Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Sraffa

I'm going to add the economist Sraffa to the list of influences because (i) Wittgenstein recognizes him as such in the PI and (ii) Wittgenstein corresponded with Sraffa in addition to regularly talking with him and Ramsey at Cambridge.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelSCollier (talk • contribs) 03:58, 18 December 2006

Erm, this is one of those things which depends on what wikipedia's conception of 'influence' is. Wittgenstein 1) was inspired to revise his Tractarian view of language by Straffa's chin-flick gesture (as well as extensive discussions with Ramsey) but 2) 'The economist Staffa' qua 'The economist Straffa' wasn't an influence; Wittgenstein didn't write on economics (though there might be a 'remark' here and there) and I seem to recall Monk or possibly Malcolm noting that they didn't actually agree politically, though Wittgenstein enjoyed discussing politics with him. So he was an influence as a person in so far as Wittgenstein spoke with him often and extensively, but wasn't as an academic himself as Wittgenstein wasn't influenced by any of his published intellectual positions and hence not influenced in the way one would mean if one said "Kant has been a major influence on my work". For that matter the same could be said of all Wittgenstein's close friends and associates; I notice Frank Skinner isn't listed as an 'influence', and they collaborated to the same extent as Wittgenstein.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.243.176 (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2008

Kant

The mere aquantance of Witt. with Kant isn't enought to count him as an influence, or at least an influence signifigant enough to be mentioned. Moreover, if Wittgenstein got his Kant through Schopenhauer, then Schopenhauer should be counted as the inluence just as I should count Kripke as the influence on me were I to read Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. I found it surprising that someone would count Kant as an influence and I think a better defence is in order. JoelSCollier 03:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, two words: transcendental self. Ernham 14:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't cut it I'm afraid; Kant isn't the only writer to discuss the transcendental and Schopenhauer's metaphysics discusses Kant's perspective. There is no evidence that Wittgenstein ever read Kant. This is important. Kant should not be listed as an influence. This is important. It is a topic of considerable scholarly interest at the moment as some of the cutting edge work on the Tractatus involves the connection between Tractarian metaphysics and Kantian metaphysics (an argument being that Wittgenstein goes to some lengths to avoid a noumenal/phenomenal split. 128.232.243.176 (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

James

I believe William James should be listed as an influence, and perhaps something short written about Wittgenstein's reading of James -- from 1912 when he picks up James's Varieties of Religious Experience to its influence in his later ideas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmistler (talk • contribs) 10:04, 28 February 2006

I'm really not sure influence should be understood to mean 'people Wittgenstein read'. While that would be a short list, there is no evience that Wittgenstein was influenced by James (in the standard meaning of that word; his work wasn't shaped by it). Unless you care to disagree; I'm not an expert on On Certainty.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.243.176 (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2008

Inverse relationship

Whether there is an inverse relationship or not between one's interest in substance and one's interest in personal life is neither here nor there. The articles in Wikipedia always have a section on "Life" or "Life and Times." With Ludwig especially, the issue of his sexual orientation is significant because of the unusually strong response from his hysterical executors (Ms. Anscombe, Rush Rhees) when W. W. Bartley III published his book on Wittgenstein's philosophy, which contained a small section (including photographs) on W's sexual orientation which is, by now, well documented. Admittedly, this area should comprise a small part of the article, but it should certainly be mentioned. Do you object to the section on "Einstein" concerning his marriage? NYCSEAN

Since no one was in LW's bedroom to witness such activities, we must consider all judgments about his sexual orientation as mere hearsay and gossip. He never made any public declarations regarding this topic. There was a time, you know, when people had friends who were not necessarily sexual partners. LW had deep friendships with several people, male and female. Activist homosexuals today are simply trying to legitimize themselves by claiming famous people as belonging to their ranks.Lestrade 01:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Uh huh. Would you classify Ray Monk as an 'activist homosexual'? Look, it's not really a matter that's up for discussion; Wikipedia functions as an aggregator for mainstream knowledge and research. One of the best known and best regarded Wittgenstein biographers, the only - to my knowledge - one to write about the coded messages in W's diary, considers it pretty much uncontrovertible that W had a number of male acquaintances which he had sexual interest in. Whether he was ever physically involved is a matter of debate, as W is so coy about it, but it's not for wikipedian's to censor as Monk is pretty positive and other biographers avoid it (so you could say there is a 'scholarly consensus'). I have Monk's biography within reach at present and can cite you the relevant passages if you wish, but I'd pay particular attention to W's infatuation with a friend of Skinner whom he was tutoring in physics (the name escapes me); it is hard to see what other interpretation could be offered than a homosexual inclination. I don't know to what extent 'activist homosexuals' are a problem but Wittgenstein despite being nigh on asexual seems incontrovertibly to have been homosexually inclined. 128.232.243.176 (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

header/bio summary

I think this article ties the life and work of LW too tightly, so the reader has to go through the detailed discussion of LW's philosophy to get a grip of LW's life. I think it would be a welcome improvement to edit the header and give the basics of W's birth and death, schooling and positions (Linz, Berlin, Cambridge), and then discuss LW's philosophy as much as you please in the article's body.

