Talk:Pasqua Rosée

Use of "fl." at opening is wrong I think?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the construction at the very beginning "Pasqua Rosée (fl. 1651–1658)..." is wrong? It should be "fl. 17th century"'

fl. is not usually used with specific dates I think? If you think a person was born in or close to 1632 but aren't certain of the precise date, and died in or close to 1667, you would have "c. 1632 - c. 1667", not "fl. 1632 - 1667".

I believe that we are trying to say "He was definitely alive (and an adult) in 1651, and died no earlier than 1658". But there isn't really a way to say that using the standard constructions I don't think. But I think that "fl. 17th century" is closest and works. It is possible that his life overlapped a bit into the 16th or 18th century, but that wouldn't matter as he was clearly a 17th century person generally. Alternatively, we could just not include any vital dates, since we don't know what they are within several decades of accuracy (he could have become a servant of Daniel Edwards at age 16 or 76 for all we know), we could just omit the vital info altogether: "Pasqua Rosée was a 17th-century servant..." Herostratus (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I would say that his floruit is 1651–1658 if those are the earliest and latest dates he is known to have been active. They are precise dates, but not vital dates. Srnec (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

As above: floruit is used with the most specific known dates, where possible. As an example, the ODNB biography of him is titled "Rosee, Pasqua (fl. 1651–1656), coffee-house keeper"; (ours is slightly longer as some sources drag his time in London to 1658). - SchroCat (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The "fl." is used correctly here, I think, as Srnec and SchroCat have outlined. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC):::I'm not sure if there's a "right" or "wrong". However, I challenge you to show me an instance of this kind of use. And even if the OED or Fowler did prescribe this, we don't much care about that, but what best serves the reader,

The current construction makes it look like he lived five years. Sure a moment's consideration or reading the rest of the first sentence dispels this thought, but why make the make the reader make even this tiny extra effort?

And I mean what most readers want to know about any person is either their birth and death dates (approximated if necessary, and so marked), or the general time when they lived. Those are their "vital statistics". First and last known existence years should definitely be given, perhaps in the lede, but not in the place usually reserved for vital statics. It simply doesn't tell any more about when the person lived than "fl. 17th century". Herostratus (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, it's the common practice to have just the known dates of when someone was known to be alive - see MOS:CIRCA for details of how we are following the MOS with this. - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood what fl. means: the whole meaning of the term is to be clear that we're not trying to indicate their whole lifespan, only an approximate period within it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Again: show me an example of one notable publication doing this. (Not that I will necessarily be satisfied then, cos most everything has outliers. But if you can't find one that kind of tells us something, nest-ce pas?) Herostratus (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I've already done that but you decided to ignore it: the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is used as a source on the article. I'm not sure the value of continuing this thread. You've been shown the MOS, which is what we follow, and you've twice been given the ONDB as a very reliable source that uses fl. in the exact same way. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Our own page has quite a nice, succinct definition:

Broadly, the term is employed in reference to the peak of activity for a person or movement. More specifically, it often is used in genealogy and historical writing when a person's birth or death dates are unknown, but some other evidence exists that indicates when they were alive. For example, if there are wills attested by John Jones in 1204, and 1229, and a record of his marriage in 1197, a record concerning him might be written as "John Jones (fl. 1197–1229)", even though Jones was born before 1197 and died possibly after 1229.

UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Oops, sorry,I somehow missed that and/or did not pick up that ODNB is the Oxford thing. OK, I won't beat the dead horse here anymore, and sorry if I went on too long, but I do think we ought to get more eyes on the general question. Herostratus (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I put the issue up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Clarification (and/or change) requested re "Uncertain, incomplete, or approximate dates". It's not an actual RfC so I did not put down my opinion (yet) and I think it would be good if you guys also held off for a bit and see what other people have to say first. Herostratus (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Opinion on punctuation

This article is very poorly written and needs to be edited to improve the terrible use of punctuation. It's painfully clear that someone who helped write some of this article loved to use semicolons and dashes but it makes the entire thing far more difficult to read. Rather than using punctuation to more clearly communicate the subject matter, it seems that the person responsible was only trying to show off how they're so smart that they use semicolons and dashes! Wow! Unfortunately, it just makes it all a jumbled mess that makes the article harder to read through. Since the article is currently closed to editing, can someone with access please help clean this up?

