User talk:Qp10qp/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive This is an archive of inactive discussions.

Proposed deletion of Cultural depictions of Philip II of Spain[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cultural depictions of Philip II of Spain, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this earticle may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agglomerations at James and blatant change of subject[edit]

I rather like heraldry stuff, and if some dedicated heraldry editor notices, you might meet some opposition to that (wasn't that in the version of the article that passed FAC or FAR?). I also thought the gallery was OK, but then I like rather more pictures on my articles than most people. The main removal, though, of that new section, I think you were right to do. At least you put it on the talk page, unlike what some people do (just removing altogether).

The really interesting bit was here: "over-quoting is not good encyclopedic style, for which summary is the appropriate mode" - the more I work on different types of articles, the more I appreciate this. For some subjects and sources, writing a summary is relatively easy (mainly when writing plain factual stuff about events and people and dates). It's when opinions (from the authors of the sources) start to appear and, in particular when they start to diverge, that things get difficult. Balance and comprehensiveness and striking the right tone and not misrepresenting the sources, all become much more difficult. Quoting can alleviate some of that, but writing a good, concise summary of opinion in a field can be a nightmare. Which is why, I suppose, people are encouraged to look for secondary literature that has already done the summary for us.

If this is going past you a bit, I'm really talking about how to summarise (or even find published summaries) views for a balanced overview of scholarship on the Themes in The Lord of the Rings. I just look at piles of books (some of which I've read, others I haven't, some of which are better or poorer than others), and quail at the thought of how or where to start. My initial attempt is here, but it feels all wrong, or if not wrong, not quite right. Would you have any advice?

If you want to read a bit further on what I've said elsewhere, have a look at User talk:Astraflame#Tolkien stuff, User talk:Astraflame/Tolkien Bibliography (and the pages associated with that page), Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Lord of the Rings and User talk:Awadewit#LotR FAR comments. But that's quite a lot for me to ask of you, so any tidbit of advice would be greatly appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I expect DBD to object. I've fallen out with him over the royalty and heraldry cruft on several articles. The material was not in the article at the time the FAR was kept. It mildly annoys me that the stuff is there, but what upsets me is that these people won't source it. One tries to get an article fully sourced and then people drive by and fly-tip unsourced stuff. They don't seem to care about repetition either, and place titular pedantry in infoboxes (look at the James infobox these days), dynasty templates, modes of address templates, etc.—my goodness, at least if I bumped into James I in the off-licence, I'd know what to call him. I always point out that I don't see this stuff in my history books or in other encyclopedia articles, which tends to rile DBD up.
The gallery is pointless; I only agree with them for art articles. It is saying: look, this is his wife, this is his son. Slot it in the article body, why don't they, if they think those images are important, and add a useful caption. There is anyway the Descendants of James I of England page for supplementary images (remember me talking a chap into making a separate page for that instead of putting it in the article?). And these days, images have to be so carefully sourced and described that merely piling up images from Commons doesn't wash any more. (I'm doing the FAR on Edward VI of England, and the images there have been conscientiously attended to: each one is carefully considered and sourced, and the image notes are of a standard with the article text, I hope. I've learned a lot from the estimable PKM in that respect.)
On summarising, it is one of the great challenges of Wikipedia for me—a very advanced skill at its best: first we have to read and absorb all the key scholarship, and then we have to sum it up in a few sentences on Wikipedia, without misrepresenting it. Tough is an understatement.
I do have a few tricks. When I am reading around a subject, I select the shortest high quality source I can find and then use that for my first block-in of an article. The beauty is that the writer has already made professional decisions about what to emphasise and what to omit. For Anton Chekhov, I first used a relatively short book by Janet Malcolm, and a single brilliant essay by James Wood: only once I'd blocked in the article with those did I go to the huge biographies and dense literary criticism. With Mary Shelley, I began with Muriel Spark's very short and pithy biography. For James, I first used Croft's biography, which is only about 200 pages—Croft is a fine historian. For the Elizabeth I FAR, I first used a short book by David Loades from the National Archives which is based around facsimiles of documents—that gave me a good structure, a backbone of the key documents. With Learned Hand, it was scary, because the only biography was an 800-page, huge rambling thing, and we had no choice but to use that as our foundation source. As a result, the structure of the biography part of that article very much depends on our own decisions about emphasis—that makes me nervous, since we're only amateurs, after all, and the choice of content could be said to amount to original thought. On the other hand, it was exhilarating to come up with sentences that summarised, say, ten pages of the book. The cites often have really big page ranges in that article.
So, with Lord of the Rings, my suggestion would be to select the best short book, or even a good article, on it, and shamelessly use that to block in the main material. Choose a book you like and are comfortable with. After that, everything will be easier, and you can work outwards with longer general material, doubling or trebling refs where necessary, till at the end you are just touching in the odd nuance from very specialised works. Be like that lion who instead of charging into the midst of the zebras and becoming confused, selects a tasty little gazelle who is easy to digest.qp10qp (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I've just read some of those discussion pages on themes in LOR, and I agree with Awadewit that it's crucial to know what the key scholarship is and use that as the core of the sources. That can be worked out by reading a few bibliographies, particularly annotated bibliographies or bibliographical essays. Of course, some of that material may be unobtainable, for whatever reason, and need to be crossed off the list. The way to avoid being overwhelmed is to block in the whole article in layers, using short, amenable sources to begin with, rather than trying to build up a mosaic from all the sources at once. The part of the article that I read was fine, though a bit dense. It's worth checking an article every so often with a reading-ease tool, to cut down on literary-critical verbiage, because although an encyclopedia article must use the criticism, it must transmute it into clear language for the general public. Which is the difficulty. qp10qp (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) A lot to think about there, but very useful. Start from the centre and work out. It neatly deals with WP:UNDUE as well. I'm off gazelle-hunting! Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A tiny favor?[edit]

