User talk:Lazulilasher/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Louvre

I've expanded a bit on the controversies section, and I see that you've fixed up a few of the minor mistakes and flaws in the article. More than a few, in fact. The article is definitely improving, and is slowly nearing completion. I think that pretty soon it'll be ready for Featured article nomination. I'll see if I can find any errors or technical problems in the text of the article, although I'm plesed to say they are becoming fewer and fewer. Keep up the good work. Jordan ^Contribs 18:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you're onboard. I'm trying to finagle an old copyeditor friend to sweep through it. In the interim, I've been using Tony's exercise to systematically work through the text. It's neat and I'm feeling like I'm learning a skill (copy editing) that I had previously considered "out of my realm". Keep up the good work. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Lazu: RE sections Controversies & Satellite museums, it seems to me that it would be more logical for their order of appearance to be switched, unless last paragraph Jordan just added be used to close the Abu Dhabi segment. Qu'est-ce que tu en penses? Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the two sections should be swopped around. This would certainly be better for the shape of the article and, as per above, would be more logical. Jordan ^Contribs 19:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems like you two have it sorted out :) I agree with your mutual assessment. Also, I'm going to move this discussion to the article's talk page. That way, if any other folks happen around they will be able to read the conversation. Ok, I'm off to see if I can find the big edition of Le Robert, which may (may not, it is a proper noun after all) have an "official" etymology. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Lazu: Mes deux gros Robert ne disent rien sur l'étymologie du mot "louvre", ce qui signifie que ce n'est pas un nom commun. Dans le dictionnaire des noms propres, il n'y a que l'histoire du palais de sa construction à nos jours. Le mot n'apparaît même pas dans le dictionnaire étymologique Larousse. Aurevoir! FW

J'ai la même histoire (c'est toujours la meme histoire :) ) Les dictionnaires ne disent plus que rien; sauf, comme tu m'a dit, l'histoire de la construction (Robert, les Noms Propres). Donc...hmmm....qu'est-ce que t'en penses? Lazulilasher (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Bonjour Lazu! Ce que j'en pense est ce que j'ai écrit il y a quelques jours à la page de discussion du Louvre: Since the French themselves do not know the origin of the word *louvre*, and can only offer hypotheses, I believe that what Lalu wrote is what should be included in the article. If/when/until someone comes up with a better explanation, then it should be left as is. Bon weekend! Frania W. (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Résultat à *loup* dans Larousse étymologique:

<loup 1080, Roland (leu, forme conservée dans à la queue leu leu, Saint Leu, etc.); du lat. lupus; loup est refait sur le fém. louve, où le *v* a empêché le passage du *ou* à *eu* (cf. Louvre, du lat. pop. lupura).>

(undent) Bon! J'ai consulté "The Old & New Paris" par Edwards, pages 193-94. Il ecrivais le meme chose que toi, plus ou moins. Il est evident que "lupara" est le theorie le plus accepté. Donc, pense-toi qu'on devrais modifier le passage avec ces notes-ci? Je te laisse l'honneur :) Lazulilasher (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lazu, un grand merci pour l'honneur! Je vais faire de mon mieux et tu me diras ce que tu en penses. J'ai toujours penché pour une relation à loup, mais cela ne suffit pas pour affirmer quelque chose comme la vérité. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Bonjour Lazu: Pour ne pas alourdir l'article avec plus d'explications sur l'étymologie du nom, j'ai ajouté l'explication du Larousse en note de bas de page (foot note n° 5). Please feel free to edit it as I did it in a rush. Bonne journée! Frania W. (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Not to worry. Things should calm down for me shortly, and I haven't forgotten about Louvre. Finetooth (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's great, and I thank you. I felt horribly insensitive after I saw your nom. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no; it's nothing. I feel little stress at FAC now that I've hung around there a bit more. I want to say, though, that I believe I led you astray once-upon-a-time with the nbsp business. Believing that constructions like "Hannan, pp.(no-break code)270–278" needed a no-break code to hold the pp. and page numbers together on line-wrap, I added nbsps in all such places in something of yours I worked on. Later, someone at FAC convinced me that that was overkill and unnecessary. It causes no harm, but it wastes a lot of time and energy, especially considering that most citations are not long enough to stretch over more than one line. The phrase above would be perfectly acceptable as "Hannan, pp. 270–278" or "Hannan, pp. 270–78" with no codes except the one for the en dash in the page range. Please don't waste more of your valuable time putting the nbsps in where they are not really needed. In the main text, they are needed only when you don't want a number and its modifier to separate on various computer monitors because of line-break. An example would be "27 cows", which might break between "27" and "cows" on some monitors. This physical separation on the screen causes a little flicker of incomprehension in the reader until his/her brain glues the two physically-separated things together. The idea behind the nbsps and similar devices is to prevent this flicker of incomprehension and to smooth the reading. I'm explaining all this because I think I may have confused you about the nbsps some months ago. Finetooth (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be concerned. Regardless of the policy, the nbsp affair appears to garner different responses. After my first trip through FAC, I recall the MOS being changed because of that very FAC. However, since then I have not paid as close attention to MOS changes as I should, and have always added the nbsp as a "just-in-case" measure. I just checked the MOS, and you are correct: hard spaces are not required except in certain instances. This is good because if you add all those "nbsps" up, I imagine the article could be reduced in file size. Thanks for freeing me from the nbsp hell, though. :) Thanks for the explanation. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Canal de l'Ourcq

