User talk:Turgidson/Sandbox

To do

What I plan to do next:

~~Finish sourcing from his discourse (which gets pretty boring, especially since MK did not follow any particular chronological order).~~ Dates stemming from it should be double-checked (they might be OS). - added later: they are definitely OS...
~~Add citations from Giurescu's history of Bucharest (it comes handy for a lot of events which are just mentioned in passing at the moment, but, being published in 1964, has its obvious flaws)~~
~~Add citations from Vianu (Scriitori români), which has plenty of material on interesting aspects of his literature~~
~~Add citations from Boia (I have the whole book at home, and I'll check it against the google books index)~~
~~Look into the rumor that he and Cuza were at odds after Cuza's coup, and see just how involved MK was in the February dethronement~~
Find out what it is he died of
~~Perhaps add citations from Călinescu~~
See what else is interesting here
Add more pics
~~Create a commonscat to link here~~ (turns out there already was one)
Add a bit of info about his status as a Freemason from a third-party source (for now, there's this one and this one ~~I'm thinking of including it in the "Views" section, since there are no definite dates.~~ (See also the photo of his apron at the Memorial House site)
More on his family from [1] (probably worth a sentence or two)

I think that, between Vianu, Boia, Ibrăileanu, Zarifopol, and (likely) Călinescu, we will have a detailed account of everything he ever did in Romanian culture.

Wow! That sounds like a lot! It's looking very good as is already. I'll see what I can do. I don't have access to many sources off the shelf, but I could go check out books from the Library if need be. BTW, is there a drawing or something of younger MK? He always looks 60-70. And, in the Theodor Aman painting (that's a good one!), can one tell who's who -- in particular, where is MK? Turgidson 00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and good points. I found this link. Looking over it, it seems like we have already covered the info it provides, from the same source it uses, while extra details are, IMO, bordering on irrelevant. However, check out the pictures, especially the first one: though it looks rather low-resolution, I could capture it and then crop it to llok more reasonable (that is, if you think it is good enough). Dahn 12:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed one: well, the Aman painting was already on commons. The thing is that it most likely shows the Wallachian Assembly (couldn't find any particular detail about it), so MK is probably not in it. Then again, he may be one of the guys in the back row, but the pic is just to pixellated for me to even speculate about it. Dahn 12:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a request from you guys, if you'll allow me: when you use google books, please make sure that you use ones where ample coverage of MK is made available, not ones where one of, say, 50 pages about MK is made available and the other not. I recommend we use either sources that make ample mention of him and we can use [almost] entirely, or books that mention him a couple of times. It would look very weird and unprofessional otherwise (not to mention that it would carry the risk of relevant info being butchered because its premises or conclusion were on pages not available for viewing). I have made this point before, and, if I recall, you agreed with me - so I do apologize if I'm being redundant. Cheers. Dahn 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's news to me -- I haven't seen that point made before -- but it does make sense, so sure. Turgidson 00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was what I was pointing to when we had a short conversation about Anittas using one visible page from Chehabi and one more from Chirot to reference two words in the Ceauşescu article (he was not really splitting a point, but he was doing injustice to both authors). Anyhow, glad we agree. Dahn 12:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and: I have no particular opinion on the two hidden comments made by Turgidson, but I could suggest something for the one about Eternitatea. I propose to keep the phrase as is, erase the hidden comment, and simply move the reference from Gorovei to the end of the paragraph, since him not mentioning Eternitatea is not an indication of MK not being buried there (while the Ziarul reference does seem a bit trivial; and just how many cemeteries could they possibly have down there?). Dahn 17:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Ziarul ref sounds rather trivial for this article (that was my impression, too), so good, let's leave it out. But, for the sake of completeness, how about starting a page on that cemetery, which sounds like the Iaşi equivalent of Bellu? The Ziua ref could be used there. While at it, is it known why did MK undergo surgery in Paris, just before he died? Someone may ask at some point what the cause of death was (recall, there was such a question for another politician, I forget now who), so may as well provide the answer, if available. Turgidson 00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot remember if I redlinked to Eternitatea in other articles, but I do remember wanting to, so we fully agree. Unfortunately, Gorovei did not tell us anything about what surgery, but I will look into it (added to the list at the top). Dahn 12:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw: the IMDB link for Nicolaescu's film does not show the entire cast, but, having had the displeasure of seeing the movie (twice), I'm 90% sure that MK was portrayed by Constantin. Dahn 17:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? I have no idea -- never saw the movie. But looks like I didn't miss much... Turgidson 00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is horrible. One of the most horrible among Sergiu's mostly horrible films. Dahn 12:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No edit conflicts, though evidently we were updating the page at the same time. I'm not quite sure how the software works, but perhaps if one makes "localized" changes (ie, to a section), and someone else makes an edit to another section at more-or-less the same time, then there is no conflict? By the way, I could not find an ISBN or OCLC number for the specific edition of "Istoria literaturii române. Compendiu" that you list (Editura Minerva, 1983). The closest I could find were OCLC 1069820 (Editura pentru Literatură, 1968) and ISBN 5362010336 (Universitas, 1993). Everything else gibes in terms of ISBN/OCLC, except for the little problem with the United Roumania publisher, which I don't think is important (I found a web page which lists Ayer as publisher, with the same ISBN I listed, which in turn points to the Arno Press edition!) Turgidson 00:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about how we get conflcts. In the past, my edits to a section have been: a) not saved (getting an "another user edited..." message), even when the other user was not editing the same section, or b) erasing other in-between edits, even when the other user was editing the entire text. I couldn't make anything out of this. In fact, my position in respect to them is very much the same as that of primitive man in front of thunder.