Could you give a quick read to Łódź insurrection (1905)? There is no controversy, other than the fact that the article was de-GAed amidst criticism of poor English language. It is something I cannot fix - and you are the only active copyeditor I am familiar with :) There is no need for delving deep into sources (unless you want to), just fixing some awkward sentences - see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Łódź insurrection (1905)/1.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


Medici[edit]

Beautiful page, first time I have seen it, I read it right to the end. Brilliant. Giano (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Award for FA excellence awarded by Giano (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Kudos on your front-page-ness. I remember fondly doing a smidge of that with ya. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 12:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Can't we make it into a video game somehow so that it attracts more readers? A labyrinth with political intrigue, perhaps? :) Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

History of a Six Weeks' Tour[edit]

If you have a chance, could you copyedit and review the next installment of the Mary Shelley featured topic? :) It is up for peer review. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Charlotte de Sauve[edit]

Hello, Qp10qp, I have just created an article on Charlotte de Sauve. Could you please take a look at it. I know you have much more info on her than I do.Thank you.--jeanne (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Boggle (in a good way)[edit]

I came across Edward VI of England just now, and I thought to myself: "I recognise that writing style...". And Lo and Behold, when I check the article history, I see scads of edits by you! The account of his illness and death was particularly well done, I thought. I also went and read the FAR and FARC, and as Sandy said "it's a keeper"! :-) Anyway, the reason I came across this was that I recently got involved in a debate about deaths by age. The discussion is here if you are interested. As you would expect, the distribution of deaths by age is something like the normal bell curve, with not many young and old people, but lots of people dying in their 70s and 80s (though as I said there, that would change with the period of history). The point I raised at the end, though, was that the periods at either end are actually fairly interesting - both the child deaths (though this can be rather depressing at times) and the longevity stuff at the other end. List of unusual deaths is also rather morbidly fascinating (well, I'm the sort of guy that reads the Darwin Awards, so it's not surprising I find that kind of article interesting). But to get back to what I was talking about, while perusing the "under 20" links at User:Carcharoth/People who died aged XX, I noticed that a fair number of royal child deaths were in there. So I'm now constructing a list of royal rulers, heirs (succession issues being particularly relevant here) and assorted other royals, who died in childhood. But with a more snappy title. If you think this is a goer, any advice or suggestions would be appreciated. If you think this sort of thing is rather trivial, that is fine as well. :-) I spent most of the evening constructing Category:Children and death (that was the depressing bit). So now I'm going to try and get something going about these royal children. I'll drop a link back here when I'm done. Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking a while to get things sorted. There are a few causes of death missing. The list so far is at User:Carcharoth/Sandbox2. I'm currently reading Elagabalus. Looks like I've been reading the wrong sort of history books! Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Definitely the wrong history books: Descent from antiquity! I also found Charles II de Valois, Duke of Orléans fascinating. The anecdote (at the bottom of the page) about his frightening Charles V is rather funny. The story of his (Charles II's) death is rather more sobering. A lesson in hubris it seems. I am, though, trying to work out how he got onto my list - the age at death from the article is in his 20s older than my criteria. Ah, it seems I read "the Dauphin's younger brother, Charles" in the article on Francis III, Duke of Brittany. I assumed that Charles died younger, but obviously not. Silly me. Still, the article on Charles II de Valois, Duke of Orléans was interesting. It is nice when someone's character comes across so clearly over the centuries. Some sad stories as well ((inevitably), but for more hubris, see Philip of France (1116-1131): "Riding with a group of companions along the Seine, in the Parisian market section named the Greve, his running horse was tripped by a black pig which darted out of a dung heap on the quay. The horse fell forwards, and the young king was catapulted over its head." Oops. Carcharoth (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting of "Pedra Branca dispute"[edit]

Hi, hope you're well. We haven't been in touch since "Emery Molyneux" made FA. Anyway, I wondered if you were interested in giving "Pedra Branca dispute" a once-over. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Portraits of Elizabeth I[edit]

