Jump to content

User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30


Re: Map of England

I can try - there are two potential problems I see. One is that maps of England are typically Crown copyright, so I need to find a blank basemap I can use. My guess is there are some in Commons, but I have to look. The other major concern is just fitting 30 names onto the map, but it should be possible.

Keep me updated. Awadewit | talk 02:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I am lazy and will ask you instead of checking each link - do you know if are all 30 places in England itself? I just don't want to start on a map and find on place #26 that I need Wales or Scotland too. I can check if you don't know offhand. I am done with Joseph Priestley House for now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they are all in England. I just clicked on all of them, so you'd think I'd remember, but my eyes were kind of glazed over. :) I am 90% sure. Awadewit | talk 05:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I will need to check them to make a scratch map anyway. I found some basemaps of England I think I can use. Totally unrelated, but have you read Possession: A Romance by A.S. Byatt? Given your background I imagine you'd enjoy it, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have - I thought I would love it, but it kind of dragged on and on. Awadewit | talk 05:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - I enjoyed the book a lot (though the movie missed the mark, I thought). I asked Ben MacDui to do the peer review. I was also bold and archived the Joseph Priestley House Talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologize - we all have different literary tastes! Thanks for archiving JP House and asking for the PR. I am kind of anxious to take the article to FAC, but I know we should slow down and make sure everything is "perfect". :) Awadewit | talk 03:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Map of places Jane Austen lived () or visited ()

(Each dot is wikilinked to the article for that place)

I have a couple of questions - do you want a regular map with static labels or would you want one with wikilinked dots and labels? That way if someone had a question on London, they could click on the name or dot. For a map with just dots see {{State parks of Pennsylvania map}}, or for wikilinked dots and names see {{Black Hawk War Map}}.

Let's try something like "Black Hawk" - that's an excellent idea, by the way. Awadewit | talk 02:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally I have two other maps (of Pennsylvania State Parks) I have to make first, plus a certain polymath's house to work on, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, there is no rush at all. As you know, I have my hands full. :) Awadewit | talk 02:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I made a base map online then colored it to match the WikiProject Maps colors - it will have to be cropped, but waht do you think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Nothing crazy like red water. :) Awadewit | talk 04:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow with this - Image:Black Moshannon State Park Map.PNG has taken longer than planned (all the borders but one had to be hand drawn). I should be able to work on the England map in the next day or two and it will likely take me a day or two. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I found coordinates in the articles for all of them except Worthing and Steventon, Hampshire so I looked those up and added coordinates to their articles - could you or someone who knows make sure these are the right locations please? I also think the map will be essentially the bottom three full rectangles. I have to do a scratch map and check for sure, then I will have to make a new basemap (should not be too much extra work). The Black Mo map is done (for now) and I got my expansion done for a DYK nom, so this is priority number one now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! I'm going to see if Simmaren knows if these coordinates are correct. I'm about to leave town and all of my Austen books. Awadewit | talk 23:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The coordinates for Worthing are correct per the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, 11th Edition. This edition lists and gives coordinates for Steventon Island in Antarctica but not Steventon, Hampshire, an unfortunate mis-emphasis as far as we are concerned. The Seventh Edition lists a Steventon in Oxfordshire but not the one in Hampshire or the island in Antarctica. I'm still on the case. Simmaren (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I haven't yet found a print source for the Steventon coordinates - it's such a small place. However, Google Earth confirms the coordinates Ruhrfisch found for the place. I'll keep looking. Simmaren (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have started it - the active map is above (with three linked towns and dots for all 30 to help me place the other dots). I kept it 433 pixels wide (as wide as the original map) as I am not sure I can get labels in otherwise. What do you think? I can add the other dots once I know this is OK. I can also crop the base map to make it slightly smaller (remove part of top and right side). I will wait to add more dots until I hear from you. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks good to me! Awadewit | talk 06:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it is done. Two questions: London is a bigger dot as the largest city and capital - is that OK? I am also concerned that the center (Deane +2, Ibthorpe +1) may be too crowded. I think I could draw some black lines on the base map and move some labels out but still linked to the red dot via the line. What do you think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think making London a bigger dot is a good idea. I'm worried that too many of the names overlap, however. Would you hate me if I said we should remove the names and just go back to dots? Can we make the dots linkable somehow, just without the names? :( Awadewit | talk 01:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The dots are already linked, as are the names. On my computer none of the names overalp, although many are pretty tight. I could put numbers beside the dots and have a numbered list with linked names in the upper right corner (for a similar example, see the map at the bottom of List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania). Or I could just have dots. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I basically can't read any of the names over here. *sigh* Let's just go with dots for now. We can always add a list later. :) Awadewit | talk 02:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, from reading the list it looks like Steventon (birth), Oxford, Southampton, Reading, Bath, and London are the places she lived. Do Rowling (1794 and 1796 visits), Ashe and Manydown (1801, etc), Up Lyme, and Pinny (1803) need to be added? Red and Green dots or Red and Blue dots? Red for resided and other color for visits? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and added the labels to the base map (so they show up the same for everyone) and changed the six residences to orange, kept the rest red. I also made the caption in the list clearer (gave colored dots to show what is what, added that they are wikilinked to articles). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about making a bigger difference between the colors, like green and red, or blue and red? (Thanks for being bold!) Awadewit | talk 18:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I switched the orange to green. See if that is better, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! I think we've got it! Awadewit | talk 19:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