For some reason, Călinescu does not seem to have an ISBN (I can tell you that it was issued for print on 06.07.83, that it has 25.24 coli ed. and 30.5 coli tipar, that its was commissioned for print with nr.30 156 at Casa Scânteii - but no ISBN). I agree on the Ayer/Arno issue - we probably checked it from the same source (if it was good enough for them, it should be good enough for us). Dahn 01:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On pictures

Hey, good find with that pic of young Mr. K.! How about his dad -- he looks threatening, with those dark, brooding eyes! Mom looks quite the princess, though. :) Turgidson 22:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The thing is, though, that it's getting quite crammed in there. Instead of gaping the text, I was considering adding those pictures to the article on the family. What do you think? Dahn 23:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A pic of one or even both parents would be a nice touch in the family section. One possibility would be to alternate the pics right/left -- that staggered effect is a bit easier on the eye (I think), and allows for cramming more pics, somehow. But it's a matter of taste -- see what you think. BTW, I took the liberty to "steal" the pic of Ghica and Alecsandri, and added it to the latter's page; hope you don't mind. Also, some of the info from here could be ported to Alecsandri -- I took a tiny bit, but much remains to be added there. Turgidson 23:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the large infobox (which, IMO, should not be shortened): for users with different settings, the infobox can run into the photo space and create gaps in the text (placing to the left also leads to the text turning into a tiny column). That is why I added the new pic a bit lower than where it should go in the text. Note that there is no family section - we have one on descendants, and we have a redlink to the article. But there is a way to avoid that, which, although rather unorthodox, can fit all three: a centered gallery right at the end of the first section. Sounds good?

By all means, don't let my focus on one article prevent you from seeping info out of it. I avoided the Alecsandri one, because, the last time I checked (a long time ago), it looked awful, and because there is a lot of work to be done there as well, with potential for some controversy (Alecsandri was, after all, a notorious antisemite with a Jewish grandfather...). I even have a picture of his family scanned for future expansion, but I'm taking my time with it :). Dahn 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ilie Kogălniceanu
Catinca Stavilla
Mihail Kogălniceanu in his youth

I did not know about those subtleties about creating gaps in the text, good to know. Gallery in the middle of an article looks like a novel idea -- sounds like a good solution. Perhaps centered (and with less white space under pics)? I don't know anything about Alecsandri's politics, just a bit about his poems, some of which are delightful. The article insists more on his romantic escapades, but the tone is kind of funny ("The end of 1855 saw Alecsandri pursuing a new romantic interest, in spite of promises made to Elena Negri on her deathbed... The romance moved at a lightning pace"). Could use a rewrite... Turgidson 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Unfortunately, it seems one cannot edit the gallery template... I tried to use div script, but it doesn't work.

Yep, the whole article (except what you added to it yesterday) should be combed and shampooed. Dahn 11:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the article to mainspace

Looks great! Yep, sounds like the time is ripe to move the article to mainspace. But what happens to all the history? You did 99% of the work, it should show. If only one edit shows in mainspace (I never tried this, so I'm not sure), it should be you who should "sign" it, right? So please do go ahead, unless you really need me. And, one more question: what happens to this sandbox after the move is completed --do I erase it? Turgidson 21:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then, I will (though the history will be preserved here, in case it will come up). You'll have this sandbox forever, and you can sandbox other articles here, in case you want to (it's is up to you - in case you do want to, I believe you'll find it easier for scrolling down if you erase the current text). Dahn 21:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]