Jump to content

User talk:Giano

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk | contribs) at 10:30, 21 April 2020 (→Mail call). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Old messages are at:

This user has been on Wikipedia for 20 years and 3 days.

Centre

Please leave comments below:~



17th century American History

Calling any of my friends who know anything about the above subject? If you do, I need you to head over and help me at Caroline era where I am struggling - you’ll see the section I mean. We need short a précis of any state that was a British colony before 1649 and it needs to be written by an editor who can stop at 1649. Casual page stalkers studying their neighbour’s cousin’s great great arch grandfather arriving in or after 1649 are not required, no matter how valiantly they fought Red Indians, Eskimos, Cowboys, Mexicans or whatever the locals were currently called. I have a feeling we could have a collaborative new FA here, but it needs a lot of effort and patience. It might be amusing to try. Giano (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how to ping the list you had in edit summary (taking me out): @Bishonen, RexxS, KJP1, Johnbod, and Hoary: One might poke around at Wikipedia:Featured articles#History to see who has written in that area (I spotted Plymouth Colony from Jayron32, but he is long gone), or Wehwalt might know who writes in that area. I'll poke around some more ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong; Jayron32 is active. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. --Jayron32 16:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I think it might be quite amusing for some of who have been here awhile to get our heads together and knock out a big page. Giano (talk) 21:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then you have to bring along @Yomangani, Ceoil, and Outriggr:-- the originals! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we do. The more the merrier. So long as we are all on the same Wikipedia wave length it will work. Giano (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know those three are pleasant to work with :0 In fact, I owe all three of them my first-born. Snooping around at WP:FA, I find lots of no-longer-active editors of FAs, but only still-active American history editor that I can detect: Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec by User:Magicpiano ... up to you if you want to invite them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot of Doom is still around, who wrote Blackbeard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is PoD still here? We need to rally the troops then Parrot of Doom. Giano (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking to re-engage old FA writers, user:plange wrote Stephen Trigg FA in 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It also occurs to me that Kafka Liz might also have an interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend what sort of timeframe you're looking at for the big article. I don't have time for the next couple of months, but beyond that, well, I do live in Virginia.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
until I found it last week, it had been languishing full of templates and errors in a stubby state for 9 years. I think it has potential, but other than the architecture, my knowledge is almost exhausted there now. Let’s all dive in and see what happens when and whenever. Giano (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may start reading some JSTOR articles and whatnot and I'll keep your talk watchlisted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting idea, Giano. I'll see what I can do with British colonies in Canada during the Caroline period, although to be honest it was mostly French colonies (with a side order of Scottish) then. There might be some stuff involving Nova Scotia and Newfoundland that might work; I'll see if I can dig up some baseline data. The British didn't really kick in until the late 1600s, although they kept trying. Risker (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent news Risker. Funnily enough my sound Italian Jesuit education didn't really touch on Nova Scotia. In fact beyond human frailty, carnal sin and my undoubted reserved space in Hell it didn't really touch on much. There is so much to write here from Medicine and Mathematics to colonial expansion it needs Wikipedia's best brains on it, a sort of Wikipedia showcase article. Giano (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(The Observed Of All Observers) No politics? You might also find room for a small section on technology. Especially, naturally, military tech. And maybe music? Fashion?! ——SN54129 18:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Giano, it is frailty + carnal sin followed by confession (which is the short description for perpetual new start since it's weekly) + fear of purgatory (or a reserved space in Hell) that comprises Italian guilt brought upon us by overly-animated Italian mothers. It is what we older Italians are accustomed to, beginning with infancy. Such endurance training makes surviving a FA review a cakewalk. Atsme Talk 📧 18:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blasphemy; there is no such thing as "overly-animated" mothers of Latin extraction; those are merely exaggerations from the incognoscenti. (My husband's favorite self-help book for Catholics: How to Achieve Guilt without Sex.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting perspective, SandyGeorgia - perhaps "self-help" requires a measure of creativity - an assumption I've made based on the title of your husband's favorite self-help book for Catholics. But then, experience tells me it's always better when one has help. Atsme Talk 📧 18:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough my mother was an East Coast American who just happened to find herself married into an ultra right wing family in Sicily. She rebelled in little ways, one of which was hanging naked people on the dining room walls which was an unusual form of interior decoration in those parts. However, she took no interest in her children’s education, so we all grew up full of sin. We are digressing, yes, we need fashion and politics (I’ve sort of started that bit) and Catholic persecution. Shame the Maryland experiment went wrong. I had never heard of that. How can St. Mary's City, Maryland be a historic centre celebrating America’s all encompassing religious tolerance, when it only lasted five minutes? Anyhow, there is a lot to write, if it happened in the Caroline era, and is vaguely connected with Charles I, go for it. Giano (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that