I have started a skeleton of Portraiture of Elizabeth I. - PKM (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Way beyond a skeleton now. I don't seem to have a good scannable version of Elizabeth I and the Three Goddesses - the only thing I have in color is a 2-page spread. Do you have something we can scan to commons by any chance?
Found one online I can clean up. - PKM (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Anything you can add to the article would be welcome. I'm in so deep I can't see it objectively anymore. I do have the Oliver unfinished miniature/face pattern (in color!) and will scan that this weekend (and add a bit more about realistic images of the queen pre-1596).- PKM (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
You've been doing wonders there! I'm glad you put my favourite portrait of Elizabeth at the top. That article really was a huge and daunting task, one that I confess I shied away from. But it needed doing! Kude! qp10qp (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Noticing you have been inactive for a while now - hoping all is well in Qp10qp land. Ceoil sláinte 22:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Me too. - PKM (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Me trois. Awadewit (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm just here to say congrats on the TFA. (But I also hope things are aiight.) Scartol • Tok 04:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping that my Learned Hand compatriot is very busy playing the sackbut with gay abandon in the beautiful fall countryside. But it would be good to know for sure .....--Slp1 (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I also miss you, Qp! --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 00:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed I hadn't seen you around so I came here to check in; hope you're OK. Mike Christie (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no problem. My computer exploded, and I have now got round to getting another. Haven't missed it, really—been doing tons of lovely reading. qp10qp (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
That does sound wonderful. It is so nice to see you back, though! I'm reading Mary Shelley's travel works right now, sighing after Italy. Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back again. A few months away from the computer is no bad thing. Forced exhile is often for the better. Ceoil sláinte 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey[edit]

I wanted to thank you for your kind words posted on my "Talk" page. I just saw them today (10 Nov 2008) on my first visit to Wikipedia since May. I got too frustrated trying to post scholarly, properly sourced and referenced edits only to find myself undone by ill-informed amateurs. I have therefore abandoned Wikipedia entirely. I returned today only because a close friend asked me about something he found posted there, so I was essentially forced to visit the site. Again, thank you for your kind words and support. PhD Historian (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

Qp10qp, I'm glad you are back and well.--jeanne (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm just reading your article and will comment soon. qp10qp (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Huzzah!!! Missed your pithy comments on all these Tudor portraits I've been uploading. We need to talk about the painting of Edward VI in the Hermitage when you get caught up. - PKM (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the improvements and additions you've made to the Charlotte de Sauve article.--jeanne (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
It's fun. qp10qp (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, she is fun to write about. I wish we could locate her birthdate as well as other pertinent information.--jeanne (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see your byline again. Don't know if you're interested, but as you probably knew, Prof. Murray is at it again. They have a couple of articles at GAN at the moment if you would like to join the fun. Mike Christie (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey[edit]

I noticed PhD Historian's post above. I have no intention of undoing any of his edits to the Jane Grey article should he wish to return to Wikipedia. Since May, I have made only one edit to said article and that was the addition of material, properly sourced. I have few books on Jane so I really cannot add anything significant to the article. My main historical interest is, and has always been, Anne Boleyn. And I do frequently edit that article. His main worry would be the vandals who have targeted Jane's article. In fact, I undid a lot of vandalism the other day. He can rest assured that I shall not undo his work on Jane Grey. That's a promise.--jeanne (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll get to Lady Jane one day, I expect. In the meantime, I'm not going to waste time fretting at the state of the article. That way lies madness. qp10qp (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Holbein[edit]

I've added the portrait miniatures of Henry and Charles Brandon to the Commons, and I want to add the drawings for all the sitters in The Family of Sir Thomas More. - PKM (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'm hoping to improve the Holbein stock by adding extra pictures or better scans. And by improving the image notes where necessary. The project will be a test of things I've learned from you! I think of the description pages as little repositories of scholarship now. qp10qp (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
"The More Family" is an intriguing work because there are so many differences between Lockey's version and Holbein's sketches and design. Derek Wilson suggests that the changes might indicate that Holbein completed a version after More's downfall, but no one actually knows whether Lockey was painting from a Holbein version or from some intervening version by another hand. qp10qp (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I was kicking around doing a separate article on The Family of Sir Thomas More with User:Johnbod while you were off line. Consider yourself recruited! (maybe after the general Holbein cleanup?)
There is certainly enough material in Wilson for a separate article. He writes pages about it–though, like most biographers, he gets carried away. qp10qp (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the Barnstar. If wikipedia articles had dedications, that one would be for you, since your enthusiasm convinced me to tackle it. (Still room to add things, hint hint...) - PKM (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The only other thing that occurred to me was the charter stuff. You have the Emmanuel one, but there were quite a few. Erna Auerbach's is the only full treatment of the charter portraits that I have come across, but unfortunately all her illustrations are in black and white. I do have a colour plate of the Hilary 1580–81 King's Bench one in another book. Of course, these would all have been derived from painted portraits, but Auerbach has some intriguing ones for which I cannot identify the original. It might be worth a section under the woodcuts. qp10qp (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I've seen the other charters in color - it's all a blur now but I am sure I could find them again. Good idea. - PKM (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Added 2 Elizabethan charters; there's another I tracked down in black-and-white, will look for color. - PKM (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Auerbach has some fascinating examples, particularly a fine and unusual one with allegorical figures, from the statutes of Corpus Christi, Cambridge. But they are all in b&w, and searching them online proved a dead end. She says the Coram Rege one you have is an illumination on engraving. qp10qp (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I've rustled up these: 1572, 1584, 1589. I've added some details from Auerbach on the image pages. qp10qp (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Those are great. I've tweaked their cats (somehow they ended up in Elizabeth II not Elizabeth I, and I refined "illuminated ms" to "16th century illuminated ms". Should I move my Coram Rege to engravings? - PKM (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. My enthusiastic new computer makes filling in boxes such as the cat boxes difficult by smothering them with suggestions—which I need to read more carefully before capitulating. qp10qp (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added your images to the gallery - and I notice that "my" Coram Rege is very like the engraving in Saxton's atlas of 1579. Hadn't noticed that before! I am moving it to engravings now. - PKM (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think either section would be fine. Looking through my books last night, I noticed considerable overlap between engravings and the illuminations. For example, I saw the design for the allegorical one that I mentioned above was used in a book plate. The illuminations are largely pretty ugly and weak to my eyes, but Auerbach convinces me of their significance to the history of Elizabeth portraiture. Great fun. qp10qp (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Your favourite painting[edit]