TFA for March 1

Have you seen Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 1, 2008? Woohoo! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Mais oui

I'd be delighted to be virtually interviewed. We miss you 'round here, but I trust you're getting lots of important work done. Cheers! PS. Send it to my school email if you would. – Scartol • Tok 02:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Interview

Sure, no problem. Just e-mail me. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Stories?

What kind are you looking for? Wrad (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • About being part of a "collective" author on Wikipedia - about having your writing "edited mercilessly" by others - that sort of thing. I'm "interviewing" a bunch of people over email - can I add you to my list? Awadewit | talk 02:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Interview of sorts

Of course. Email, skype, whatever works for you. It will be my pleasure.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 8 18 February 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Michael Snow, Domas Mituzas appointed to Board of Trustees WikiWorld: "Thinking about the immortality of the crab" 
News and notes: Administrator desysopped, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Tutorial: Getting an article to featured article status Dispatches: FA promotion despite adversity 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 4, Issue 9 25 February 2008 About the Signpost
Signpost interview: Michael Snow Controversial RfA results in resysopping of ^demon 
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, community banned Two major print encyclopedias cease production 
WikiWorld: "Hyperthymesia" News and notes: Wikimania Call for Participation, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: Family Guy 
Dispatches: A snapshot of featured article categories Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Interview of sorts

As you have been involved in Wikipedia for a substantial length of time (relative to most wikipedians I know!) and have been willing to enter into controversial disputes, I was wondering if you would be willing to let me "interview" you over email for my Wikimania paper. I am planning on writing a paper on "online collaborative writing". I'm trying to collect as many perspectives as possible. I would really appreciate it! Awadewit | talk 01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainement. I can tell you about plenty of "controversial disputes" :) Kaldari (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops

I misread "Vol. 1, 2" as "Vols. 1, 2". (Personally, I never liked citation styles that omit "p." or "pp.", although they are generally accepted, and this gives me an additional reason to dislike them.) I was going to ask you for page references. I realized that it is most uncharacteristic of you to omit citation to pages, but somehow my brain didn't click this time. Sorry! Finell (Talk) 02:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your edit summary says it all. Finell (Talk) 03:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Color version of Joseph Priestley portrait for the Main Page?

Hi Awadewit, I found a smaller color version of the black and white Priestley portrait that is going to be used on the Main Page here. It is not large enough for the article itself, but it would be fine for the Main Page (where the resolution is much less). If you want I can upload it, but I thought I would see what you thought first. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on making it to the main page (again :)! And so the image wars begin anew... I'll try to keep my eye on the article when I get a chance. Take care and hope you're feeling better, María (habla conmigo) 01:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I enlarged the image here to 170px, which is only slightly smaller than the image in the article (and moved it to the left). I think that the benefit of adding color may be worth sacrificing a bit of sharpness. What do you think? Finell (Talk) 03:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really in favor of sacrificing clarity. Awadewit | talk 03:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
As the person who uploaded the color version in the first place, I agree with Awadewit - the color version is fine for the 100 pixel wide image in the Main Page, but much too splotchy for the article (compared to the detailed B&W version now there). Besides, wasn't everything in black and white back then anyway? ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
True. The world didn't turn color until sometime in the 1930s, and it was pretty grainy color for a while, too.
I'm actually here to see how you're holding up, Awad. Would you say the net effect of having the page unprotected has been positive or negative? (My unrelenting whining campaign to have every TFA page semi-protected shan't relent!) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 18:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
From the history so far, I think the net effect is obvious: negative. Awadewit | talk 18:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops again

