This is an archive of past discussions about User:Wadewitz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I see you are not feeling well, and have final exams. I finally added some more material to Joseph Priestley House and was going to ask you about it, but it is no hurry - get well and through your exams.
I just wondered where you were planning to go with the article - I think it is nearly GA now, not sure if you agreed and had your sights on GA or even FA? I also have a nice ref on Priestley and Unitarianism in Pennsylvania if you need / want it. Anyway, take care and hope you are feeling better and finished with exams soon, Ruhrfisch><>°°18:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I will be able to look at the article in a couple of weeks. I think it is close to GA, don't you? I'm not sure FA is a possibility - there is just so little written on it, but if you think so, I'll work up a larger JP in America section. I still have my notes on that. The JP House emailed me back about the photos, so I am working on that as well. Awadewit | talk19:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I am sure it can be GA, but am also not sure there is enough there for FA. Take your time. I made fairly detailed comments about my latest edits on the talk page, so they are there if you have questions. As mentioned I can try to get there for photos if needed. Ruhrfisch><>°°21:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hope you are feeling better. I looked at all the current FAs on "Houses", and now wonder if this could not be a FA too. Joseph Priestley House is already at 19,715 bytes with 33 references from 12 sources. This is bigger than current FAs Xanadu House (17,486 bytes, 10 notes and 4 refs, 7 sources), Baden-Powell House (16,893 bytes, 14 refs), and has more refs and is close in size to Shotgun House (21,115 bytes, 17 refs) and House with Chimaeras (23,675 bytes, 28 notes). Only Belton House (41,899 bytes, 37 notes and 11 refs) is way above where this could be with adding a few kilobytes of text on Priestley in America. Some of these are older FAs, but Chimaeras was on the Main Page not too long ago. It is your call, but thought you might want more info before the final expansion, yours, Ruhrfisch><>°°03:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think anyone would oppose based on the comprehensiveness or anything. I just don't like encouraging this sort of thing. :) I think this article is perfect for what GA was originally created for and I think we should embrace that idea - the small, carefully-sourced article. However, if you want to go for FA, we can do so. I agree that it would need a bit more on Priestley. I'm still trying to figure out what to add on that front. I feel like I could go way overboard - there are two whole books on Priestley in America. I want to make sure that the page stays focused on the house, though, since that is its topic. See more on the talk page. Awadewit | talk15:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree the focus should be on the house, and that some more material on Priestley in America is needed. I would mention his trips to Philadelphia (offered Chemistry professorship at U Penn, involved in founding the first Unitarian congregation there), not sure what else. I defer to your judgement on FA. Ruhrfisch><>°°03:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've laid it out more horizontally than the web page you gave me as a source. It wasn't possible to preserve the relationship of generations to height on the page, but I tried to do so to some extent. If this makes it unacceptably wide, I can switch to a layout more like the web page. The layout I've used does crush the people in the top left a bit close together, and I might be able to add a little white space up there if you think it needs it.
I've copied the web page text fairly faithfully except that I did not attribute Mary Shelley's authorship of Frankenstein, thinking that might be a little too obvious for the article. I can put that back in if you like, and if you have other annotations let me know.
I switched to italics and shrank the font from 12 point to 10 point for the notes.
There's no title -- I can put one in, with or without a box, if you like. The only wide-open space is on the right, and I can't put a very big title there without having it crowd the tree. Still, it could be done. Alternatively I can run a title along the top or bottom.
I can make the whole thing bigger or smaller very easily if it's not readable as is.
