User talk:Stbalbach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
I will usually respond on this page to comments, unless you ask that I respond on your talk page.

Contents

[edit] Dark Ages delete

I am at a loss to understand why you deleted the post

"The term Dark Ages has been used in other areas. For example some archaeologists use it to describe the Gutian period at the collapse of the Akkadian Empire; the First Intermediary Period and Second Intermediary Period of Ancient Egypt; the late Bronze Age collapse and associated Greek dark ages, the collapse of Mayan civilisation, the collapse of the Angkor civilisation after Jayavarman VII, and what happened on Easter Island."

Can you explain?

Regards John D. Croft 18:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request Help

I would really like your help in updated the entry for the New7Wonders project. I made several changes last week and was disappointed to see that all of it had been reverted. I am impressed with your history of postings on Wiki and fully admit I am a newbie at this. That said, there are MANY details that need to be updated about the project and its scope. The language is a little misleading in several places also. I fully admit that I may not have properly linked and refed everything, but was disappointed to see that it had all been reverted. Please, especially that you have a history of editing this section, give me a hand as I update the text and clarify some of the details. I work on the web site (new7wonders.com) and have access to the project details. Thanks, AS

[edit] Award

The Black Cross of St. Declan
You, Stbalbach, are awarded the Black Cross of St. Declan for going medieval on our asses with your excellent work on articles of Dark Ages and Middle Ages interest. De réir a chéile a thógtar na caisleáin - "It takes time to build castles" Ciarán of Clonmacnoise 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Medieval clothing

Hi, I see you started this (if I got the name right). I have added a few stubby existing articles from Cat: History of clothing (Europe) or whatever its called, but am not sure if I should leave the Cat: Medieval history some some have, or replace it with this? Johnbod 15:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. Medieval historians usually call it "costume", but it looks like there is an existing naming structure for Wikipedia (if a bit verbose in wording). -- Stbalbach 14:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Medieval costume

Johnbod, I would suggest that Category:Medieval costume should be changed to Category:History of clothing (Medieval Europe) and made a subcat of the existing Category:History of clothing (Europe) for consistency. A redirect from Medieval costume would be good. I can make the changes but wanted to be sure you're okay with it before I do. - PKM 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask Stbalbach, who "does" the medieval history side - I think at the moment this is a history sub-cat, but i'm not good on categories. Obviously i think it ashould be in both fields. I'm now working on Byzantine dress - that seems rather under-categorised too. I'll copy these to his page. Johnbod 18:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! Actually just adding Medieval costume as a subcat of Category:History of clothing (Europe) would probably do the trick and be easier for users to understand. The barebones history of costume structure is overly pedantic as the result of trying to mitigate an edit war (see Talk:History of Western fashion for the gory details). I made most of it up. I don't like it on sober reflection.

I have sent you an email.

Want to start a Project on History of clothing? - PKM 18:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] header

Sure thing. I think I'm basicly done now anyway. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Kilimanjaro alternate name sources as "hill of the njaro"

I disagree with your edits of my additions to "Kilimanjaro" that spoken word is not an adequate citation. These people do NOT have a written history, and by interviewing them WE create the reference. However I can't keep challenging you, since you obviously have way more time on wiki than I could have. I invite you to reply to my @yahoo address, same name. ThanksPabobfin 06:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability - there are only about 5 or 6 actual "policies" on Wikipedia, everything else is a "guideline" open for interpretation. "Verifiability" is one of those core policies. If what you say it true, it should be no trouble finding a documented source somewhere, so that other people can Verify it. Information received "word of mouth" fails the Verifiability test. Nothing personal against your or the people just one of the core Wikipedia policies. -- Stbalbach 14:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woodchuck, Internet Oracle and Nethack

Hi Stbalbach, I notice that you removed my contribution to the woodchuck article which read thusly:

Because of the aforementioned tongue twister, the woodchuck is also widely known as the arch-nemesis of the fictional, collective-minded Internet Oracle. This fact is alluded to in the computer game NetHack where traveling on the Oracle Level while hallucinating may cause the following in-game message to appear:
You hear someone say, "No more woodchucks!"

