Talk:Paul Kane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Paul Kane is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 1, 2006.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 7, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
January 7, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
August 2, 2014 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

"For variety" and the pound hunt[edit]

I have changed this sentence back to "For variety, he continued from there on horseback to Fort Edmonton, witnessing a Cree buffalo pound hunt along the way" because it is true. The canoe brigade Kane was traveling with continued on to Ft. Edmonton, too, but Kane found traveling by canoe boring by that time and also wanted to meet the Cree. He didn't have to ride from Ft. Carlton to Ft. Edmonton, he chose to do so voluntarily for reasons unrelated to travel logistics. Thus I think the "For variety" is justified. Lupo 07:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The second point in this sentence concerns the Buffalo hunt. It was a "pound hunt": the Cree had constructed a wooden impounding and drove a herd of Buffalos into it. Then they closed the opening and killed all impounded animals. That's quite different from Buffalo hunting in the open prairie, and thus the full term "pound hunt" should be used. (Admittedly, that's Kane's own term. I do not know whether there is a better term for this.) For the time being, I have simply (red-)linked this expression. Do we already have an article about hunting techniques of Native Americans somewhere? Lupo 07:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Bison hunting[edit]

Still haven't found anything on Wikipedia on Buffalo hunting (except a section in American Bison, but that doesn't cover Native American's techniques), but for starters, you might want to check out the competition: Buffalo Hunt at the Canadian Encyclopedia or Buffalo Hunting by Indians from the The Quebec History Encyclopedia (originally from the 1907 Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico from the Bureau of American Ethnology), and the Britannica seems to have extended coverage of the subject (see [1], I presume they also have an article "...with horses"). Hunting at the Encyclopedia of North American Indians is also interesting, and the Smithsonian has a literature list. Lupo 09:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Image placement[edit]

Jengod, I have reverted your changes to the image placement in the "Works" section. With your placement, these images were suddenly in places completely unrelated to the text; it just didn't make sense. What problem are you trying to solve anyway? I use a large window and a fairly small font size (and also on PC/Firefox), and it looks reasonably well on my screen. I did not revert your "alternating left-right" placement in the "Travels" section, although I must say I don't like it very much either; I think it is a very bumpy and fragmented layout that actually makes it more difficult to read the article. But as it leaves the logical coherence intact, I don't care enough to revert it—it's a matter of taste. We'll see what others think about this alternating placement. Lupo 07:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Other personalities mentioned[edit]

On Daniel Fowler, see his entry at the Dictionary of Canadian Biography online.

Lupo 12:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

On Nicholas Flood Davin, see the Dictionary of Canadian Biography and The Canadian Encyclopedia, and also here.

John William Garvin seems to have been only noteable as a publisher and editor. I have not found any extended biography on him.

Lupo 15:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

References vs. Footnotes[edit]

Somebody thought it was a good idea to convert all references and footnotes to the "Cite.php" format. I must say, I don't like that at all. References and footnotes were separated on purpose and used different numbering schemes. Now both are mixed up, and one cannot easily figure out which are true footnotes (i.e., slightly off-topic short explanations of a few facts mentioned in the main text) and which are references (i.e., pointers to external sources backing up certain statements). Furthermore, it now looks as if only one reference was used, which is simply not true. I have played around with Cite.php myself, and while it may be ok for simple articles, I do not think it is currently flexible enough for serious work. Are there any reasoned objections to my changing the reference formatting back? Lupo 08:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently not. Lupo 14:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted[edit]

I just noticed this topic on the main page, I clicked it and noticed it had been vandalized, that is why I reversed the edit.

Congratulations[edit]

You all did a marvelous job on this article. It is thoughtful, well-written, highly informative and beautfully illustrated. Good work! I was especially taken by the wonderful illustrations.

Thanks! Littenberg 15:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, blatant contradiction.[edit]

Flathead indians are defined in the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation article as called such due the fact they did not practice head flattening, yet this article states "One well-known example of this process is Kane's painting Flathead woman and child, in which he combined a sketch of a Chinookan baby having its head flattened with a later field portrait of a Cowlitz woman, also from a Flathead tribe, but living in a different region" and then goes as far as to link to the Salish article. Someone should fix that. I would but I am not familiar with the editing process here.

Uh, maybe a problem of how "Flathead tribe" is defined today and was defined back in Kane's times? The statement comes from Eaton/Urbanek. For now, i'll just take out ", also from a Flathead tribe, but ": that still leaves a correct sentence, but avoids the problem altogether. Note that we can't change the name of the image: we didn't name it. Lupo 20:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, now I see what you meant. Took me a moment to find out that you were referring to our article Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation. Ho-hum. In that case, the link must go altogether. Lupo 20:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting[edit]

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do object. If you don't want autoformatting, bug the devs to disable it on en-WP. Or even better bug them to give you a preference to disable it for you. Don't go 'round unlinking dates, leave 'em as they are, and do whatever you like best in new text. Personally, I strongly prefer linked dates. Full dates are typically important, and linking makes them stand out more. And who are you to take away autoformatting from me? I like it: I find it considerably harder to read texts that use other formats than my preference, my eyes stumble. It's not a big deal, admittedly, I can still understand it, but it slows my reading.
BTW, by the arguments 4 and 5 given above, we should avoid all links. And images. The errors people make when including images are unbelievable. By argument 1(c), we should also stop red-linking non-existing articles as it causes visitors to wonder why there are red links.
Lupo 15:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures intruding into text[edit]

Hi, there are three pictures that poke into the text. This needs fixing and does some dead reference links. A few places need citations. Best, Xtzou (Talk) 17:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

FAR?[edit]

An editor has suggested that this article may need to be sent through Featured article review. Here are his concerns:

I am nominating this featured article for review because there's a lot sections have no source, or least didn't have enough footnotes, for example: "Travels in the Northwest" (there's three sub-sections below), I feel this is a major problem need to be fixed, don't meet the criteria anymore.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} Feel free to check out references 8 (Eaton/Urbanek), 9 (Travel journals), and 4 (Harper; Dictionary of Canadian Biography) from your nearest library and sprinkle inline references from these three throughout the article. Lupo 15:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Jarodalien asked me for help with how to respond to this. He said he followed procedure but the article hasn't improved in a period of time and now he wants to nominate the article to WP:FAR again. Jarodalien normally contributes to zh.wikipedia.org, this may be why he is not as familiar with English Wikipedia procedures. Hope that helps, and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, — Cirt (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Cirt, and I seem Lupo's suggestion, but can I found those books at mainland China? At Chinese wikipedia, the same article (translate from this one years ago) use to be a featured article too, but not anymore. So I really hope somebody could bring more footnotes to this article.--Jarodalien (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Cirt, it wasn't my intention to "bite" anybody. I was just pointing out the main references the bulk of the text was distilled from, so that somebody who wanted to bring the article up to today's referencing standards for featured articles knew where to start. I originally wrote that article eight years ago, and of course standards have changed since then. I don't have those books anymore, I would have to get them again from the library and correlate phrases in the article with statements from the books, too. I'm neither interested in doing this, not do I have the time for it. So, if anybody feels the article needed more inline references, they'll have to do the work themselves. Lupo 23:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Paul Kane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)