This looks good to me, but let's ask Qp10qp. What do you think about making several copies, just with different names bolded? Some articles like Mary Wollstonecraft can just link to the tree, but articles like Fanny Imlay need the tree in it and I think it would be nice to bold her name, then. Awadewit | talk19:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That's very easy to do. I'm at the office and will be for at least a couple of hours, so I can reply to comments but won't have time to update the tree for a bit. I'll wait till you and Qp10qp have had a chance to look it over and then make any updates you like. Mike Christie(talk)19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm just thinking through this. Is it a good idea to list who was married to whom? I think people will generally assume that the people who had children together were married, but many of the couples in this tree were not. That might be important to include. Hmm. Tricky. Awadewit | talk19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I can think of a couple of different ways to do this. One would be to include a marriage date where they were married. That would most naturally annotate the line joining each couple, which is small, so that would expand the tree horizontally -- probably a bad thing. Another approach would be to annotate the line coming down to the child with "out of wedlock" or something similar. The lines themselves could indicate marital status: a dashed line might connect two people who were not married. That would require a legend, which is possible. Mike Christie(talk)19:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you think it is judgmental to label people "born out of wedlock"? It has such a moralistic ring to me (perhaps I just read too much eighteenth-century literature). I just want the tree to be objective, but still factual. Sorry to be so picky. :) Awadewit | talk19:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't feel that condemnatory to me, but I do think it's worth finding the most neutral possible terms for this sort of thing. (I guess we can't just put a little "bastard" tag on the kids, can we?) You're the boss on this one; just let me know what it should say. Maybe the dotted line option for unmarried parents is the best way to avoid the issue. Mike Christie(talk)20:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Poking my nose in on this since I'm here on the talk page: "Marriage" is often indicated on trees like this with a "m." or a "m.(year)" in the horizontal line. This nicely avoids the issue of having to characterize offspring as legitimate or illegitimate, instead simply characterizing the relationship between people. ... Relatedly, when I look at family trees I find it very helpful to indicate offspring or lack thereof. A dotted vertical line can indicate more descendants and a parenthetical after someone's name that indicates ("died without offspring") indicates otherwise. --Lquilter (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
But doesn't the tree make it obvious that they died without offspring? Do we have to emphasize their utter failure to pass on their DNA? :) Awadewit | talk20:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not a failure; it's a legitimate lifestyle choice! Anyway, the lack of descendant lines might be interpreted as "no offspring", but it might also be interpreted as "this chart only goes to X generation". That's why I (as someone who piddles around with user interface issues here & there) prefer unambiguous styling. YMMV! --Lquilter (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems excellent to me: well done Mike, and thanks. It's actually quite amusing to look at: one moment Godwin is a bachelor, the next he has five children, all by different sets of parents! And it's startlingly modern, because families today (where I live, anyway) are so complex. I don't think the issue of who was actually married is very important; the articles will explain all that anyway.qp10qp (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I should have also said it looks beautiful -- an beautiful demonstration of why graphical depictions are sometimes much better than text to synthesize information. One additional suggestion: I love the italicized death notes under most of the main players' & their children's names; might be nice to just apply it consistently to everyone. --Lquilter (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, thank you both for the compliments. I owe Awadewit for several thoughtful reviews of my own articles and it's nice to be able to make a partial repayment. (Qp, I owe you several favours too; let me know if I can help on anything.) For the notes -- sure, just tell me what they need to say. I need to do at least one more version anyway; Mary Shelley's death date has an ugly line break so I'll be fixing that. Mike Christie(talk)23:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I am sending Mike more information to add to the tree. Let's see what it looks like with married dates and more death notes. Awadewit | talk08:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Fanny Imlay/names & refs
Hi Awadewit - good luck with the Fanny Imlay article -- I think it's a challenging project. I started to respond on my talk page and then decided to move my response to Talk:Fanny Imlay because there might be some back & forth. cheers! Lquilter (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
'In-Universe' writing
Hi Awadewit,
I wondered if you could give an idea on 'in-universeness' of Vampire, which is my first effort at collaborating on an FA outside of biology. Up till now all FAs have been about 'real' things and I wanted to get someone outside's opinion that this read ok as is (i.e. didn't come across like they were real or anything). Don't worry about copyediting etc. i was just interested in dispelling a nagging worry that this baby was too...you know.
