. It mentions patres a few times with some detail - where my article gives an in depth history of how these members came about and how the name got developed into "Conscript Fathers", which name is not mentioned in Roman Senate. The way I interpret and understand the "Roman Senate" is that it is an institution. My article describes the members, not the institution with a set of rules and procedures and laws. When you look up "Roman Senator" it REDIRECTS to Senate of the Roman Republic which is an article on "the chief foreign policy-making branch of the government of the Roman Republic." It does not describe patres conscripti nor "Conscript Fathers." It does however describe the role of a senator as an "interrex" for the 5 day period - the interregnum part I merged into the section of Senate's role in the election of a new king of Roman Senate. My article describes patres conscripti or "Conscript Fathers" where in Roman Senate under Role as sovereign power it describes only patres as "...the senate was filled with the patres of the leading families..." That article describes ONLY patres (father) with no mention of "Conscript Fathers". My article describes how the "conscript" fathers came about - which was they were drafted or compelled to become a senate member (my hook for DYK). Patres were the original fathers of Romulus time, where Conscript Fathers are the later member as I describe in the article after the time of Lucius Junius Brutus. What further advice do you have as to what I should do, since you would be more knowledgable along these lines than I am? Should I continue merging parts into Roman Senate or should I wait a few days to see how things develop on the article? --Dougtalk18:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See whether useful suggestions come up on the talkpages. Not every series of encyclopedia articles will fit one inside the other. The first priority is, how easily will Wikipedia readers find the material at Conscript Fathers if they begin their search Roman senator? I changed the redirect to Roman Senate, because a reader's search for "Roman senator" isn't limited just to Senate of the Roman Republic--Wetman (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have another suggestion: How would you feel about Roman senator and Roman senators being redirected to Conscript Fathers since this article that I started describes in depth the history of ancient Roman senators. If one wants to know further about the legislative parts of the Roman Senate they can just click on that link then. Would you agree also to removing the merge tag at this point or would you like to wait. I was hoping that User:RomanHistorian would give some input, however he has edited since my request for an input, but has not given a response. --Dougtalk19:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of further arguments that perhaps Roman senator and Roman senators should be redirected to Conscript Fathers is that the Roman Senate is described as "...the most permanent of all of Rome's political institutions." The article describes patres as it relates to the time of Romulus and Remus, however does not go into patres conscripti (some 250 years later) as the senators were known as. Lucius Junius Brutus was the founder of the Roman Republic and at that time patres became patres conscripti since he drafted (conscripted) many new senators to build the number back up to 300 members, since most were lost in the time of Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. Roman Senate has a section on Senate of the Roman Republic but does not say that the senators at this time were called Conscript Fathers (patres conscripti). In the article Senate of the Roman Republic it does not mention that the senators were known as Conscript Fathers (patres conscripti) nor in Constitution of the Roman Republic. Perhaps this should be added to these articles, which would make a link to the article Conscript Fathers. The article on Roman Senate describes a time period of from 753 BCE to 476 CE, however no mention of Conscript Fathers (patres conscripti) - just patres. I believe a line should be put in under the section Senate of the Roman Republic that the senators were known as Consript Fathers - perhaps in the image caption as "A sitting of the Roman Senate of the Conscript Fathers." There are several links at "What links here" for the article so Wikipedians will find it this way and I believe there will be more links in the future. I also believe Roman senator and Roman senators should be redirected to Conscript Fathers also since the article is an in-depth description of what Roman senators are and its history. If they would want the Roman Senate they would type that exactly. What do you think? --Dougtalk21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, I can't explain to you why the Roman Senate is the Roman senate. It survived all through the Roman Empire. Its revival in the Middle Ages isn't even touched on yet in its Wikipedia article. The late-Republican founding legend of patres conscripti in a distant past doesn't cover the topic. Just assk yourself the question "What will a Wikipedia reader looking for information on 'Roman senator' expect to find and under what heading will they search it?".