On 28 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Canal de l'Ourcq, 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.

Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Louvre article: size

I must agree with you. The size of the article is a problem, and is prohibitive to most readers. The fact is simple: the article needs to be broken into more sections. The French Wikipedia has an article on the Louvre Museum seperate from the whole Louvre article in general. It would be prudent to split the article, thus making the article clearer and more concise, and narrowing down the scope a bit. It would be easier for a casual user to find or research information on the museum itself if the information were in a seperate article. However, consensus must be accheived before this change can be initiated. Jordan ^Contribs 21:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We've a Palais du Louvre article about the history of the building, our article is about the museum. I think we should think of increasing the information in Palais du Louvre, as currently our building history is superior. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

{{three other uses|the museum|building history|Palais du Louvre|higher education|École du Louvre|the architectural element|Louver}}

I find I did not express myself clearly enough. Clearly, the article is about the museum. However, could we not split it into timeframes? The Palais du Louvre refers to the Louvre as the formal royal palace, during a specific period of time. Could the same not be done with some of the history sections in the Louvre article? Jordan ^Contribs 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Palais du Louvre is about the building history, not only the structure's time as a palace (which was relatively small, many monarchs chose to live at Fontainebleu, Tuileries, Versailles, etc). I'd aim for a concise summary of the building's history in the Louvre (actually, Musee du Louvre) article and a more lengthy version in the Palais article. Eventually, I'd imagine we could split out the entire history, although I'm not sure if that is part of today's work :) Lazulilasher (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And the Palais article really does need work, there are various incorrect claims in it. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. I'm busy refrencing and expanding at the moment. Also, not only will any info you move across expand the Palais article, it will also reduce the size of the Louvre article. Definitely a bonus. Jordan ^Contribs 22:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. The only trouble I am having at the moment is how to write the summary (i.e., what to keep, what to snip and move). Btw, nearly every editor that has come along has mentioned that the Building History part was dull (which hurt, because it was my favorite portion to research) and that they were excited to get to the art. So, this will likely help the article's readability, as it appears only a small subset of readers enjoy in depth architectural histories :) I am going to move this to the talk page of Louvre, so that others can see the discussion. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'll touch up on the rough points. Jordan ^Contribs 23:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Lazu: Remnants of the fortress are still visible in 2nd par. of introduction is repeated: remnants are still visible in the crypt, in 1st sentence of History, which is a more logical place for it. I suggest its removal fm introduction. Frania W. (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pavillion de l’Horloge

I have formed the framework of this article, although it still needs a load of work. The problem is, there is hardly any info on the subject itself. Most of the search results are actually images, not actual text. This is goibg to be an interesting article to work on, I can tell you that. I'm giung to see if I can find a free-use image of the Pavillion to illustrate the article with. If you find any info on the topic, don't hesitate to add it. Jordan ^Contribs 00:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! So awesome there's another Parisian architect buff around (I was thinking it was only Frania & I for awhile). One of my first articles was Pavillon de Flore, which may have some valuable sources you might want to check out. Also, for the Palais article I added a book by Edwards which has full text available on Google. I would recommend that source as well (oh ya, and Blunt has some good stuff, too). Lazulilasher (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a look at the Pavillion de Flore article, and am seeing what I can use from there. Thanks for the tip. Much appreciated. Jordan ^Contribs 00:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Before Jordan goes further with the article, I would like to bring to his attention one detail: in French, the word *pavillion* is spelled *p a v i l l o n*, which is the reason why when Jordan tried to blue link Pavillion de Flore above, it turned red instead of blue as in Pavillon de Flore. Since we cannot have the title half in English & half in French, it should be *Pavillon de l'Horloge*, all in French.