I saw your favourite painting on your user page. It looks as if Constable had painted a Texan tornado! Even the ground is flat in the Texan style. I lived in Texas for 2 years and if I were to have seen those black clouds like Constable depicted I'd have looked around for the nearest storm cellar! He obviously painted it in the Fens country.--jeanne (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's the sea off Brighton. He hated Brighton, where he had to be for his wife's health, and so he spent most of the time gazing out to sea, which was the only place he could see nature in the raw there. qp10qp (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Really?! Brighton!? I would never have guessed. I also lived in Brighton in 1980 for a brief spell. I would have imagined it to have been painted in East Anglia. Brighton is rather charming in it's own seedy fashion-and it is an hour away from London by train! The best chips I've ever eaten in my life were from a chip shop on Station Road.--jeanne (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know Brighton well, and I like it too. But it was over-fashionable in Constable's day because George IV lived there and it was thought to be healthful. Constable called it "Piccadilly by the seaside". He much preferred the country, but by the time he painted this picture he saw much less of it than he wished and often took refuge by studying the the skies.qp10qp (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a pity the beach is pebbled. I lived in Preston Park. I also lived for a spell in Lewes.What a lovely old medieval town. I saw the Guy Fawkes parade with people dressed up as Saxons, Normans, Vikings, etc. It was fabulous.--jeanne (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
They have wonderful Guy Fawkes parades. I went to boarding school not far from there and sang with its madrigal choir several times in Lewes. Memories of afternoon tea there on leave days. qp10qp (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You are describing an England that is, sadly, disappearing forever. Have you ever been to Hever, in Kent? Where Anne Boleyn lived? A lovely and timeless village.--jeanne (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dating Hogarth's Scene from The Tempest[edit]

Hi Qp.

Over on The Tempest the latter of these two sentences has a "citation needed" tag: «From the mid-eighteenth century, Shakespeare's plays, including The Tempest, began to appear as the subject of paintings. (Orgel 2007, p.72) In around 1735, William Hogarth produced his painting A Scene from The Tempest, in the rococo style.» Do you happen to have a source for the date on this painting, and maybe even its style? I suspect Orgel (in Shaugnessy, Cambridge Companion to Shaks and Popular Culture) covers it, but I don't have it handy and Google Books omits pp.71–2. Do you have it to hand? --Xover (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Looking closer it seems that section is riddled with citation needed tags. Any chance you could give it a once over and check it for accuracy and provide cites for what you conveniently can? --Xover (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Paulson, Ronald (1992). Hogarth: High Art and Low, 1732-50 Vol 2. Lutterworth Press. p. 508. ISBN 0718828550.  page 106 (though it is dated 1730-1740 depending on who you read, close to 1735 is the best bet).Yomanganitalk 11:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice to see you around again. I thought of you when I was listening to a reading from Richard Holmes's book The Age of Wonder on Radio 4, a section about the early balloonists. Thanks for removing all those penises from Catherine de' Medici. qp10qp (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Jenny Uglow, Hogarth, Faber, 1997, p. 292, simply says "mid-1730s". She doesn't say anything about rococo but calls the style the "grand manner" (her quotes). For the rest, I don't think I can do much, since I borrowed most of the books I used when we were working on the Shakespeare article. But the Millais objection could simply be got round by removing "most important", since one doesn't need a citation merely to state that he painted the painting.qp10qp (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks (to you both). That gets me a bit closer on the Hogarth, and I'll see if I can't scare up some relevant literature elsewhere. Thanks again both of you! --Xover (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Qp10qp, Excuse me for disturbing you, but do you happen to know how I can upload images from Italian Wikipedia onto an article? The images cannot be located in Commons. Thank you.--jeanne (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, other than copying and reuploading them as a new file, which is what I've done in the past. qp10qp (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you have to download them locally and then upload them. - PKM (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. It worked. Now the article has two lovely images.--jeanne (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dec 4 2008 Edits to Elizabeth I[edit]

