User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2010/May

Edmund Blacket

The table of Australia articles by quality and importance shows that of some 49,000 Australia related articles 90% are rated as Low importance, 8% as Mid importance, 1% as High importance and 0.2% as Top importance. A note under Importance_scale states: importance.....attempts to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic. My assessment of the Edmund Blacket article (an average 300 - 500 page views per month), was that it did not fall into the top 10% of Australian articles and I therefore rated it as Low importance. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes to horse articles

Amandajm, please stop changing the headings in the references sections of the horse articles. The format preferred by the active project members is the one that is currently there, and is supported by WP:LAYOUT. Please stop changing all of the articles unilaterally. Dana boomer (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi A, not to dogpile here, but this particular issue was actually hashed out and thrashed out by WPEQ, with myself preferring the format you seem to like. However, the group consensus went the other direction, and because Dana is correct that WP:Layout allows it, I have respected that consensus ever since it was decided, and I encourage you to do so as well. It's working fine. Montanabw^(talk) 00:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Horse headings

Two points here:

• Among the FA articles they were inconsistent. One article already had Notes, References, Bibliography. A number of the articles had Notes, Citations, References. At least two had Notes, Footnotes, References.

• It is inappropriate to label something that is a "reference" or "citation" as a "note" or "footnote". These two headings imply that the content is not simply a reference but contains "notes" ie further information or comment.

• The term "references" can apply either to a citation or a list of books. It is quite applicable to use it for the latter, but then a word other than "notes" or "footnotes" needs to be found for the inline references. "Citations" is a perfectly good solution. "Footnotes" is not. And using a list of headings that includes both "notes" and "footnotes" is, frankly, ridiculous!

Amandajm (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amandajm. I see that you are correct about the WP Equine FA articles being inconsistent. That is something we'll need to remedy in the future, I see. However, your last two points are not correct. Please go to WP:LAYOUT and read the section on notes and referencing, particularly this:

The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity). Several alternate titles ("Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography") may also be used, although each is problematic: "Sources" may be confused with source code in computer related articles; "Citations" may be confused with official awards or a summons to court; "Bibliography" may be confused with a list of printed works by the subject of a biography. The heading should be plural, even if it lists only a single item.

Especially as the previous paragraph says that two or more of these are frequently used in separating out various notes/references sections, this says to me that an article with References, Notes and Footnotes headings is perfectly acceptable. As Ealdgyth said in one of her edit summaries while reverting you on the horse biography articles, "Bibliography" is easily confused with a list of works by the subject, rather than a list about them. If you want to go argue at WP:LAYOUT and get the possibilities changed, have at it. However, right now, all of the articles are well within protocol. Also, may I point out that all of these articles passed FAC (many of them within the past year) with the references sections as they currently are. I'm fairly sure that if the section headers were "inappropriate" and "ridiculous" it would have been mentioned at some point in over half a dozen FACs. Dana boomer (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Amandajm, no need to repeat your answers on my talk page, I have this section watchlisted. I'm also not going to debate this with you. I only ask that you respect the consensus of the group and to the extent that there is a lack of consistency, please respect the people who actually did all the work, respect the people who did the GA and FA reviews, and please do not waste everyone's time on argument for the sake of argument. Montanabw^(talk) 03:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please stop attempting to indicate that the reversals of my edits are for reasons of "consistency" or "agreement". There is plainly neither.
• All the terms are perfectly valid. However they do require using in appropriate ways. "Footnotes" is a generic term for all those things that are down at the bottom. It also applies specifically to things that are actually"notes". "Notes" and "Footnotes" are both an equally valid way of refering to "notes". However, when "Notes" is the chosen heading for the stuf that includes real content and the word "Footnotes" is used immediately below the notes to describe citations (or inline references) with no notes whatsoever, then you have a problem that needs addressing.

My suggestion is that you get a concensus among yourselves and and fix the problem. Thoroughbred is one of the articles where this needs fixing.