Putting this note on Jordan's talk page also. Frania W. (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed. I'm going to move the article to the correct name; I was waiting because I wanted to make sure that I had been correct when I created Pavillon de Flore.. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Louvre edit

Hi. I've made a suggested edit for the Louvre article's first paragraph on Tony1's talk page.  HWV 258  04:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject France

Thanks for the suggestion. I've followed through with it. I had never thought of joining the project before, but now I see that it would be a good idea. Not only will I be able to get in contact with like-minded editors, I will also be able to help out with reviews and project logistics. I've signed up ,and am ready to get going. Thanks. Jordan ^Contribs 18:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. Great to have you aboard. We're going through a redesign and refocusing stage, so feel free to propose changes or suggestions. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Pavillon de Flore

Bonjour Lazu! RE PdF, I want to add a few details to the last paragraph of its History section; however, I am being slowed by inconsistencies found in various sources. For instance, Francis Miltoun places the Committee of Public Safety in former apartments of Marie Antoinette in PdF, while other sources (French) place it in former apartments of the queen, but in the Tuileries Palace, i.e. first floor looking into garden, which is what I believe. After the royal family was brought to Paris from Versailles on 6 October 1789, and until 10 August 1792 (fall of the monarchy), the apartment on first floor of PdF was occupied by the princesse de Lamballe. The queen had access to that apartment from her own in the Palais des Tuileries. However, I must find the source before bringing any change to article. This is taking time and, unfortunately, my personal time is not the exclusive property of Wikipedia! Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I'm sure it will be excellent! Lazulilasher (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject France A-class review

I have proposed the development of an A-class review department for the France WikiProject. This would be a part of the project's reviews departement. See here and here. Thought you might be interested. Jordan ^Contribs 21:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Pee review

Thanks for your comments and the edits you made on the Louvre Abu Dhabi article. I'll get to fixing it up straight away. Same for the Guggenheim article. Jordan ^Contribs 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

TF France code

Want me to add the code now? As I am an admin I can do it. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sure - I'll try updating the page! Lemme get the taskforce label to work and then I will begin updating the taskforce page! WhisperToMe (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - now I am adding the TF link to various Paris-related pages. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Lazulilasher (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the articles are listed for task forces - I may consult the Tokyo task force to see where its articles are listed.. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing we need to do is link the task force and Portal:Paris so that both link to each other WhisperToMe (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Houston has a WikiProjects pane for the Houston WikiProject and the University of Houston WikiProject. Perhaps a dedicated pane will work. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Pavillon de l'Horloge

Thanks for fixing that up. I didn't even notice that. The updated template is also great. Thanks again, Jordan ^Contribs 12:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Guidance Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I look around Wikipedia and I see the contributions you have made and the help you have given. This barnstar is in recognition of that. For your work citing unverified information and for the help you have given me, I present you with this barnstar. Thank you. Jordan Contribs 12:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We need more admins, as you probably know from your involvment at WT:RFA.

- Icewedge (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it is done! You will probably notice that I used a lot of "he/she" or "his/her" which makes that prose rather awkward to read so please feel free to change them to the correct gender pronoun, then answer the questions, transclude and then good luck! - Icewedge (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

confiscation vs appropriation

Mon très cher Lazu: You are the last person with whom I am ever going to have an edit war, so I am not going to change your "appropriation" for my "confiscation", but I do want to tell you that in all studies I have done in France, and in all readings, the word that stands out RE the revolutionary government getting its hand on Church or émigré's property is "confiscation", which in the mind of the French is a lot meaner than "appropriation". Voilà! And, by the way, tu vas me copier cent (100) fois le mot "galerie", which has only one (1) *l* en français, ou je vais *confisquer* ton ordinateur !!! Frania W. (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC) http://74.125.113.104/search?q=cache:BGnbDtzxwCEJ:www.1789-1799.org/persos/talleyrand.htm+confiscation+des+biens+de+l%27%C3%A9glise+r%C3%A9volution+fran%C3%A7aise&hl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us

No worries, revert me--I know you mean no harm. It's not like we've never worked together before. I was concerned because of the combination of Church/emigre/and the cabinets du roi. I'd thought that the royal collections had been "appropriated", not confiscated; hence, I changed the word. Confiscated seemed a little harsh, but it was really a minor tweak. Changing it back.... Lazulilasher (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that "confiscated" seems a little harsh, but "confiscation" was meant to be very harsh; it was a punishment to those who had belonged to privileged classes. Remember, the revolutionaries were not shy about cutting heads at the time... But I am not going to revert you. Maybe next year! FW

Ha."je me revertais" (can we say that?) Lazulilasher (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

fr:wikipedia appelle "revert": "révocation" ou "réversion". Les verbes sonnt "révoquer" ou "faire une réversion". Mais, entre nous, on peut utiliser un mot inventé, comme "réverter". On peut même le soumettre à l'Académie française.