In the section "The Philosophical Investigations", it is said that Wittgenstein's "later philosophy" broke radically from the philosophy of the Tractatus in its view of the task of philosophy. This is a claim that I remember being made by published commentators that I read as an undergraduate student, 30 years ago, and I can't see it now any more than I could then. But this section makes the claim seem particularly hard to sustain; it is ironic that the particular example concerning The Good and The Beautiful are cited, as Wittgenstein refers specifically to this example in Tractatus 4.003, where he says "Most propositions and questions that have been written about philosophical matters are not false, but senseless.".

I'm reluctant to edit, as I haven't studied Wittgenstein (or any kind of western philosophy) for a very long time, and only turned up this page after stumbling on an online Tractatus earlier today. And anyway, I'd *really* appreciate an attempt by a proponent of the earlier/later school of Wittgenstein criticism to make clearer in which ways the later Wittgenstein repudiated (rather than revised) the philosophy of the Tractatus. MrDemeanour 14:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The foremost (to my knowledge) living proponent would be PMS Hacker; anything written by him you may consider orthodoxy. The basic claim is that in the Tractatus Wittgenstein derived his whole system from his understanding that language was supposed to make claims about the world and that a language which made claims about the world would logicially have to be of a certain form (that form being what you get if you mix certain bits of Russell - namely the analysis of complex statements so they can only be falsified in a single way - with certain bits of Frege), anything not of this form was a sort of nonsense and this included most of what philosophers want to say including what the Tractatus says (so the ladder must be thrown away once you climb up it). In the move to the investigations Wittgenstein realised that this picture of language was incorrect and that language 1) is about social communication, 2) often doesn't take the form of propositions at all and 3) comes in a variety of non-surface forms depending on what one wants to do with what one is saying. However (I understand this to be the orthodox view, it's certainly my view) Wittgenstein wanted to preserve much of his philosophical-theory scepticism from the Tractatus so introduced the passages on meaning scepticism (which might be interpreted as saying: if language isn't as it is in the Tractatus then determinate meaning isn't obtainable) and the private language argument to get rid of psychology (which if you consider the remarks made in... 6. in the Tractatus I think it is, he seems to have had a baffling antagonism towards, though this might be less baffling if we consider 'psychology' to mean Freud, so whether he'd have the same misgivings about empirical psychology is questionable). The remarks on the philosophy of psychology towards the end always struck me as being a different book altogether; it's not clear he has the same ends. Crucially there is a radical difference in method between the two books. That's the conventional view, the New Wittgenstein reading view stresses the similarity of the Tractatus to the Investigations in the intent behind it. Some have argued in my presence that the Tractatus is to be understood as a kind of 'paradoy' of traditional philosophy of language (and W doesn't mean it at all). I can understand the motivations for taking this reading, but it just seems plain wrong to me and seems the sort of reading you could only come up with if you don't pay enough attention to W's biography (especially his admiration for Frege). 128.232.243.176 (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Kant II

What evidence is there of a significant influence on Wittgenstein from Kant? According to his biographers, he read very little historical philosophy. Transcendentalism? Doesn't sound right. Banno 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any working knowledge of philosophy and/or transcendentalism? (or Kant or.... Wittgenstein?)It seems rather unlkley given your comment. Edit: though the use of Transcendentalism can be confused for tangently related things. "Transcendentality" is more clear, but there shouldn't be any confusion on what is Kantian.Ernham 19:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wittg never read Kant. He learned about Kant from reading Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy.Lestrade (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Despite one's natural unease at Ernham's insulting tone, there yet remains the specific reference to Kant (and mention of his name) in Tractatus 6.36111, concerning Kant's problem about the left hand and the right hand that are incongruent to each other despite their internal relational identity. Granted this is not proof that Wittgenstein READ Kant, but equally the assertion "Wittg never read Kant" needs some support beyond the mere assertion. Bernard Williams, in the Rotal Institute of Philosophy volume devoted to Wittgenstein, claimed that the Tractatus contained a "transcendental deduction". He might have been completely wrong, of course, but Williams was a philosopher whose opinions were always worth listening to.122.107.219.113 (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly some merit to this discussion. In the writings later published as 'Culture and Value', W. does refer to Kant, saying that something he (W.) had just written "has to do with the Kantian solution to the problem of philosophy" (pg. 10, Chicago University Press edition). To me this says that he has at least read SOME kind, and not just gotten it all second-hand. Actually it seems W. read more historical philosophy than he is often given credit for, and this seems apparent both in his remarks (he mentions Platonic dialogues several times in the Investigations and Culture and Value), and in memoirs written about him. He certainly wasn't familiar with everything, but to say he read 'very little' historical philosophy is a bit of a stretch. Enigma00 (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"He took much of the framework of the Tractatus from Kant through Schopenhauer, whom he had read and admired…." David Pears, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Penguin Books, page 40.Lestrade (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Photograph