hanging people on walls (naked or not) is an unusual form of interior decoration just about anywhere. EEng 19:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:EEng#s, it was only unusual because they were live modern people not tortured saints. One lady had three breasts which I agree is unusual and another was a man eating an apple with a square penis. Otherwise they perfectly normal, albeit a little too lifelike. They are probably worth a lot of money now. Giano (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A man with a square penis was eating an apple? Or a square-penised apple was being eaten by a man? Or a man was eating an apple with a square penis side dish? Or a man who was accompanied by a square penis was eating an apple? You can't leave these things dangling. Yomanganitalk 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just when you need a great Wikipedian example of dangling penises, participles and other peculiarities, a dangling everything presents itself. Calling all copy editors to that image caption. GA here we come. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recapping what Giano said, "hanging naked people on the dining room walls which was an unusual form of interior decoration in those parts", well...my first thought (considering my Italian heritage) was that it was not too unusual, but I was also thinking the people were alive...a rather common practice based on a few vague recollections from early childhood when overhearing discussions at my Grandma's house on Federal Hill. She had 5 daughters, a few of whom married into...uhm, certain families (not my Mom - she went Irish/French). Much to my relief, further reading of the comments cleared things up...and then came Sandy's witty retort. Sorry for the delayed response, but I've been busy wiping coffee off my laptop. Atsme Talk 📧 15:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I'm glad someone liked it, but Yomangani, was the witty one, and the example (which no one has fixed YET !!) just fell into my lap. Wikipedia produces, on cue. So I guess historian Kathryn Kleiman was once considered a type of model, called "refrigerator ladies". So much wrong there, it could have been written by someone with prose as lousy as mine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are still dangling over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely Her Serene Highness would not accept the annexing of additional acquaintances; I appreciate that she called attention to this abominable act. In Georgia, we would never acknowledge such accomplishments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Ack. I see this, but ... it's so not my time period or even my continent of interest. I'm good to read and critique when it gets further along? That's about the best I can do for helping. --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth I beg to differ. You can point us to best sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You pinged? Caroline anything is one of my many areas of the profoundest ignorance. But I took a look all the same. The first section that I happened to notice was about poetry. Caroline poetry is no exception to my blanket ignorance of the Caroline, but I do like to think that I notice repetition, etc, when I see it. So I smoothed out the section a little. I used no sources. I have no sources. I may have access to sources, and I may not. More problematically, I have no background knowledge and thus would be prone to misunderstanding any sources that I might find. Hordes of en:WP editors are far better equipped to improve this section, or any section, than I am. I think I'll bow out, in the hope that people who know their stuff will move in and chuck out what's already there (it's still confusingly expressed, some of the cited sources look dodgy, and I wonder about its accuracy) and start afresh. (Elsewhere, I'm still sporadically tackling a well-intentioned but, um, problematic amplification made in November last year to [20th/21st-century] David Goldblatt.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the colonial section that needs expert attention. Every section does. This is indeed a project for a group. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there were any advances in chemistry, astronomy, or anything aside from medicine that we'd now call science, they're not mentioned. No section on technology (boat design?). No music. Guessing ignorantly/wildly at what might have seen advances, I thought of cartography. The article History of cartography seems to skip 17th century Britain, but of course noteworthy change in Britain needn't have originated in Britain. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the technology front, we know that Drilling and blasting dates back to 1627 in Hungary, but it may be hard work to find sources that discuss the spread of the technique to England and beyond. The same applies for muskets having rifled barrels being used in warfare about that time, which must have a significant impact, but I'm insufficiently expert to know where the sources are. Maybe we need to call in MilHist? --RexxS (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Somerset, 2nd Marquess of Worcester was doing some interesting stuff with steam, but I think most of his experiments may post-date Charles getting the chop. I'll take a look. As above and below, Giano, this is quite some way from my period but delighted to help out where I can. KJP1 (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jayron32, thanks for this, perhaps you’d like to add a synopsis of these events to the article and also discuss on the talk page. Some editors feel the page should concentrate on England only, I am not of that view, but feel anything that pertains to the realms of Charles I is relevant especially as this Encyclopia has a large number of American editors and probably Indian and African too. Anyhow, the article talk page is probable the best place. Giano (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've got a few other irons in my fire right now (mostly IRL) but when I get some time to expand the article, I will see what I can do. --Jayron32 16:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think it's come on amazingly! Well done all. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It’s amazing isn’t it? I’m sitting back for minute and watching the direction it takes. Bloody nuisance that Inigo Jones started the Queen’s House and Banqueting House before Charles came to the throne. However I suppose the building and completion was Caroline, but was the plan? Giano (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Anyone have JSTOR?