Just so you know, I was already fixing the en-dashes (I do know that convention, and there is a technical explanation for my blunder), but you beat me to it. You are fast!

Question: Your citation style for books ends "Publisher, YYYY" without parentheses. So why do you drop the preceding comma and add parentheses when there is a page number?

CONGRATULATIONS, of course!!!! Finell (Talk) 03:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It's easier to read the page numbers with the parens, I think. Also, it's a style I was advised to adopt long ago, right before my first FAC and I've just stuck with it. Thanks for helping to ward off the vandals! Awadewit | talk 03:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A quick thanks

Thanks for the review! I wasn't expecting you to do it, since I know you're trying to finish your dissertation, but of course I appreciate it. I'm about to pack it in for the night so I will respond tomorrow.

Incidentally, I saw that you're thinking about presenting a paper at Wikimania. Does this mean you'll be dropping your anonymity? Just curious. (I listened to your interview with Witty Llama about the reasons for the anonymity.) Mike Christie (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes - I'm going to try and integrate my online interests into my scholarly career. I decided just yesterday to officially take that plunge. It should be an interesting experiment. (I've been sitting here trying to decide just when exactly to post my name.) I'm actually working on a second conference paper with Tamsinjane about online communities. And then of course there is the dissertation. And teaching. And vandal-fighting on the main page. :) By the way, are you going to Wikimania? Awadewit | talk 03:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
... and now I just saw your note about the book series. Thanks for the pointer -- looks useful for biographies and critical studies; I do have some of that sort of material, but my literary theory skills are thin enough that I don't think I'll be doing articles that require it. There was probably a time on Wikipedia a few years ago when standards are lower when I could have cut it, but I know my limitations. I'll probably stay with the more bibliographic stuff. Thanks for the kind thought, though. Mike Christie (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • After seeing your work on the Anglo-Saxon kings, I have no doubt that you could understand SF criticism. It is not usually written in an inaccessible style (as some literary criticism unfortunately is). I also have a wonderful list of the "standard" works on SF, if you're interested. I'm always trying to promote the writing of literature articles, you know! I'm a one-person FA-Team for literature! :) Awadewit | talk 03:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I used to read literary theory, and there was even a time when I could hold forth on post-modernism for as long as a minute without contradicting myself, but that was long ago. I do retain some of it; Barthes impressed me a lot. No, not going to Wikimania; I'd be interested but it's too far.
I really stopped by to say I'd posted a note to Sandy, on her talk page, about the reliable sources question. You might want to watch her page (if you don't already) in case she replies there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Something that might amuse and interest you: Mary Shelley holds a significant place in sf literary theory, with one critic, Brian Aldiss, regarding Frankenstein as the work that initiated modern sf. Of course you may already know all this, but I don't know how insular the sf academic world is, and how much someone in your field would be aware of it. Mike Christie (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's not just him. Most histories of SF that I've read begin with Frankenstein as either the founding point of SF or the progenitor of SF. This is changing a bit, however. People are looking further back to Thomas More's Utopia and Margaret Cavendish's The Blazing World, particularly as "science fiction" is recategorized as "speculative fiction". Awadewit | talk 19:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats are in order

Let me add mine.--Filll (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Um are you going to Alexandria? Holy cow.--Filll (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I have very nice parents. :) Awadewit | talk 19:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 42

Hey there. Just this note that Wikipedia Weekly Episode 42 is out.

You can download the episode or listen to the streaming audio at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/03/03/episode-42-the-question-of-muhammad-the-wikiand-everything/, and you can hear past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/ too.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine print: You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you no longer wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from that list.