I would be happy to help, especially as I am in the middle of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer marathon right now, so I am in a vampire mood. :) However, I have two other promised reviews to finish up. Can it wait until the end of the week? Awadewit | talk22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Awadewit. I was wondering if you would copyedit Louis Slotin? The article is currently at FAC, and a number of people have stated that there are some 1(a) issues that need to be fixed. The article is not that long, so I don't think copyediting will take that long. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk)00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I'll see what I can do. Do you use something like WikEd? When I copy edit, I usually leave little queries as hidden comments and larger queries on the talk page. The hidden comments only show up well when everything is color-coded. If you don't use anything like that, I'll just put everything on the talk page. Awadewit | talk05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I just recently removed WikiEd from my monobook. I can add it back, but I think using Ctrl + F for "<!--" works fine as well. Thanks in advance, Nishkid64 (talk)06:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
Emma on Mary
Hey Awadewit - I was digging around for some of the stuff on Emma Goldman regarding influence on anarchism & the arts and found this Alice Wexler edit / reprint of Goldman's essay on Mary Wollstonecraft -- Feminist Studies v.7, n.1, p.113 (1981) - you must have seen this already? --Lquilter (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
Hi Awadewit. I am the author of this FAC article. User:Blnguyen recommended that I request you for a copy edit of the article, which has run into grammar and presentation concerns on the FAC review. I request you to find time to copy edit this article and point out how I can improve it. Hope you find time to help me out. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I don't have time at the moment. I have two reviews to do and am going on vacation tomorrow. I'm really very sorry - I would love to help out on such a worthwhile article, but I fear that my time will be too limited in the coming weeks to give the article the attention it deserves. Awadewit | talk06:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently fussing with the intro. It should be ready for you as promised in a couple of hours. I don't know what the weather's like at your end, but it's like Elsinore here: ) All the best, --ROGER DAVIEStalk08:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I was actually just about to start reading it. Perhaps I'll skip the introduction and read that last, in the manner of Tristram Shandy? (Well, I hope you are curled up in the front of a fire with your laptop, all cozy.) Awadewit | talk08:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought the universal standard was that the top image in an article should be right-aligned. I was unaware that there was a provision which applied specifically to the direction a person in a portrait was facing. Sorry for the error. -Severa (!!!) 01:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. There are so many rules in the MOS that I don't think anybody knows them all. Besides, they change all of the time, anyway! Awadewit | talk01:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, please read the caption the way I had it more carefully, this portrait was based on that sketch. In my opinion is much better quality, and having the image come before the text on the left like that looks very strange (that MOS exception shouldn't apply to the lead image). Your call. shoeofdeath (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Having a portrait drawn from real life is far superior to having one drawn many years later. There is no reason to "puff" Austen using a false portrait. We are trying to be as accurate as possible with this image - whether we like the image or not is immaterial. The essay I referred you to (as well as others) discusses how these later portraits were altered to make Austen more acceptable to a Victorian audience. It is unacceptable for Wikipedia to continue to foster those Victorian aims. We need to adhere to WP:NPOV in selecting images as well as in our writing.
Images on the left do not look strange to me. I think it looks far stranger to have Austen staring lovingly down at my phone, as she does when she is placed on the right-hand side. It is an established art historical principle not to place portraits so that their subjects look into the gutter of a book or off of the page - it leads a reader's eyes away from the text. Wikipedia has wisely adopted this principle in its MOS. Therefore, I firmly believe we should follow the MOS in this instance, not just because it is the MOS, but because the rule is founded on solid aesthetic principles. Awadewit | talk05:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, ok, I'm not going to argue about the accuracy of the portrait (although apparently the original sketch wasn't very accurate either). I don't normally have any problem with left-alligned images, but I do feel that aesthetically her looking off the screen is much less awkward than her image coming before the intro text. I'm not going to change it back or anything, just my opinion. Maybe it's because my phone is on the other side of the room ; ). shoeofdeath (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
You may be right. I figured we were all but done with the review, and I apologize for racing into FAC. I think the items on the talk page are nearly settled, and also that we've been reaching near-consensus rather quickly there. I'd hate to withdraw the FAC so soon (especially since I can spend more time working on it now that I'll be on winter break starting tomorrow), but obviously that's an option. Apologies again; patience has never been my strong suit, as well you know. – Scartol • Tok02:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I wouldn't recommend withdrawing it. It's just, in my experience, it is always best to wait until a page is very stable before submitting it. Asking the other editors working with you, for example, to check and re-check the page before submitting it, generates good-feeling as well. Doing final link checks and MOS checks also makes FAC much easier. I just don't want you to have a bad FAC experience - they can be very demoralizing. Awadewit | talk02:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree – and thanks for lookin' out. But this FAC is going to be flawless. No problems. It will sail through. =) Hopefully we won't hit too many snags. Cheers! PS. Il faut que nous recommençons ecriver en Français de nouveau! – Scartol • Tok05:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
On December 21, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Janeite, 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.