Amandajm (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thoroughbred is one of the articles where there was a clear consensus to use the format chosen. (I should know, I argued for the other form, but I accept the consensus decision and will now defend it, and it is an acceptable format) Therefore, there is nothing to "fix," it's merely a style discussion. Thoroughbred also achieved FA status in this form. If anything, all the other articles could be changed to be the same as that one if we wanted to be perfectly consistent. However, Wiki MOS clearly allows both forms, so it isn't worth my time to bother with it, certainly. And with over 1500 horse articles in WPEQ, we all have other fish to fry. Montanabw^(talk) 22:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're telling me that having the notes (as in real written notes) labelled as "Notes", and the citations which include no "notes" whatsoever labelled as "Footnotes" (rather than "Citations" or "References") makes sense to you? The MOS is rather loose in its use of the term "Footnotes". Within the explanation, it uses "Footnotes " as the broad term to describe all those things under the article. However, common sense needs to inform ones use at some point, and obviously the use of the terms "Notes" and "Footnotes", when used to differentiate one class of material from another, would seem to apply to exactly the same thing ie notes as against references. Obviously. I find the insistence on maintaining something that could be better expressed simply because it is permissable is precious, to say the least. The fact that an article once achieved FA status does not mean that it is beyond improvement. Amandajm (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Amandajm, this is the last time I'm going to post this, and from now on you can argue with yourself if you like. All of the formats in the Equine WPs article, even if not consistent, are permissable by both MOS and FA standards. If you want that changed, get MOS changed. If you find that precious, then you are allowed to have that opinion, but the rest of us disagree. You've had multiple editors tell you that we like the articles as they are and that while we may change them at some point in the future, making unneeded changes to featured articles is well down the priority list. The wiki probably would have been better off for all of us to have spent the time improving a stub article to B class that was instead spent arguing here. Good day, Dana boomer (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review Invitation

Greetings. I'd like to invite you to review St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao, which was just promoted to GA status, as I'm now pushing for FA status. I'd love to have an experience architecture reviewer take a critical look at it. There is a peer review page open on it. Thanks! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Horrible article call...

Ciao! Are you still among us? I'd like to signal you a very awful article, written by some jerk using automatic translation from the Italian original: Roman Renaissance. So far I lent a hand, but it's still needing much work for which I think you're better fitted. Cosa ne pensi? A hug from Attila... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ciao! Good... enjoy your time and take it at your ease until your return into the land of surfs... See you soon and thanks from --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Italian Renaissance arts and culture and Italian Renaissance society

Hi Amandajm. I wanted to notify this with you. The two pages above were created by me, but are little more than public domain transwikied info from wikisource (there is some unique info, yet most of it is just attributed public domain). Since the purpose of the page is helpful, yet as they stand, they're not great wikipedia article (I know some stuff about the Renaissance, but nowhere near as much as you). Since you're into Renaissance stuff, could you help add some info and also change the wording to make it more encylopedic. Thank you, and reply--Theologiae (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Calm down! The work is properly attributed, and since it is in the public domain, with attribution, you can freely re-distribute, edit and use it. The only thing I was saying was if you could help me cancel some bits written by him, and write them yourself, not re-word his work (his work was only placed there so that the page could exist). So rather than just proposing the page for deletion, please help me remove as much of his text as possible and add info (i.e. cancel what he says [since he does put it in a very book-like, not totally encylopedic way]) and add wikipedia-like info. I'm not saying re-wording it. And if you want the info deleted, fine by me, but since the page in itself would be useful to have, considering your amazing Italian Renaissance knowledge, could you help contribute? Reply--Theologiae (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it is not considered "wrong" to copy some info from a public domain source. Yes, I agree (this is why I contacted you), whole pages copied from a source are not good, yet to have some copied info from a public domain source is no harm. That is why it is public domain. Public domain says that you can, without implication, provided that the author and work is properly attributed, copy, edit, re-write and distribute the info in any way that you please, with consideration. So, whilst the page is not a very good article, editing it would help (unlike you stated), and there is nothing "technically" wrong with it. It's just a poor quality page (not because his writing is bad, just because it doesn't sound like a proper wikipedia page).--Theologiae (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• A courtesy note to let you know that I contested the two PRODs, and while I sympathise (to a point) with the distaste for the process, there is no policy reason supporting your rationale - in fact Wikipedia has actually a huge amount of historical precedent for doing just that (it was originally seeded with some 45k articles from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica). While these two may pave the groundwork for something that may be needed, though, they make dreadful articles and should be mercilessly edited into encyclopedic content, however. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand the process by which 1911 Enclyclopedia Britannica was used. Many of the articles thus created were very poor, dated, extremely,biased etc. It was a defunct, superceded encyclopedia. What we are dealing with here is not a defunct and superceded book. It is a work of scholarship still useful as a reference. I strongly disagree that the articles ought to be "mercilessly editted". The process of bastardizing a work of literature in the name of Wikipedia is inappropriate.

Moreover, if this is the way that we are going to create Wikipedia, we might just as well copy and paste every reference book in the public domain, chopped into small chunks. This would be an extraordinarily inappropriate and ineffective way of creating a modern encyclopedia. It retains all the redundant and superceded material, all the author's POV (a real problem with, for example, the art articles from Britannica 1911) and ignores modern scholarship. All these old sources need to be treated both with respect and with caution.