Anyone know where the photograph of W. went? I'm assuming that it got turfed because of a copyright issue, but I don't see anything in the page history.

The next thing I wonder about is if there even ARE any photographs of Wittgenstein that are fair-use. I know certain websites have gotten into trouble over using certain photos, so I'm not sure what we should do.

Anyone? Enigma00 05:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like it was removed by mistake; I have readded it. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! Enigma00 (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again folks, we are out of a photograph. Can this be fixed? It seems the problem had to do with copyright, but it seems to me the only issue was because the person who uploaded the photo did not give a fair-use rationale. If we do this we should be okay to use the one we had. If I am wrong, someone please correct me. Enigma00 (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I could temporarily restore it for the purpose of adding a FUR, then editors could list it at IfD if they contest it. Alternatively, we could take it to DRV and discuss the merits of a (hypothetical) FUR there. It would have been nice if a message were posted here that a FUR was needed. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead

If I read the FAR correctly, the short the lead was one important criticism.

In my not so humble opinion, the info box is too long, and infoboxes on biographies are an abomination anyway. Why not get rid of the infobox and add the information not yet covered as prose to the lead?

--Pjacobi (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd oppose getting rid of the infobox completely, but I agree that it's gotten too long. It's certainly true that Wittgenstein had many a number of notable influences and influenced many notable people, but I think shorter lists in those areas would be more useful. I think "notable ideas" could be more clear and succinct, and perhaps we should get rid of the "early/later" business -- I think there is some contrast, but I don't think it's that important. There are also some minor redundancies in the Interests field. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the infoboxes are on every single philosopher page, so I'm not sure we can just decide to get rid of the one of W.'s page without rocking the boat a bit. But I'm in agreement that it should be gone. I can definitely make shorter the "influenced" field, as many of those listed are far from Wittgensteinian. I don't think we should get rid of the early/later distinction, though. You say you don't think it's that important, but the contrast between his early and later work is large and quite important. But I'll see what I can do. As for the lead, what should be added? Enigma00 (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think to some degree the contrast is significant, as one could say of most philosophers... but there are only ~25 words to work with, so we really have to give up comprehensiveness. Glad you're willing to trim some of the "influenced" items. I was thinking we could at least get rid of neopragmatism/Rorty and Dennet? Not sure about Davidson? And quietism I'm unfamiliar with.... — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 10:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be right; though I am sceptical of the possibility of trimming down the 'notable ideas' to one or two that apply to both periods. Actually I think we might want to include only his later notable ideas. But really, I think the problem is with the existence of the infobox. As for trimming the 'influenced' field, Dennett and Davidson can go, as can quietism and neopragmatism. I'm not sure about Rorty - some of his work did have a Wittgensteinian flair. And Kripke is debatable. He did write a book prompted by W.'s thought, but it is widely thought to be a huge misinterpretation of W.'s remarks, and the references he makes to W. in 'Naming and Necessity' are either to criticize or are used as jumping off points for discussion. Given those facts, and that Kripke is in no sense a 'Wittgensteinian' philosopher, I propose removing him too. The problem is really what constitutes 'influence'; people like Descartes, Kant, Hume, Wittgenstein, etc, can be said to influence almost any philosopher you choose because their impact was so huge. In a sense they impacted analytic philosophy as a whole, and in W.'s case the Vienna circle and positivism as well as 'ordinary language philosophy'. This is why if we must keep the 'influenced' field, I propose that for W. we restrict it to the three above-mentioned schools, plus all those major philosophers who were either his students (Anscombe, Rhees, Malcolm, etc) or can be described as 'Wittgensteinian' (Hacker, etc). Enigma00 (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I see your point with regard to the ambiguity. I trimmed the clear candidates off the list, but feel free to continue the job as you see fit -- I think you know better than me, at least with regard to Rorty/Kripke. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed Kripke, given my last comments, and Ayer, and included instead Logical Positivism. I also added Rush Rhees and D.Z. Phillips. I realize that these additions make the section as long as it was before, but this time at least I feel it is ACCURATE. We can probably lose a couple if we have to, but let me know what you think. Additionally, I removed Spinoza from the Influences field, because apart from being the inspiration for G.E. Moore's suggested title for the English version of the Tractatus, I can't see how he might have influenced W. And finally, I changed the Notable Ideas field by removing the reference to early and later, the text we had under 'early', and putting instead something about his general conception of philosophy, viz. that its 'problems' arise due to misuse of language. This applied to both eras of his work. However I have also kept the references to "meaning as use" and the private language argument, as they are, I think, his most-cited major ideas. Obviously I'm open to revising all I've changed. Enigma00 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: I had second thoughts about Rorty; he's gone now too. Enigma00 (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good; nice work. I think it's a reasonable size now. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. Sorry, but I suggest you read the lead section guidelines (what seems worse is that it appears to have been shorter while an FA. People just don't get lead sections...) Richard001 (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture

We lost the picture? Can someone upload it again (or get it undeleted) and add a fair use rationale this time? We obviously can't take a fresh one of him so it will have to be either fair use or PD. Richard001 (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The location was . I suppose you can ask for undeletion from the admin or upload another non-free image. –Pomte 02:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion of images is not possible. Try commons. JFW | T@lk 22:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm attempting to resolve this; please give me some time to work on it. Most likely I'll write a FUR then list the image on IfD to invite discussion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, nevermind. The fair use rationale is clear enough and certainly legally rigorous, but compliance with WP:NFCC#10A doesn't seem possible. The description page claims Moritz Naehr to be the photographer, but the page cited [1] doesn't specifically confirm this, and I couldn't find info on the author of the original anywhere else on the web. It seems likely that no living person knows who the original photographer was. The Wittgenstein Archive's copyright claim is, frankly, quite ludicrous, but the unknown original author poses a tough dilema.

I looked through the commons; doesn't seem to be anything besides the Hitler photo, unless it's hidden. Unless we get rid of WP:NFCC#10A or push for an exception to it, I think our best option is to find an image for which the original author is known and write a fair use rationale for that. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous. A great number of images of Wittgenstein are going to be public domain - certainly pictures of him when he was young ought to be. So far as I can tell, our image use policies are entirely designed to make it hard to have decent images. john k (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And NFCC 10A is completely ridiculous. One of the whole reasons for fair use is that it's not always possible to attribute things, and determine if they're under copyright or not. john k (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. I had gone into a lot of research into providing a fair use rationale on the image's talk page, and that really should have been sufficient I think. To proactively remove the image when there hasn't even been a copyright complaint seems to be the trend on Wikipedia, and it's one of the reasons I've been making fewer and fewer contributions lately. What irks me more is that I've found the exact same picture of Wittgenstein in books being commercially sold (remember, in contrast, that Wikipedia is largely not-for-profit, with some small exceptions) - and the image isn't even given copyright credit! More than one publisher simply didn't see it as an issue. I've been looking for other books that have the picture and have the copyright claim on them, but I have yet to find any. Can anyone recommend a Wittgenstein book with lots of photos?  :) FranksValli (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is totally insane. I should probably just calm down and walk away, since any attempt to point out that this policy is totally insane just leads to ridiculous responses from the guardians of the current policy, which will make me angry and upset without solving anything. This is so ridiculous. john k (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think our best bet at this time is to either scan a new picture from a book that has copyright info listed, or possibly use a picture from the ALWS. Notice the pictures on that page are credited to Dr. Elisabeth Leinfellner. I've contacted her by email just now and hopefully I'll get a reply with more info. FranksValli (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I received a reply in regards to the pictures at ALWS:

Dear Mr Calhoun,

"Firstly, I do not own the originals as claimed on our website. As you will see, it doesn't really matter.

There was already a discussion on the internet whether a certain picture of Wittgenstein - the foto taken in Swansea, that's the one with the scibbled-on wall in the back - was copyrighted or not. Several people explained to me that it might be copyrighted. However, I tell, and have told, everybody, that I based my judgement on *Austrian* copyright law, as handed out, for instance, by the foto collection of our National Library.