--Wetman (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be glad to merge Conscript Fathers within Roman Senate if you think that is best for the Wikipedia readers. I am just saying that patres conscript is not covered within Roman Senate - except for a recent line I added under Senate of the Roman Republic. In the second line I added to "Cicero noted that the senate was a self-sustaining and continuous body" the words "...consisting of patres conscripti. I linked patres conscripti to Conscript Fathers. So far there has not been any objections to the wording. I do believe a Wikipedia reader looking for information on "Roman senators" or "patres conscript" would expect to find the information I wrote for Conscript Fathers (i.e. history of patres conscripti). However, I know I am biased! I'll do whatever is best and easiest for the Wikipedia readers. If you think it best that I merge Conscript Fathers into Roman Senate, I'll be glad to do that. Here is an idea: drop the merge tag for now, allow "Roman senator", "Roman senators", and "patres conscript" to link and be redirected to Conscript Fathers until June 20. After that date I'll be glad to merge everything into Roman Senate if you still feel then that is where it should go. I am hoping that perhaps around June 14-17 that it might be selected as a DYK. If it is then there would be lots of exposure to Wikipedia readers. This would probably tell a story as to where it should be placed (i.e. stand-alone article or merged with Roman Senate). And/or place the merge tag back on June 17-20 when there has been more exposure and more readers have seen the article. By then several editors will have edited the article and it will be on their Watch list. They then would give an opinion if it should be merged with Roman Senate. Maybe others that are experts on Roman history (i.e. User:RomanHistorian) will notice the article by then and give their opinion on a merge. I have recently edited several ancient Roman articles linking Conscript Fathers, so if there is any objections or opinions then by June 20th they should show up. Does this sound agreeable to you? Or if you would like I'll be glad to merge all the material now into Roman Senate. I'll leave it up to you as I believe your opinion is better than mine in these matters. --Dougtalk12:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my suggestion: make a sub-heading at Roman Senate "Patres conscripti: origins of the Senate". Cut 'n paste your whole article there, then edit it down to condense it. Add a hatnote {{Main|Conscript Fathers}} that will guide the reader to your more detailed complete version, as you already have it. And don't fret about the merge suggestion; it wasn't intended as a reproach.--Wetman (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I have merged the material and condensed it. Look it over as I suspect it needs some tweaking. I changed References to reflect Primary Sources and Secondary Sources. Don't understand how to do the hatnote {{Main|Conscript Fathers}} that will guide the reader to the more detailed complete version. Can you help me here. Also need help on how to delete the existing article. I assume I strike through the DYK nomination, is that correct? Thanks for the help, as I am still quite young on all the Wikipedia procedures. --Dougtalk18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made the hatnote that directs readers to the main article Conscript Fathers. This diff show how I did it. Now there's a brief, condensed version of the material at Roman Senate, and for those wishing more detail, a link to Conscript Fathers. It's like a filing system with categories and sub-categories. No need to delete the article. --Wetman (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could help me once again. If you happen to be able to come up with a good hook for the article. The present hook I have is a little boring to be put on the front page. I did give them a couple of alternates - and if you happen to think of anything else, feel free to submit an alternate hook. I did expand the article - so there is additional material to work from. Thanks, even if you can't think of one. It is under Articles created/expanded on June 7.--Dougtalk22:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at the Major James Morris article and fixing it up. I'm glad that someone at least got to see the information. As this was my first major article contribution to the project, if you have any other ideas on the article, or on anything Wikipedia related, they would be very welcome. Thanks again. Burnsie510 (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Here's how I noticed your article: User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult is a bot that collects the interesting-looking (to a bot!) new articles and lists them almost every day. I made Morris Academy redirect the reader to Major James Morris. Do you think a sentence about the Morris Academy belongs in History of education in the United States? I see that that article makes no mention of the academy movement that founded secondary schools in New England, Pennsyvlania, Ohio and Michigan Territory, ca 1800-1840. A story worth telling, if you want to expand from Maj. Jas. Morris. Or History of Litchfield, Connecticut: cut n' paste the history subsection at Litchfield, Connecticut and expand it. One thing I like to do at Wikipedia is to take a book I'm reading and work its best perceptions into various articles wherever they make a contribution, with a footnote at each place to the book in my hand. That way they don't question the ideas s "Original Research"!...