Thanks

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight passed, thanks to your great reviews. I'm wondering now how to get it on the main page. I'm thinking it would be a neat trick to get it there on St. Patrick's Day, what with the color and all. Anyway, I don't really know how to go about doing this and was wondering if you knew. Thanks again. Wrad (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Just saw that Fanny Imlay was featured - congratulations on another well deserved FA and for making a memorial to her better than her own family did. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to park her at WP:FA; please move if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, kudos and congrats. – Scartol • Tok 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 10 3 March 2008 About the Signpost
Wales' relationship, breakup with journalist Rachel Marsden raises questions about possible improprieties Eleven users apply for bureaucratship 
Signpost interview: Domas Mituzas Role of hidden categories under discussion 
Book review: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Military history WikiProject elections conclude, nine elected 
Best of WikiWorld: "Extreme ironing" News and notes: Encyclopedia of Life, Wikipedian dies, milestones 
Dispatches: April Fools mainpage featured article WikiProject Report: Football 
Tutorial: How to use an ImageMap Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wp's work not done

I agree!

That's what I was trying to get across!

Although, it was good to have some genuine debate on the show - proves we don't decide before-hand and make a cabal of it :-)


On another note the article I was telling you about is The rise of the West. I'll give you warning when it is going to be edited by the class.

Best, Witty Lama 14:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

From your newest and bestest (admin) friend

The links to that picture were removed by a bot after Chetblong deleted the image itself. I have left a message as follows:

Hi! I'm just wondering why this image was deleted when there is a FUR covering each of its uses. Are the FURs defective and if so would you mind undeleting the image to allow Awadewit can fix them? All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope this helps, --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've now had a very nice message, as follows:
 Done, Hey, sorry 'bout that. I was using a script that Maxim gave me (on IRC), and I messed up so it deleted some images that did have a FUR. But tell Awadewit, if you can, to remove the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} tag when Awadewit adds a fair-use rational from now on, so it will be less likely for the image to get deleted by accident. Cheers , ChetblongT C 03:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
--ROGER DAVIES talk 04:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You got me interested again...

Firstly, thanks for taking time out of your dissertation to comment on the FAC. Your statement on Reformation figures got me to thinking about Luther again, so I wandered over there to visit. I didn't know that you took part in the second GA nomination! I just wanted to mention that when I said "mob", I meant the ones who delisted the first GA. Anyway I left a message there and maybe someone might restart things. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Big favor?

Hi Awadewit. I wondered if you might have time to do a favor in exchange for, well, my undying gratitude? I've noticed that you seem to have an innate ability to churn out compelling, exciting, wonderful prose. My skills are a bit lacking in that area, and that's been brought up again at my latest FAC, a French colony called Fort Saint Louis (it's only 33k). I am going to try to do another copyedit myself, but I would love to have another pair of eyes on it. And if you don't have time (I see you have your own FAC), then I promise I won't hex you or anything evil like that. Karanacs (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I think I can stretch this to fit my new reviewing criteria (outlined in banner above) - it is definitely part of "the long eighteenth century". :) Can it wait until the weekend, though? I will be busy until then. Awadewit | talk 23:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

The Reviewers Award The Reviewers Award
I Woody, do hereby give Awadewit this reviewers award for all the hard work and excellent reviews you give at the FAC process. They are much appreciated. Thankyou. Woody (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Cliffs Notes

"This article also uses CliffsNotes, which is not a reliable source." I've not come across this before; where do Cliffs Notes fall afoul of WP:RS? I know they aren't the best scholarly source, but do they fail reliability in terms of fact-checking, authorship, etc? (In other words, would we reject them in another, non-FA, article?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My unsolicited US$0.02: Death to CliffsNotes. I don't have a concrete reason, though, other than they are the #1 offline reason students cheat in school. – Scartol • Tok 22:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I know that, and I know they aren't likely an adequate source for a featured article, but I'm wondering if we reject their reliability overall (for other articles), and where they fall short of WP:RS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, CliffsNotes is not reliable because I have seen no evidence that they fact-check and the people who write the cliffs notes are not required to have any specialist knowledge of the field in which they write. I know that a lot of graduate students write for them to make money and I have heard apocryphal (?) stories about authors inserting deliberate mistakes to trip up cheating students. However, the most important reasons I would cite against WP:RS are that these are not fact-checked sources and that they are not written by recognized experts in the field. Awadewit | talk 01:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Awadewit; that answers the question. (Interesting, too :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Lessons