Your edits to the "Legacy" section near the end of the Elizabeth I article are most excellent. Very well done! Douglas Barber (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays[edit]

The doggie pneumonia is back, worse than last year, as the vet predicted; all in all, I'm thankful for the year of borrowed time. It's easier to face now. I thought of you, and wanted to wish you a joyous holiday and peaceful New Year, and say how glad I am to see you back to editing. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And the winter might be worse this year. I'm amazed to hear he's still going! Our cat died two weeks ago, out of the blue. I don't get very emotional about pets, but I miss the blighter. Also, I'ved lost the excuse for my typos, as he would walk across the keyboard.
My rate of editing has slowed down, for some reason. All the best to you for Christmas and the New Year as well! qp10qp (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous New Year.--jeanne (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
And the same to you! Have you any thoughts on my proposal on the talk page to add the Windsor Holbein to the Anne Boleyn article? qp10qp (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur[edit]

My concern is not one which can be subtly dealt with. I feel the article section does (or did) not hold its content impartially. The section at hand feels (or felt) to me as if it was slightly bias. The arguments against the validity of the Historia and the Annales were shown to be the definite truth. This is not good enough. The reader must be able to form their own opions, if there is a conflict of consensus. This can only be done if equal weight is lent to both, or even all, the points of view.

Furtherly, the featured articles are by the full admission of Wikipedia not perfect. We as Wikipedians reach for perfection I am sure, yet this is something even featured articles may require future work on to attain. It worries me that the simple fact of a professional achademic's hand in an article means this does not hold to be true. Achademia is a world of conflict, and the Wiki is here to be impartial, with everyone's voice heard. Witihin reason of course.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


I might add this article was a lost cause a while ago and the person responsible for its rectification to the standard it is at now deserves alot of credit. I could not have brought the information together as well as it has been. Still, there is the matter of the impartiality. Evididences must be presented in a manner appropriate for the Wiki.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I still say that the best approach is to propose such changes on the talk page. By making the changes direct, you risk being reverted and feeling (I've been here myself) deflated and overruled. Collaboration is a better approach, and more satisfying. And while it is true that featured articles aren't perfect, surely any bias in the article would have been discovered during the peer review and featured-article candidacy. It's worth reading those pages to see how the article evolved. qp10qp (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for William Barley[edit]

Hi there qp10qp. Hope this message finds you well. We collaborated a good while ago on John Day (printer), and I've recently written a new short article on another (less remarkable) Elizabethan publisher William Barley. If you're interested and have time, feel free to comment at its peer review. Thanks, BuddingJournalist 19:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look in the next day or two. qp10qp (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And to you[edit]

Good to see you back too; I was starting to get worried when you finally showed up again and siad it was just computer trouble. Have a great holiday. Wish me luck for the new year; I'm going to try to get as many of the Mercian kings featured as there's enough information for. And next year I'll be an Anglo-New Yorker -- I'm moving in the spring. Mike Christie (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wassail![edit]

The happiest of holidays to you and yours. Team-editing is one of my favorite things, and I hope we get to do more in the new year. - PKM (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons greetings[edit]

Qp, just wanted to wish you the best for christmas and thank you for all your reviews and insights over the last year. You tube is my habit, so I thought you might enjoy this. Well, who doesn't enjoy Brian Sewell? Even the working men's clubs take to him[1]. Ceoil (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some possible projects we could work on that would make you only slightly queasy would be this (only 12 years too early-damn), that (a mear 84 years too early) or them (only 9 years too early; damn again!!). Of course Albrecht Dürer would also be a fantastic article to build up... Ceoil (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that was a stupid things of me to say. Anytime i've made promises on wiki before, well - memories of of Ken Loach and many harsh monday mornings spring to mind. Good new year anyway. Talk to you again at some stage. Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you telling me that anybody anywhere has worn cooler and more elegant clobber than this pair. But yeah, I was a rather obnioux punk and then goth in a small town in the late 80s and wore what the hell I liked. Got into a few punch ups yes, and funnily enough the girls were not as impressed as I'd have liked. Well, just "drat" about that. Ceoil (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen[edit]

Happy Christmas! The kids have opened their presents and it's too early to eat so here I am. I noticed that another editor on your talk page mentioned doing more articles on the Mercian kings. A while back, I created an article on Edith of Mercia. What do you think? She wasn't as fun to write about as our randy friend Charlotte de Sauve, but she needed her own article.--jeanne (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
That's a welcome addition! Anglo-Saxon history is tricky stuff, to say the least. So little source material; and what there is presents endless scholarly difficulties. qp10qp (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia already had an article on Edith Swanneck, so I felt it needed one on Harold's legitimate spouse as well, so I created Edith of Mercia.--jeanne (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn[edit]