--Wetman (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I have to say I am very excited about that Bot evaluation of the article. As to your suggestions, I think they are all great. I do think it should get a mention in the History of education in the United States article. Once I finish Strong's book, I will try to come up with the best way to sum it up for the article. Same goes for the addition of info on the academy movement. In fact, my plan is to throughly read Strong's book and create a whole new page for the academy including a list of prominent graduates. I also think your suggestion about contributions through book citation will serve me well given my penchant for obscure texts. Thanks again for all the advice and help. Burnsie510 (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know if it was a manor at Eltham then? As the article reads now, Sherard purchased Eltham itself :). I used Bulger only because the same exact quote was given in the DNB article and there wasn't a full ref for the Henrey citation given (year/page number/publisher/etc.). BuddingJournalist02:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's best to credit Henrey, if it's a Henrey quote, adding "as noted in... DNB..." in the footnote. A property in Eltham is not the same as the Manor of Eltham, still represented by Eltham Palace. Eltham was bestowed by Charles II on John Shaw and— in its ruinous condition— remained with Shaw's descendants as late as 1893, according to Walter Thornbury and Edward Walford, Old and New London: A Narrative of Its History, Its People and Its Places 1893:239. I'd best add that to the article on Eltham Palace. In fact in the London borough of Greenwich, the wards of New Eltham and Palace are separate from Sherard, according to Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 826. This I found with a few moment's googling, that anybody might have done. To locate Sherard's property in this built-over section of London would require a good deal of original research. --Wetman (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of you as I expanded on this article (although sadly, only from one source), & wouldn't mind it if you were to have a look and correct any mistakes -- especially of grammar or style. -- llywrch (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O excellent! I added some further titles, which also whet the appetite, and quoted some long titles in footnotes. The scoundrel de Breche is surely worth only a footnote here. The Baccinata satirised Urban VIII's war with Parma (the First War of Castro) in the guise of a swarm of Barberini bees, it seems.--Wetman (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think so: it's more than 1500 bytes or whatever they count. I fixed your typos, linked some stuff and added a date. Enter it: it's your article. --Wetman (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, kinda. I've never been comfortable taking credit for my articles, because I feel that the important part is the sharing of knowledge & some of the activities of other Wikipedians like DYK (although that's not the worst example) feel like inappropriate self-promotion. This attitude's likely has hurt me over the long wrong. In any case, Wikipedia's supposed to be about collaborative editting so I nominated this article with both our names. -- llywrch (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman, thanks for your edit to Rio Grande Trail; I took your point about where in the world is Sunland Park and expanded it into a list of place names along the Rio Grande. I hope that suffices to orient the reader. I deleted El Paso from the lead. I am considering replacing Sunland Park with US Mexico border, which for readers in most of the world would be more informative than El Paso. What do you think? --Una Smith (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a trail that leads from the Colorado border to the Mexican border is a striking image. Points along a trail or an ancient road like Via Francigena are a major part of the picture. --Wetman (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the edit to the page I initiated. According to Old Style and New Style dates, however, it appears confusion over years is only when the date is earlier than March 25 - Lady Day. It wouldn't seem that that would account for the year discrepancy in this case where the date of death was March 30. (But no, I don't have an alternate explanation either...) William I of Schenectady (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Salut, l'Homme de l'eau! Malheureusement mon francais est trop mal pour moi comprendre tout du petit peu de francais qui vouz n'avons pas traduit ici...
Pierre Bossan (1814 — 1888) was a French historicist architect, specialising in ecclesiastical architecture. His major work was the neo-Byzantine basilica of Notre-Dame de Fourvière (1872-84), on a height dominating Lyon. He also designed the Église Saint-Georges in the city. l'extension de église d'Ars-sur-Formans où officiait Jean-Marie Vianney, les églises de Régny, Neulise et Couzon-au-Mont-d'Or ainsi que de la basilique de La Louvesc, important lieu de pèlerinage
Oop! That'll happen when you've cut n' pasted the French wikipedia article (credited in my edit summary) and are translating it directly into the article. I'd best have a look. I'm glad you got a couple of chuckles out of my Userpage!--Wetman (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My favourite bit was
Though my edit count last I checked is only 54,829 (I just don't save after every sentence) ...