Also, just a PSA, if you're having trouble writing a sentence or paragraph without using a bunch of punctuation then maybe you just need to rewrite the paragraph! English is an amazing language with endless combinations so, instead of forcing something to happen with the sentence you have, just make a new one! Jonnyrecluse (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry you’re unable to understand some fairly basic punctuation and basic English grammar. It’s all rather clear to read and understand. - SchroCat (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@SchroCat The point of Wikipedia is to help communicate information so that means we have an obligation to try to communicate that information as clearly as possible in order to help the largest number of people. As I stated earlier, English has endless combinations of words to help express yourself so sometimes that means it's best to just rewrite something instead using superfluous punctuation. Jonnyrecluse (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing superfluous: the punctuation is used to ensure the subject matter is presented clearly, efficiently and without introducing confusion. As it stands, there are 14 semi colons in the article, one of which is in the poem. This hardly excessive. There are five pairs of dashes. Again, reasonable and not excessive.

As to your claim that “it seems that the person responsible was only trying to show off how they're so smart that they use semicolons and dashes”, that’s gone beyond a show of your lack of understanding and into a personal attack. - SchroCat (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@SchroCat I never specified you or anyone in particular so it wasn't personal. It's specifically the second two paragraphs of the introduction that I find could be improved and that use superfluous punctuation. These pages are meant to be able to be changed and improved upon through communal effort, as is Wikipedia's intention. Jonnyrecluse (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Just because you don’t use a name when making a personal attack doesn’t stop it being a personal attack. You have made a false claim about something you can’t possibly know or prove. It’s a specious claim and you need to strike it.

One semi colon in each and one pair of dashes in each (with a third dash in the second para). “Superfluous”? Nah. We’re done here. - SchroCat (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@SchroCat Literally no one would have ever known it was you if you didn't react like this. Besides that, are you saying that what you wrote is literally perfect and can't be improved in any way? I hope not, because nothing can ever be without room for improvement because no human is perfect. Besides that, that's literally antithetical to what Wikipedia is. That's what the "wiki" part means. Jonnyrecluse (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ll take that as a tacit acknowledgement that you know it’s a WP:PA and that you are not going to strike it, despite it being a lie.

Rather obviously, I have not claimed anything of the sort - that’s a straw man line of argument. - SchroCat (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@SchroCat You shouldn't take things so personally. Jonnyrecluse (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn’t make them personal. I don’t have an issue with you commenting about the punctuation, but the comment “it seems that the person responsible was only trying to show off how they're so smart that they use semicolons and dashes” is a personal attack and a lie. The fact you haven’t struck it (like this) says a lot. - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Conversation degraded rapidly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@SchroCat Get over yourself, you pompous douchebag. Jonnyrecluse (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC) @SchroCat Also everything I said was totally true and you clearly needed to hear it. You're a bad person and an even worse writer. Jonnyrecluse (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Oh Lord! Another drive-by editor who thinks s/he knows better than the main author and all the reviewers at PR and FAC. The sheer blind arrogance of a few editors never ceases to surprise and disappoint me. A nasty personal slur thrown in doesn't help! Tim riley talk 11:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC) @Tim riley You're an idiot. Jonnyrecluse (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC) How very kind! Just the sort of colleaguely editor Wikipedia needs, and not reclusive enough some might think. Tim riley talk 19:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's not do this. Hatted, and I've blocked JR from this page for a week. But please don't remove this thread. If no one agrees, it can be left to rot on the vine. If someone agrees, then they should be able to discuss this here civilly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

References structure

@SchroCat: What exactly is your concern? As I already tried to explain, in the light of MOS:ORDER, the footer should not be cluttered with excess subsections. Hildeoc (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s not. This is not an uncommon structure and I wonder on what policy basis are you making the change? - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

But do you really deem it reasonable to create those subsections, e.g., for a single entry as in News sources? Also, regarding the main heading Notes and references being ensued by the subsections Notes, References and Sources, wouldn't the former, accordingly, then have to read Notes, references and sources, in fact, for reasons of clarity / consistency? This, though, can be avoided by separating notes and references, as is suggested at MOS:ORDER, and by applying References as the umbrella term for citations and sources. Doesn't this make sense in terms of a clear-cut outline? Hildeoc (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No: I don’t see a problem with the current structure in terms of policy or guideline (and neither did the reviewers at PR or FAC). What there is is clear, simple and understandable, which is what matters. - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for not caring about my actual questions then ... Hildeoc (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Unexpected and frankly weird objection to perfectly normal referencing arrangement, as seen at any number of approved FAs. Tim riley talk 19:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

What exactly do you find "frankly weird" then? Hildeoc (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Your objection to a normal referencing system. Rather odd surely? Tim riley talk 20:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I surely didn't mean to offend anybody. I was just trying to convey my concerns. But for the sake of peace, I shall abide the status quo without further ado. Hildeoc (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)