You've been doing fantastic work on the Anne Boleyn article, Qp10qp. I think we've resolved the petite Anna Boullan issue. A reference is not in itself a description. The middling stature comment, however, is. Another thing, Margaret of Austria called Anne petite when she was about 12, whereas Sanuto described her as middling when she was 31 years old. I think we can safely assume that Anne was roughly about 5'4 in height. Not exactly a statuesque Mary, Queen of Scots, but certainly not tiny Jane Grey either!--jeanne (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm only tweaking the article, for the time being, trying to phase out the Weir, Bruce, Catholic Encyclopedia type refs. (Surprising the oddities one finds: the Brigden quote was made to look as if it were contemporary. Fortunately, I have Brigden.) qp10qp (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on the Anne Boleyn article. I am glad that you are standing by the decision to keep in more of the information, while describing the source and explaining controversies. If Wikipedians start to "dismiss" sources of information because they disagree, it will cheapen Wikipedia. It definitely will not help it acquire a more positive image as a reference of reliability. Education is not about telling others what to think. Thumbs up to you! GingerSnapsBack (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The article includes pretty much every contemporary and relevant description of Anne. That the descriptions contradict each other, as do the portraits, is a shame; but that's history. As Geoffrey Elton put it in The Practice of History: "Historical research ... consists of an exhaustive, and exhausting, review of everything that may conceivably be germane to a given investigation. Properly observed, this principle provides a manifest and efficient safeguard against the dangers of personal selection of evidence". qp10qp (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The late historian Barbara Tuchman said that inconsistancy, especially in regards to physical descriptions of people, was an irritating feature of the medieval chronicles. For instance, Isabella of France, Queen consort of Edward II, has been described as a brunette in some accounts, and blonde in others. The fact that Anne Boleyn was such a controversial person who provoked various, often extreme reactions from other people does not make it easy for us, in the 21st century to obtain a true and complete picture of the real Anne Boleyn. I agree that we must list all the different descriptions of her in order to present the information that is currently available then the reader can make up his or her own mind as to which descripion is the most accurate portrayal of Anne. It's our duty to do so, otherwise we are being biased by omitting sourced information.--jeanne (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year..[edit]

to you, my vowel-less friend, and belated thanks for your Christmas greetings. I hope 2009 is a great one, and that your computer doesn't explode this year, but that you get lots of time for basset horn playing, drawing and reading. --Slp1 (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wish to add my New Year's greetings as well as praise for the excellent work you are doing on the Anne Boleyn article. It's looking really good now. Wikipedia is rather quiet today, I suppose everyone is just wallowing in sinful sloth and recovering from hangovers.--jeanne (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Coenred of Mercia[edit]

Qp, would you have time to do a copyedit on Coenred of Mercia? It's at FAC and Tony is asking for a third-party copyedit. I asked Ealdgyth, but she said she doesn't think her level of CE is up to it -- I think her prose is fine, but Tony does have high standards. Anyway, if you have some time to spare I would appreciate it. Thanks, and I hope you had a good holiday season. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. By the way, I asked Ealdgyth if she'd like to collaborate on something and we've agreed to have a go at Bede. Are you interested at all? Ealdgyth has put together a list of some sources that we're planning to trawl. Mike Christie (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit bogged down with some other stuff, but I'd be able to give an extremely thorough copyedit and peer review. qp10qp (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
That would be great. It'll probably be a while till we come calling; there's a lot to do. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell[edit]

Austen and Shelley in the twenty-first century! I can't get away! Even when I decide to write about a contemporary book! Have you read this novel? I've read it twice and enjoyed it thoroughly every time (the details!). I was wondering if you would like to to work on the article. A couple of days ago, it was a character list and a section on the film. I've started expanding - I'm basically just throwing things in as I find them in the reviews so it is all rather messy right now. :) Well, it's a little more organized than that, but not much. Awadewit (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is I'm really really bogged down with one article (Hans Holbein the Younger) and going into my third month working on it. It's involving an awful lot of image uploading and descriptions at Commons because I'm trying to make every picture mentioned in the article accessible in a good sourced and described version (a labour of Hercules). I can't see an end to it at the moment, but I must keep focussed.
I did actually start reading JS & Mr N once, but it's not really my thing, as I don't get on with the supernatural or historical novels and literary pastiches. Having said that, please nudge me to review when the time comes and I promise to do it thoroughly. qp10qp (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible project[edit]