especially the bit in parantheses. It would be instructive if there was a way of seeing how many times on average some users press the preview button before saving! almost-instinct09:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My edit summary— "... possible miusprints..." is typical. Then, Ought, a variant of aught, is in Smart's printed text? He uses it in "To Kent direct thy way, Where no one shall be frustrated that seeks Ought that is great or good"— quite a broad claim. By unkind selection, a case could be made for quite preposterous inflations in Smart's lines. --Wetman (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"ought" is the right word. I wonder what Johnson's dictionary has for its definition. And yes, John Hill made the same point. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My stub Arte di Calimala is a poor thing, translated from the first part of Italian Wikipedia. I've fixed all the articles that link to it. Do you want to translate the rest of the Italian wikipedia article, or shall I? Then we can start building some referenced details. --Wetman (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm not much with the Italian; I can babelfish or google translate it, nothing more. I think I'll mostly be working from Google books for this article. Savidan23:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would one do without Googlebooks? A week after a new feature like that is available, I'm dependent on it. I'll translate the rest of the it:wiki article for a base that we can improve! Let me know if you get in a knot over some passage of Italian. By the way, it's not quite a coincidence, since I lurk here, to see what help I can offer in new articles. --Wetman (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help so far. Btw, its been taking me far more time than I thought it would to nail down the (approximate) foundation dates of the guilds. I noticed that you translated the claim that the Calimala was founded in 1150; Staley says closer to 1190 (same dating method, i.e. searching through the florence archive to find the oldest documentary mention) but its possible an older document has come to light since the publication of his book. Since the it wikipedia isn't much for citing sources, I guess I'm off to google scholar as well. Savidan03:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Unwilling" my Welsh grandmother would have said. I trust that the captions at Scriptorium are acceptable now, or you— who are so willing— would have tweaked them further. --Wetman (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making the new section you helped improve the article. As for cleaning up there were a lot of additional work to be done with the new page as well (as can be seen by the edits I have been making to the page). As this is a collaborative venture many hands make light work (although of course in some case -- but not this case -- it's too many cooks spoil the broth). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvements on the article. I can always count on your professional edits to make the article much better. Removed the title of "Lord Don" to be consistent with the reference. Came across that in one of the references, however he is usually referred to just as "Raphael Sanchez". Not much material on him and there is not an article on him. --Dougtalk11:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion would be appreciated on a discussion on this topic on the Reference Desk/Humanities if you have any ideas on this. Thanks --Dougtalk23:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't offer anything helpful myself. The first question that occurs: are more than one document involved, or simply more than one translation? --Wetman (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I do believe I tracked it down. There were at least two documents involved, one to Letter to Luis de Santangel and another Letter to Raphael Sanchez. They are two different people with two different background histories. I found additional references for this and have expanded the article based on this new information. Additionally there were several translations and copies made in several languages - a "best seller" eyewitness report. --Dougtalk20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have certain books that you favor to get ideas for new articles?
Fernand Braudel, Civilization and Capitalism; a volume of the Philippe Ariès and Georges Duby series, A History of Private Life; Carl A.P. Ruck and Danny Staples, The World of Classical Myth; Francis Haskell and Nicholas Penny, Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture 1500-1900; John Grigsby, Beowulf & Grendel; Siegfried Giedion, Space, Time and Architecture: these are at the top of the stack on the floor at my right knee. At my left elbow: Georgina Masson, Italian Gardens, Robert Eisenmann, James the Brother of Jesus, Hugh Honour, Chinoiserie: The Vision of Cathay.
What portion of references do you find online verses actual books from libraries?
A branch library is a block and a half from me. I get almost all I need from the peeks I'm given at Googlebooks though.
Do you have access to a large library or university library for reference books?
What portion of your new articles are ideas that come from your own life experiences?
I've learned to avoid this area, because the culturally impoverished pepper such text with demands for citations for every innocuous passing dinner-table remark. Not everyone has a dinner table, of course. I've lived in a world where what's common knowledge sometimes strikes the uninitiated as "original" and "research" when they first come against it, and I try selfishly to minimize such contacts, as I find them abrasive and unenlightening.
