User talk:Mdd/History of architectural drawing

This looks like a parallel edit, I wonder why you would be doing that? ProfDEH (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the page history, see here, you can see all edits have been made 3 months ago on 12 March 2009. So, I am not doing anything here at the moment except beeing patience as you proposed here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was silly of me, apologies. I guess I'm finding it difficult to get time for editing and a little concerned about my efforts being wasted. Hopefully you can see the point of what I'm doing. ProfDEH (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you just take a look at the history of the patent drawing article, see here, you will find a perfect example of a cooperation between a systems engineer (me) and a lawyer (User:Edcolins). There is no reason why the two of us can't cooperate in a similar way. In order to do so, I think we do need some mutual understanding. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We got off to a bad start, I know, but hopefully this will work out to be a good article. I know a lot about the subject just because I've been drawing for a long time, including manual drawing before computers were common. But not so good on the referencing and cross referencing side. Well I had a bad moment there thinking you planned to revert everything. I will be happy if we reach a consensus. ProfDEH (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are both passionate about the subject, but we have a whole different approach and way of working. You work from experience, I work from sources. While I construct and expand, you reconstruct and rewrite. The history section is a good example, while you rewrote this section, see here , I expanded the section, see here . In order to make the Architectural drawing a good article a combination of these activities is needed.

Your knowledge and experience with technical drawing is good, but not enough. At the moment you might turn the article into an essay (see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays). You can't just add references and cross references when you finished rewritting. Just as important here is knowledge of what has been written about architectural drawing. You have been very negative about the sources I initially used. Eventually I think a combination should be made between those sources and your essay like style. What do you think? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds ok in principle. I have not done nearly as much editing on Wikipedia as you have, and not generally on subjects where I'm already familiar. So I'm frustrated seeing an article that doesn't reflect what I know to be true. This is an important article - school students especially must look here to see what archtecture is all about - and I want it to be fairly down to earth.

I've only been dismissive about one source, the real estate site? What I'm trying to do mainly, is organise the subject matter already there, so it is clearer to understand the subject. At the moment the article is quite raw, each reference generates a paragraph but these need integrating into the whole. I will of course contribute more sources - if all else fails the RIBA library is just down the road.

Progress is slow, I'm trying to finish structuring the article by Saturday. I guess we will collaborate live after the end of the week, and discuss matters in between? ProfDEH (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you restore the illustrations for the time inbetween. This will take you just 10 minutes. There are probably over 100 people watching this article every day, see here. And you can offer them a well decorated article just as simple. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes OK, but maybe a gallery for the main 'types of drawing' section so it's tidier graphically? Thanks for the traffic statistics thing by the way, it gives a whole new perspective. ProfDEH (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a rush job, it took my entire lunch hour - better now you've tidied up. ProfDEH (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess it will do for now. I propose you just continu rewritting the article, and after you finish we can discuss further developments/improvements. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]