Congrats on the new FA, and thanks again for a wonderful article. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well done. The Awadewit FA machine just keeps rollin' along! Congrats. – Scartol • Tok 23:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
My congratulations, too! :) I replied to your questions as well although, being rather swamped here, I wrote rather hastily with poor prose. If you do ever quote me, I hope you'll allow me to clean it up beforehand! :) Hoping also that your pih-pih-preparations (my stuttering is getting worse all the time!) for the ides of March are going well. :) Willow (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll send you a picture when it's done. Awadewit | talk 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK: The History of Little Henry and his Bearer

Updated DYK query On 9 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The History of Little Henry and his Bearer, 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.

--PFHLai (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

Will do. I suppose the template wasn't to your liking? Now, for something that bothered me far more ;), why is that beautiful, clickable map not in SVG format? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Other people made the family trees and maps. I saw no problems with them and since I don't know how to make such things, I was happy to accept their versions. :) Awadewit | talk 02:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I made the map (thanks for the compliment) and I used the website listed (Online Map Creation or OMC) and (believe it or not) MS Paint to do it. I also use Paint.NET sometimes. I do not have software for making SVGs, nor do I know how to do so. I also do not have vector sources for pretty much any of my maps - I always take free maps (US Census, OMC) and tweak them, sometimes beyond recognition. ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, I just thought an SVG would have been easy as the website you listed (apparently) exports to vector formats :) Trust me, I know Paint can be pretty useful. Awadewit, I don't really know anything about family trees, so I have a couple of questions:
  1. Should anything be changed (any dashed lines, etc.) or would you just like a clearer version of them exactly as they are now?
  2. Any font preferences? Serif, sans-serif, larger point size... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. Nothing should be changed. It should just be clearer.
  2. I have no font preferences.
Thanks again! Awadewit | talk 15:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I managed to whip this up (to the right). I have a thing about type, so I replaced Arial (?) in the original with a version of Baskerville, which is a very legible typeface and (IMHO) age- and theme-appropriate ;) Sadly, I don't think the SVG was much of an improvement in the end. The file is massive—regular text in SVG renders very unreliably, so I converted the text to outlines as if each letter were an image—and I still think 350px in far too small for something as complex as a family tree :( Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I was hoping SVG would retain the font info so the hinting mechanism would kick in at tiny font sizes. But it would seem that outlines don't shrink much better than raster at 400px. Sorry for the trouble caused for so little difference! Colin°Talk 23:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope :) Even if the text hadn't been converted to outlines, the point size is set in stone in the SVG code. If it's vector, the type will scale as, well, a vector—that is, its outline. I considered using a more screen-friendly typeface and leaving it as text, but the Mediawiki rendering is less than ideal; the file would have been much smaller, but everything would probably be screwed up. It was no trouble at all, anyway. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I made the original, and I'm quite happy to have it replaced with an svg version; I don't have any attachment to my version. However, I noticed that this image uses a transparent background, so that the chequered graphics display field is visible through it. Can I suggest that the svg use a plain white background? Most readers will have to click through to view the file, as it's evidently unreadable without doing so. I think a plain white background makes the text easier to read. Mike Christie (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I hardly think there will be a noticeable difference, but that's a perfectly reasonable request :) Consider it done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Fvas, would you mind doing the other family tree as well? That way they will match. Thanks muchly! Awadewit | talk 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And done. I hope it's to your liking :) Fvasconcellos* (t·c) 02:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Awadewit | talk 02:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Anytime. Boy, your talk page sure sees a lot of action. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you copy-edit Homerun (film)?

I just finished rewriting Homerun (film) and will soon nominate it for GA status. However, the article needs a copy-edit. Someone on IRC told me: "If you want brilliant copy-editing, just ask Awadewit". Could you copy-edit Homerun (film)? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I will ask him to copy-edit it, then. Thanks for referring me to him. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wadewitz/Archive_25&oldid=1146685751"