What portion of your new articles come from your higher education?
I left my higher education in the dust decades ago. Almost everything in my active cultural baggage now has been acquired since the 1980s.
Does that seem to do it? My advice is, start with a book on a quite specific topic by a famous scholar (just as you've done with Morison on Columbus) and work the perceptions of that book, with really meaty and succinct quotes that give the flavor, into existing articles that are in want of some muscle and bone — with a <ref></ref> citation.--Wetman (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that does give me much insight and excellent advice. I see that Google books is an excellent source and am trying to use it more and more. I have access to a medium size library in a small town, however they do not have access to JSTOR. Also for awhile they ran out of money for ILL and stopped doing that. You have a very impressive list of books where you get ideas from. Basically I am just a beginner in Wikipedia compared to "Wikipedia scholars" like yourself. I try to get advice and ideas from people like you so I can learn. I think I have learned more in general knowledge since I started editing Wikipedia (1+ year ago) than I have in my life's formal education up till then. Anytime you have "tidbits" of advice like what you have offered above, feel free to write me on them - as I know the advice and information you offer is outstanding. I try to write each new article now in such a way that it gets selected for DYK by providing many excellent references, especially on points that could be controversial. This forces me to get more indepth information from many sources then. Thanks for your answers. --Dougtalk11:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently library access to JSTOR must be fairly expensive as the library I have access to does not carry it. The area I live in is fairly remote and there is no community college access either. Do you have any ideas on how I could get access to this expensive service. Keep in mind, I am a poor retiree with a limited income. I can hardly afford gas and at the rate it is going up, I'll be walking everywhere soon - which might not be so bad for health benefits. --Dougtalk13:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A public library that runs out of funds for inter-library loans is troubling to hear about: that's a form of information control. I forget sometimes the extent to which everything has always been made available to me, if I will just reach out and grasp it. In your situation I would be scouting the "New Books" section at every library visit. And I'd be filling out request forms for outstanding new books in fields that are of general interest. Amazon.com would be my bookstore, and Ebay my secondhand bookstore. Recycling Internet information into Wikipedia is not nearly so fundamental as getting fair accounts of condensed versions of the cultural storehouse embodied in print into Wikipedia and thus into the Internet. As a connecting link, I'm aware of how limited I am. But time is not limited.--Wetman (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 27 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guilds of Florence, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I don't know when the epithet Turris eburnea was first applied to the BVM: I was discussing the Litany just last night, as it happens. My interlocutor, though Catholic, is not a medievalist, however.--Wetman (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It goes back at least to the C12th marian revival [6] - but I meant a link after Saint-Beuve, getting it so widely used in English as a metaphor. Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Then there'll be turris eburnea in Bernard of Clairvaux somewhere? I worked your googlebook reference into Rocamadour. Nailed the Sainte-Beuve quote. "Ivory tower" in the modern, faintly patronising sense, doesn't seem very Ruskinian to me...--Wetman (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the improvements on George Edward Pendray. Feel free to "tweak" any of my articles. This article is related to Westinghouse Time Capsules, which I wrote. I just made a ten-fold expansion to Thornwell Jacobs, which is a person related to these articles also of "time capsules." Jacobs is really the one that started the idea of the "modern time capsules." Pendray just "borrowed" his idea for Westinghouse for the 1939 New York World's Fair. I attended the 1964 New York World's Fair. I uploaded to Commons all the Black & White pictures of that Fair as in Commons Template at the bottom of the article. One of the most fasinating exhibits to me was the Westinghouse Time Capsule exhibit. Now I have to dream up a DYK hook for Thornwell Jacobs, maybe something along the lines that he is known as "the father of the modern time capsule." --Dougtalk23:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took your wording and rearranged a little and submitted it today as a "DOUBLE HOOK". Does that look alright to you?--Dougtalk18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 30 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hortus conclusus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for your first hundred. Keep up the good work. With 50K plus edits then we need a few more for DYK, however we have over 100 articles so far. Thanks again Victuallers (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well! I'm glad somebody's counting! I, who count the slices as I slice a tomato, am trying not to count the important things. Actually a hundred seems like quite a lot. Thank you for noticing. --Wetman (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