While I realise that you may be entirely correct in interpreting the rules and practices of Wikipedia, I find the process unethical and inappropriate. Amandajm (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Without taking a stance on your point of view, note that this is currently under discussion at WP:Village pump (policy)#Copying material from out-of-copyright books, and that while the legal aspect is covered, the moral one is not. That being said, the moral aspect is also one of our perennial debate topics. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If I might butt in: I’ve moved the two articles to more appropriate titles (those used by Burckhardt‘s translator) and trimmed them to a more reasonable length by making them brief articles about B’s text. Probably, though, they should simply become redirects to The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. That article would be worth expanding. I hope you won’t feel I have been too Bold. Ian Spackman (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

On Gothic

Lack of time makes my edits more terse than I'd prefer. I'll make a point of filling in the edit reason, knowing that at least one person might have found them handy.

The term "gothic" is most certainly related to the Roman term for certain peoples. It'd be handy to have some treatment of the relationship between them, but I was first concerned with what appeared to be clearly misinforming.

Thanks. — Dougluce (talk • contribs) 19:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Portrait of a Lady (van der Weyden)

Hey Amanda. I would appreciate if you took a look at the above, as you have been helpful and instructive in the past. I suppose I am asking if there are any areas that I have overlooked, and if the images are best positioned within the text. Cœil (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a trial by me to see if the old system has really returned. Amandajm (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it still works without the text in the editting box jumping around. Amandajm (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wassup?

What you doing these days m'lady? Any FAs in the works? (Len, for example?)PiCo (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Garden pics

I like yours much better, but only some of them explicitly show the boundary between cultivated and wild. Of course it exists, but ideally all photos should show the line. Otherwise they get to be sort of park-like, or meadow-like-- simply a passage into a zone that is tended. A garden can be that way, but that wasn't the original idea of an enclosure (no wall is necessary). For example: this one is the best of the ones that begin the article, to show that idea, at least in my opinion.

The back garden of the Umaid Bhawan Palace in Jodhpur, India.

SBHarris 04:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ciao!

Ciao! I've just finishing (I hope!) writing Nuragic civilization. Do you know anything about that argument, or know somebody here who could intervene? Give a look also at Nostra Signora de Mesumundu, which I'm going to improve. Let me know and thanks! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

St Peter's Basilica

I dare you to paste into the article what you put on my talk page. Double-dare.PiCo (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Not Donald! Anything but Don! Quick quick, must go look...PiCo (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you had a lovely time at St Pete's. Love the story about his big toe - I never knew it was connected to the end of the world. As for Attilios, I saw his note to you above on this page, so went to have a look. It's an interesting article about something I was completely unaware of. Now I'll go look at the Whatsit Manuscript. PiCo (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Re Don, it annoys me that the article spends a third of its time talking about his sex life - for which it quotes just two, extremely obscure, sources. But it seems to be there to stay. On Caravaggio, oddly enough, I'm pushing the opposite policy, slowly growing a section on his sexual orientation. This is a major reversal of my usual policy position, which is that no article should discuss anyone's sex life unless its germane to the notability that got them on Wiki. I was quite happy that we originally had just two sentences pointing out how modern critics have commented on the eroticism of some of Mickangelo C's work - but an officious editor started removing it whenever I put it in. So now I've started a whole section about it. Every time he tries to cut it back, I not only put it back in but make it longer. God, haven't we all got better things to do! PiCo (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussing it as a theme is exactly what I'd do, and am doing. You could do the same for Don, tho I don't think many critical sources do (in fact he isn't much discussed by critics at all). As I research eroticism in C's paintings I'm finding some quite surprising leads - apparently his still-lifes are quite sexy, and we should all blush at his peaches. PiCo (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Bougereau is child pornography, and disgusting - I'm amazed that people can accept it. And it's bad art, too. PiCo (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Renaissance Architecture

Yes Amandajm, I will leave an edit summary if doing any future editing on Renaissance Architecture article, and apologize that I didn't. Was unaware of its vandalism problem, and sorry Renaissance Architecture is a target for that. Thanks for your message.----Look2See1 t a l k → 06:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

St. Pete's

I think you have selected some great material. Nice section. I can appreciate we would want "notable" quotes by "notable" authors, but why force it? It looks great now. Thanks for all your work. You will probably "run across" others in time. I just happened to stumble on Emerson at the same time you were thinking about authoring a subsection. Our good luck. I wouldn't have known what to do with it if you hadn't been there! Student7 (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

… for my first ever barnstar! :))))) -- Euchiasmus (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)