I don't know if you know Durova, our image-restorer-extraordinaire, but she is working on making this image into a featured picture (see info). There is an entire set of architectural sketches by Francesco Muttoni at the Library of Congress that she was thinking of restoring. Interestingly, neither Muttoni nor the palace outlined in the sketches has an article yet on the English Wikipedia. I was wondering if you would be interested in researching and writing an article on this person and the palace. I remember that when you were working on Catherine de' Medici's building projects, we were talking about the exciting challenges in writing about architecture from this period and I thought perhaps you might want to undertake a second such challenge. Durova was thinking about working on a DYK to accompany the image she is working on. I thought this might be a project you would be interested in. I hope all is well. Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Durova was a great help on Learned Hand. I'm becoming not much of a colleague I know, but I just can't see beyond my wall of work on Holbein images. I'm interested in Palladio, but not so much in anything after about 1630, where I just don't have the books (strange and lonely little Shelley shelf excepted!). qp10qp (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand. If you feel like drifting over to Shelley, I have just uploaded a draft of Rambles in Germany and Italy, if you would care to work on it. It needs some serious copyediting. :) I keep poking a little at it now and again, but I should try to get some serious work done on it. Awadewit (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
My right arm's out of action at the moment and it's difficult to even get it into a position for it to be comfortable to type with the left, so I'm screamingly frustrated with what I can do for the time being. I'm reading the article, though; very well done–I love anything to do with travel! Once again, it confirms what a kind person Mary was: her writing it for Gatteschi reminds me of her writing books to make money for her father. Generosity is such a rare quality, one that I really admire. Could you say whioh parts are ready for a copyedit?
By the way, not for the article, but there was a sinister postscript to the Gatteschi incident. When I came across the following in the Claire Clairmont biography, it sent a shiver up my spine, as if I was reading a Wilkie Collins novel. In 1878, when Claire was living in Florence, "an old Italian gentleman, rather deaf and with a paunch" insinuated himself into the company of her niece Paula, who found him "clever—amiable and cultivated" (we have this account from Paula): the man made rather a point of the fact that he had an "excellent memory". Claire was horrified when she found out and told Paula never to see him again; friends told Paula (because Claire wouldn't talk about it) that her new friend was capable of extortion (he presumably knew Claire's secrets from her time in Paris). Of course, the villain was Gatteschi (shudders). qp10qp (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm so sorry to hear about your arm! What happened? I have three more sources to look at, but I don't anticipate that they will say much more than I have here. I've had this article in my sandbox for a while and finally I just said "what the heck" and posted it. The part that isn't done yet is the "description of the text". I still have to read "Part III" of Rambles and summarize it. I'm not totally sure I like the organization of the "Themes" section - we may need to work on that. The "Genre" section was much easier to write. (That is a very creepy story.) Awadewit (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ibid[edit]

I'm not adding these templates, for several days, although another user made a botch job of reverting all the additions so I have had to revert him (which looks like I am adding them) and remove them properly. Rich Farmbrough, 17:56 22 January 2009 (UTC).

Style of writing[edit]

May I pay you a compliment on your writing? Qp10qp, you express yourself so beautifully and utilise the English language to it's fullest capacity with your marvelous choice of words, extensive vocabulary, and lucid, vivid descriptions. I love reading your comments on the Anne Boleyn talk page. By the way, I think the matter of her heart being removed and secreted in a remote Suffolk church has been safely disposed of, don't you?--jeanne (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nav box size and location[edit]

Please comment on this debate here. We are attempting establish a consensus on wide, vertical nav boxs. -- Secisek (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Holbein[edit]

Some jpegs go blurry at certain sizes. I tried a few things and enlarged them to 200 and they are very much better. What a poor pale sickly little waif the elder one is. But the younger one barely outlived him.Amandajm (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this seem to have improved the image? Amandajm (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Much better. Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Holbein and the Court of Henry VIII[edit]

I've been boxing books for a move, and in a shelf of art books found a catalogue from a 1978-1979 exhibition at the Queen's Gallery, Buckingham Palace, called "Holbein and the Court of Henry VIII". It has only a few colour plates -- "An Unknown Gentleman", "Sir John Godsalve", "Mary Zouch", and four miniatures: "Lady Audley", "Unknown Lady", "Henry Brandon, 2nd Duke of Suffolk", and "Charles Brandon, 3rd Duke of Suffolk". There are plenty of black and white plates of drawings, if those are of interest. There's a fair amount of text describing the history of the drawings; if you're interested in anything from the book, let me know and I'd be happy to scan or transcribe anything useful. Mike Christie (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Johnbod has that book, which reminds me that I've a reference of his from it to go back in. It is certainly an important source; mind you, the root article is pretty much done now, and, if anything, overstuffed. I'll certainly come to you if I need to check anything—many thanks indeed for the offer. How's Bede coming along? qp10qp (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Bede's limping along. Ealdgyth has done a lot of good content addition; I've done some too, and a little bit of copyediting, but we're still at the stage of dumping text in to sort out later. I am in danger of getting distracted by trying to create a list of all the manuscripts of Historia Ecclesiastica, having found a wonderfully detailed account of every single ms. in the Colgrave/Mynors Bede. I'm also learning a good deal more about the inaccessibility of medieval texts -- I hadn't realized that the majority of Bede's work is only possible to find in 19th century editions, for example, and as far as I can tell much of it has never been printed in translation. But having to get ready for a house move is slowing me down quite a bit. We will definitely take you up on the peer review offer when we're ready for it. It would be nice to have an FA for Bede's feast day in May, but we may not get there in time. Mike Christie (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do, and on the open shelves, so let me know if you need anything from it (but not scans - they'd be rubbish). Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request[edit]