Ce texte est sans doute un peu long, mais il peut t'intéresser sur la façon dont les biens nationaux étaient revendus pendant la Révolution: http://rives.revues.org/document100.html

En plus, je viens de tomber sur ce paragraphe: ***[...] La Commission des revenus nationaux rappelle que “ la vente des biens confisqués se poursuit dans toutes les parties du territoire français et même sous le feu de l'ennemi ”.[...] ***

Bonne continuation! FW Frania W. (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lazu: Case closed and à la prochaine. Frania W. (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Je vais m'absenter en fin de semaine jusqu'à la fin du mois et peut-être plus longtemps, so will not be reading over your shoulder during that time! Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

WHAT? Make sure you come back...et utilise un wikibreak Template afin qu'on sait quand t'es la. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Bonjour Lazu: Je ne m'absente que pour trois semaines, quatre au plus, il n'est donc pas nécessaire d'utiliser un wikibreak; mais merci quand même pour la suggestion.

Par contre, je crois qu'il serait plus que nécessaire assez vite de voir s'il ne faut pas semi-protéger l'article "Louvre" car, depuis la rentrée scolaire, on commence à y voir du vandalisme, such as the oversizing of the image & the stupid comment by 86.133.109.49 on October 8. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

COME BACK!!!!!! Lazulilasher (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you know about...

the Girondists? I don't know much, but an editor requested that someone take a look at that article and fix the lead up. Since I don't have great knowledge on the subject, I am coming to you. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Lazu: I imagine this the heading RE the request you are talking about?

Answer the obvious question: "What did they believe?"

I'll see what I can do about this, but not right now. Frania W. (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Frania. I also asked a colleague over at the fr.wiki to take a look. I'm not a Revolution expert, so I decided to see if I could finagle you or McEwen to fix it up. You both have expressed interest in the subject. I might take a look, although right now my big artile projects are still Louvre and Marquis de Lafayette. Thanks for offering to take a look (and there's no rush). Lazulilasher (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey...your RfA

As of UTC 10:33, there's something wonky about your RfA--the SQLbot hasn't got it listed in the table on WP Talk:RfA, which leads me to believe something went wrong in the transclusion.... just FYI. I'm totally incapable of ferretting out WHAT went wrong; I can just see that something didn't work quite right. :) Good luck, incidentally--it seems to be going VERY well thus far! Gladys J Cortez 10:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya...you're right. I'm going to try and fix it; if I'm unable I'll make a note on the discussion. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

New tool

Thanks again for all the kind words and for the link to the citation tool. I have added it to my tool box. Finetooth (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

An Idea

A commendable idea. I would be happy to get involved with the Project's 'outreach' department. I'll start with proposing some ideas for the newsletter straight away. Jordan ^Contribs 14:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have left a number of comments and suggestions here. Thanks, Jordan ^Contribs 14:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Another airline article nominated for deletion

Hello. Based on your recent comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Seaplane Service, I thought you might be interested in looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alsek Air Service. -- Zyxw (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Barren Hill Map

donc, on fait meilleur Marquis_de_Lafayette you can zoom in now, here's the source: [1] Pohick2 (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice...thanks for digging that up! Lazulilasher (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

French Barnstar of National Merit

		French Barnstar of National Merit
		For your excellent work at bringing WP:FR back to life. Tu le merites. Awarded for contribution to WP:FR by ChrisDHDR 13:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, I'm quite honored! Thank you! Lazulilasher (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

User:Jordan Timothy James Busson/WikiProject France Newsletter Here is what I've done so far. This is just a rough draft, to be found on a user-subpage created specifically for this. If you know of anyone else who has received the project's barnstar during this last month, please notify me. If you approve, or have any more suggestions, just contact me on my talk page, or on the newsletter's talk page. Thanks, Jordan ^Contribs 14:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is my belief that the newsletter, (the one at the next update page) is ready to be handed out to the members of WikiProject France. If this is fine with you, I will send it out this evening. Contact me on my talk page if you have any ideas or objections. Jordan ^Contribs 13:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA... -- Tinu Cherian - 09:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks! Lazulilasher (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9