Do any of my pagewatchers have JSTOR? I want to know what's said here here. Any help greatly appreciated. Giano (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Excellency. I've sent you a suitable precis via your GiacomoReturned email, subject 'JSTOR'. --RexxS (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thenford House architectural style

cc. Johnbod - I've just started Thenford House. Would you call it Palladian? The Heseltines do. Historic England doesn't venture an opinion, although it notes that Wodhull probably worked as his own architect, [1]. Pevsner suggests it's a design that would have been fashionable in the 1650-1680/90 period, and HE suggests it has features more typical of the late 17th century. To me, it's more Pratt than Flitcroft. So Palladian or Carolean? Hope both of you, and yours, are keeping well in these troubling times. KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just googled for other photos to see if we could find a nice Palladian portico, but it lacks one. However, it does have the flanking wings which are Palladian, and the Inigo Jones Palladian alternating segmental and pointed window pediments at the centre, so in the balance of things I would say it is more Palladian than Carolean, it’s too late for the latter anyway. Pevsner’s view, I suspect, is swayed by the unusual roof and cupola. I’m writing a page here which were it earlier we could probably park it, but we can’t. Provincial architecture often dodges purity, but overall, I’d say, yes, it’s Palladian. I wonder if Johnbod agrees? Giano (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We’ll see if Johnbod has a view. KJP1 (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can't see the sides well, but they seem to have the big curved (?) gables that are the trademark of Artisan Mannerism (great to see you're working in that Giano) and generally the facade seems busy & energetic, without the calm which Palladio always gives. So not very Palladian in mood, though with many elements typical of his style. I'd just attribute all stylistic comments, as you are doing. I'm well, the household now includes my son's Italian girlfriend (from Puglia) so we're eating well. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I see you say "Raynham could easily be mistaken for a house built nearly a century later"; Thenford is perhaps the reverse. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks and shall do. I won’t ask what style I should record in the Infobox as I know the answer I’ll get! KJP1 (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mail call

Hello, Giano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | tålk 21:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Giano and I are far too busy to see emails! We are living under wartime conditions here. I have volunteered to drive an ambulance and my maid is stitching protective clothing, so far she has made 240 sets of clothes, and we haven’t even got to the third footman yet. You can have no idea of my deprivations and sufferings or of how uncomfortable a protective mask is, catching in my baroque pearl earrings and denting my perm. Conditions are appalling, I have to send the staff individually to buy lavatory rolls and we are down to our last case of tonic water. I was even reprimanded in Waitrose because my chauffeur was pushing my trolly and my maid was placing items in it. The 1st footman keeps muttering about social distancing and throwing my food at me across the dining room. I don’t know why I employ all these people, much more of this insurrection and I shall farrow them all and let Boris Johnson pay their wages. Now, they’ve cancelled Ascot, Henley and Wimbledon, I’ve half a mind to come and join you in Sweden, I’m sure you have a spare room? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano&oldid=952262823"