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankenstein[edit]

Laser brain and I have started the monster. You in? Awadewit (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm up to my neck trying to provide a decent Holbein coverage on Commons. An endless and thankless task, but I'm obsessed and can't look up. Best of luck with that frightful topic! qp10qp (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Jane Small[edit]

Here you go: File:Hans Holbein Jane Small.jpg - PKM (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! You're a diamond. What a lovely picture that is. I wonder why she's holding a leaf. qp10qp (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a little sprig of something I think -presumably not Lelandii, which is what it looks like. "rue for remembrance" (Shaks, Richard III) perhaps - ruta graveolens [2]. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought maybe heather or lavender. I should think it means something precise, given the dense plant folklore then. (Mind you, this piece has been roughed up by later hands, so I suspect the sprig is adulterated Holbein. And the index ring. The real deal detail is on the collar and cuffs, though, in my opinion.) qp10qp (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I was just about grab my Foister to expand the caption, but I see you beat me to it, and quite thoroughly too, so thank you. - PKM (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The V&A's article Jane Small could use some work; it seems to have been written by someone not terribly familiar with the art of miniature painting. There's more accurate information in qp10qp's description in the Commons... - PKM (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, will do some time. I'm not really in favour of articles on paintings (and people) like this, where little is known. I don't think it would be much searched. The best place for the limited information is with the images, I think. However, now that the article is here, it deserves to be improved. qp10qp (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you adding a section on Holbein as a printmaker - an aspect of his career that tends to be overlooked nowadays? I have Bartrum,Giulia; German Renaissance Prints, 1490-1550; British Museum Press, 1995, ISBN 071412604, which has a good coverage I could boil down. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's definitely needed. I have a brilliant book The Basel Years that covers the Swiss end of it excellently. First I need to upload various images to Commons (have already started), which will take some time. Then maybe a "main" article on it. Maybe a " list" page. Eventually a summary section in the home article. Finding the time is the difficulty. By all means start the section (it might best go between "Religious works" and "Designs"?). qp10qp (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
PKM, Jane Small now improved. qp10qp (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks terrific! - PKM (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Jakob Faber[edit]

Any help here welcome! Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

His name does crop up. I'll see what I've got. qp10qp (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's something on Herman - [3] Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that's wonderful. I'd love to be able to walk round Basel in about 1520, courtesy of Dr Who. The streets must have been crammed with printing houses, as well as being lined with buildings with colourful murals all over them. qp10qp (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Do you know if the design of Henry VIII in council is still attributed to Holbein, & if so to what date? I had a hell of a job finding it until the web led me to the kids' The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy! According to Parshall, Holbein was "at one point working for Faber" (as was HL), but in 1520-23 both were surely working for Froben? Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't find out anything about it, apart from hits to Hind and to the wishy washy drawing in the British Museum. If it is after Holbein, it must surely be after one of the replicas that were churned out. I suspect Holbein didn't meet Henry till the 1530s, long after he'd finished working with Faber, and I get the impression he probably only had one sitting with Henry, in 1536. I wouldn't be surprised if this came from after Holbein died in 1543, when a lot of Henry images were being disseminated. I don't sense that Holbein worked exclusively for any one publisher. He did work for Froben but he also worked for Adam Petri, whom he did the Luther bible for in 1523. Probably he was paid by Lützelburger for the Dance of Death work, etc.; but my guess is that he and Faber, being quite young, were both in the pay of their publishers. Probably it was all a bit ad hoc, as it is today. qp10qp (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
One wouldn't exactly need a sitting to produce it, I think, just a peep round the door for what seems to have been a grand state occasion, and Holbein may have had contact with Faber, obviously a keen networker, during his return to Basel. It's pretty crude, but Faber was not really the guy for large scenes with figures. But I'll qualify the attribution. Btw, I can only see the first page of this: Dodgson, Campbell, The Engravers on Metal after Holbein, The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 83, No. 488, Holbein Number (Nov., 1943), pp. 282-285. JSTOR - can you access the other two? Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm in the same boat as you on that, unfortunately. What I meant about the sitting is that it seems to be the mantra these days that the only two images of Henry fully attributable to Holbein are the Madrid one and the Whitehall cartoon (the adulterated barber surgeons cartoon can probably be added, but it wasn't from a new sitting). If the print by Faber was done directly with Holbein, I think it would be made more of than seems to be the case. qp10qp (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I expect you're right - thanks for the lovely pic - I tried & failed to find one. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)