Happy holidays, Awadewit! I saw that you will be reviewing Emily Dickinson for GAC and I thought I'd inform you that I've asked Scartol to look it over at some point. I'm not sure when that will be, but it should be coming, probably after he's done finessing Emma Goldman into his next masterpiece. I'm still fiddling with ED here and there, but it's finished (in a sense) for the most part so I thought it best to nominate it for GAC now because of the backlog. All comments and suggestions from you will be much appreciated, and now that the semester is finally over and I have the next week and a half off, I have all of my time to devote to Miss Emilie. :) María(habla conmigo) 11:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
(blushing) Yeah, I'm taking a daylong Wikibreak of sorts on my first day off from school today, but I'm hoping to plow through Ms. D tomorrow. On first glance it looks like a sure GA pass (although I'm not a huge fan of pullquotes, even if they are excellent poems), but of course I leave that to Awadewit's inestimable judgment. – Scartol • Tok13:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean the above as a dig! I'm in no rush, I just didn't want you two stepping on each other's toes. I've got something else to keep me occupied while I wait, so take your time(s). :) I have mixed feeling about the quotes, as well; I got the idea from the Shakespeare article and just ran with it, but they can be nixed, no problem, if you guys feel it adds nothing to the article. Enjoy the time off! María(habla conmigo) 16:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
You're my hero. I'll reply to the talk page with reply-y goodness once I take a look at things. Eggnog? *dishes some out* :) María(habla conmigo) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Harold Innis comments
Thanks so much. I will follow your suggestions for making this a better article. As a newbie to Wikipedia, I can't tell you how much I appreciate your help.Bwark (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Season's greetings and a merry new year. You've achieved so much here this year that it takes the breath away. And I'd like to thank you, because you've taught me more than any other Wikipedian about how to do this stuff. Hope the new year sees you in good health and treats you well. qp10qp (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. I actually didn't see it listed on the FAC page, so I just deleted the FAC tag from the article. Can I not do that? Awadewit | talk17:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it is fine to remove the {{fac}} tag from the Talk Page - my guess is this a sock of a banned user and as such the nomination is invalid anyway. I second the sentiments of the above post, by the way, Ruhrfisch><>°°17:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Not quite vandalism
You may notice some recent activity on the JA page -- we now have an info box and the lead picture is moved inappropriately. In the spirit of the holiday, let's revert it tomorrow.
Merry Christmas Awadewit. I hope you have a great new year. If you have a moment would you mind commenting (again) at WP:FLC where the nomination for the list of W.M.'s works has recently moved to. One more battle for bibliographies at Wikipedia.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Strange things are afoot at the Circle K
This link pertains to you. It is intriguing to say the least. Don't ask me how I found it, don't ask me what it means. Perhaps it is a koan, designed specifically for you. Mu! – Scartol • Tok05:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be present with all users and articles on wikipedia... This links directly to my userpage while this links towards the main page. Just one of the many random sites that are probably useless...--DarkFallstalk11:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought that VAMOS section was dealing primarily with captions (perhaps a clearer wording is needed there?). Also, I have seen dates used as adjectives quite often - the "1848 Revolution", for example - where did you read about this rule? Awadewit | talk03:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Specific titles like "the 2008 campaign", for events that actually happen in that year, are a different matter from just using a date as an adjective. I think in fact whether "The 1656 painting" would make any sense by itself is a good test. I know that, like the "currently residing in the Louvre", it is extremely common on WP, but at least to English ears it sounds very TimeLifey. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The Dane
Please see what you think of the new soaring intro. (I nearly always need to go through a let's-get-the-facts-down-before -I-put-oomph-in stage.) --ROGER DAVIEStalk14:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Problems... ??? Ahhh you must mean the bashing statements over prose and "overall style" not being at F/A standards!!!! It reads beautifully to me; but I'm so over the top biased that my perception is meaningless. If you care to give it one more read through to identify any of those troublesome style "prose" issues; I would indeed be most grateful. I couldn't bring myself to ask you to devote any more time to the project; you have already gone above and beyond on this one. At present, I am defending; but, honestly am not all the confident that it is as good as I seem to think. Clearly, some on the discussion page do not consider it "well written". If you can spare the time; at least if you say it sucks --- by god I will In Fact, know that it sucks!--Random Replicator (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Funny - have a look at the vampire talk page and how much fuss one sentence can cause........
I meant to clarify - by all means list any sentences you feel need massaging etc. in the article. Better than us running round like headless chooks at FAC as the article is so big. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
'TIS MANGO SEASON.... Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Awadewit, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...Here's to artistry and elegance from the one and only Awadewit!.... ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You mean for my stunning annoyingness? Thanks for not breaking down and banning me from the Hamlet page. It's always nice to know that there is a place for picky reviewers. :) Awadewit | talk05:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
And to you
Well shooty howdy shucks, A. I appreciate your kind words; as always I am infinitely grateful for your continuing support and encouragement as I figure out what the heck I'm doing around these parts. I hope the MLB conference was fun, and a happy happy new year to you too. – Scartol • Tok12:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year
Happy new year to you too. Actually, I haven't got much knowledge—just books. Humblingly, when I look down the FAC list, I see few subjects that I've even heard of.
In the V&A, there are a couple of Turners that have been under glass almost since he painted them. Stunningly, they lack the yellowy/orangy look of most Turners, which I'm not sure I like. They have sharp blues and pristine whites, preserved from the reaction between the air and Turner's paints. qp10qp (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
And the smoke from candles... How wonderful, although it is sad that art has to be so protected to be saved. I had an art history professor once who argued that art should live, age, and die like people. Awadewit | talk19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