People seem to believe that if they own the negative of a foto, or the "original" foto, whatever this is, they own copyright. This is mistaken. Principally, copyright protects works from being used commercially, and it would have to be decided whether "Wikipaedia" counts as a commercial untertaking or is "in the public domain", as it were. There is also in other countries the notion of "fair use".

In Austria, "artistic" photos are copyrighted according to the general law that 70 years have to pass after the copyright expires.

This could apply to the first picture, the so-called "college foto" which was taken by Nähr. Nähr, however, was of socialist/communist leanings and did not care about copyright, as one of his relatives told me. We sell the college foto at our conferences. It has been published repeatedly and I don't remember any problems.

According to Austrian law, the copyright situation for snapshots is quite different. The copyright for snapshots expires 50 years after the foto has been taken. It has been maintained that the Swansea foto (see above), taken by Ben Richards, is an "artistic" foto, but "artistic" according to the law means simply taken by a professional, be the quality ever so bad. That this is a snapshot is attested by the fact that Wittgenstein took a picture of Richards in front of the same wall.

The other foto is snapshot, too, taken by Dorothy Mooore, and the last ones shows Wittgenstein in Otterthal, about 1926.

Please note that this is *Austrian* law.

All fotos have been endlessly reproduced and even the Cambridge Archive has no real claim to them, except of course, their digital reproduction.

You are welcome to use the pictures. Please credit the archive of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society, but *not* as the copyright holder.

I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Elisabeth Leinfeller"

FranksValli (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and jumped through all the necessary hoops to make sure the photo is acceptable. Its size has been reduced in order to meet the fair use criteria, but the link to the off-site fully-sized version is on the image's description page. FranksValli (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lungs

In 1990 a historical account from Prof Eric Bywaters mentions that Wittgenstein, apart from working as a mortuary porter in Guy's hospital, also assisted a team of researchers in Newcastle who were investigating crush syndrome. Bywaters comments on his skill in slicing lung from autopsied patients for pathological inspection! PMC 1679829 JFW | T@lk 22:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Most interesting. :-) — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Pragmatics of Human Communication

'Pragmatics of Human Communication, a Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes by Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin Bavelas and Don D. Jackson is a good reference point for this subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.137.58 (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk page maintenance

Reminder

Please could everyone remember to sign their posts here with ~~~~? This helps other editors see who said what and when, and also helps with archiving (this page is getting too long, and posts which aren't datestamped don't get archived).
Also, please start new threads at the bottom of the page - not at the top or intersppersed between existing threads. Again, this helps other editors keep track of discussion. Thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I have archived 1314 threads which have shewn no activity after December 2006 to Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein/Archive 3. A further 6 threads have shewn no activity since August 2007 (six months ago). If no-one objects I propose archiving these in say a week's time. This is to reduce the size of this page, and keep "live" threads more visible, which should help with the discussions. Please do comment if you have any thoughts on this, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I can see is that you archived the very intertesting thread "Wittgenstein in Moscow in 1939" which is still active (or was up to March 2008) - a long way past the December 2006 limit you state. It is important to be accurate in stating what you have done. Would you revert it back to the main discussion page please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.44.212 (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't archive that thread (or any others which I had not stated), as can be seen from the history. Another editor came after me and archived many more threads. DuncanHill (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now restored those threads which have shewn activity in the last 6 months (i.e. I have left archived those 6 threads which I had earlier proposed archiving in a week's time). I hope this is OK! DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I did the archiving. In my opinion, if someone hasn't touched a discussion in a month (Wittgenstein in Moscow is just a day short), it's basically dead and folks can start a new discussion. I think 6 months is way over-the-top, but I'm not going to revert. -- Kesh (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, but this page hadn't been archived in a long time and the ordering of threads had become very confused (unsigned, started at the top or between other threads, etc). I felt that the best way forward was to sort the threads out, add unsigned templates as appropriate, and go on from there. Some of the threads I restored today had activity on the 30th March this year. Now that they are in order it will be easier in future to perform more frequent and regular archiving. DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ordering of threads, etc.

I have added the appropriate {{unsigned}} template wherever I could work out that it belonged. I have also moved a couple of threads which had been started at the top of the page to their correct position by date of commencement. In doing this, I have not added or removed any part of anyone's text, and I have not in any way altered the order of postings within any thread. This should help with future archiving, as well as maintaining the continuity of the page. DuncanHill (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Standardized archives

I've gone through and standardized the archives. They all follow the "Archive #" name, and have a template that makes navigation easier. The discussions that were moved off to their own pages have been incorporated into this, to make it easier to find and follow. Hope this looks good! -- Kesh (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)