I cannot but concur that the part about NetHack violates WP:Notability, but I am not so sure about the Internet Oracle part (I definitely could cite sources, that one could definitely argue as lacking WP:Verifiability). Can we find a middle ground (hog)? DomQ 13:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thousand million v. billion

I reverted the change, because, believe it or not, 'billion' in Britain refers to a million million, or what Americans call a 'trillion'. See Billion (disambiguation). Those crazy Brits ruined the language again... Ral315 (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know that. BTW are we sure that the 20,000 number is sustained, or represents a peak load? Normally hits are not given "on average per second" (which takes some effort to figure out), but rather "peak loads"(which can be seen on a graph) - but it may be in this case. -- Stbalbach 14:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I got the number from the developers; I'm not sure to what they were referring. Ral315 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic expand template

The next formal step is to file a report on WP:DRV. Once you have done so, I would be happy to comment. I am generally very open to reversing my decisions, especially when the result is controversial. Let me know once the listing has been made and I would be happy to contribute my views. Good luck and best regards, RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to have helped. It's too bad there was such strident opposition from users who cannot see the problem. But I think this is the final curtain. Thanks for making the DRV request. I hadn't been paying attention after commenting on the first TfD, and I overlooked the fact that it had been kept until I checked several days later. RyanGerbil10 also helped me out by pointing out the policies that it violated (NPOV and RS), on my talk page, and I was able to incorporate that into my argument. — coelacan talk — 19:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. See this? [[1]] The blue list is a project list of articles not cleared. I'm not sure how I feel about this; I certainly hoped the matter was finished! btw I will clearly have to split poor old Castelseprio. Johnbod 00:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: you accidentally deleted one of my comments.[2] No worries. I'm not sure what happened, but if you're by chance using an external editing program, you might want to double check that it's not doing this elsewhere. Peace, — coelacan talk — 07:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not using an external editor - I didn't see your comment when I posted either even though it was an hour before. It's a good suggestion. No idea what happened. -- Stbalbach 14:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sutton Hoo

Hi Stephen, I see you have a current interest in the Sutton Hoo article. Glad you just restored the Britannia link. I am planning a bit of an overhaul on this article (for which I think I am qualified) and thought I'd mention it in case you wondered what was happening. It may take a little while and might look a bit unbalanced at times while I'm doing it as I shall be putting in but not necessarily taking out all on the same save, since it is bound to be a fairly long article (and is already). I'd welcome your comments (on my userpage discussion, for ease of finding, if possible) as it progresses. I've read some of the content on the site page discussion so I can see what the previous arguments have been about. Cheers, Dr Steven Plunkett 17:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, look forward to it. The edits you made so far are excellent. -- Stbalbach 14:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've written all I want now. Now exchanging thoughts with GDallimore on the discussion page re referencing, and would value your input on this or the text itself. Dr Steven Plunkett 07:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, my references seem to have run away with themselves! It needs a couple more in the Beowulf section, perhaps fewer (and trimming) in the burial description? Any suggestions, or glaring gaps in references? Its nearly at full wiki length now. Maybe when Raedwald of East Anglia is revised some of that part can go out. (67MB). Best, Dr Steven Plunkett 05:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Lots of references are good. I have not done a careful reading top to bottom as your still refining. I'm trying to find free images to better illustrate - a map of the mounds would be great but finding a free version has been hard (still looking). -- Stbalbach 05:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Good work! I think I've about done my bit now. What we really want is some free images of the treasure (specially goldwork, big hanging bowl, sceptre etc) but that will be harder (as all the official ones are BM copyright). I might be able to do something with the Ipswich Museum replicas. The article is already 64 MB long before you put the pic in btw: Wikipedia:Article length ########## 32 I see but allows for more...! But as I am using Firefox Mozilla toolbar and Google (supposedly weak) and am having no trouble loading this may be less of a problem now from the technical pov. Readability is another matter. Dr Steven Plunkett 06:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I think I have a place to get some free images, for some of the items, will look into it tomorrow. Don't worry about article length, no one pays attention to it if the article is good, and if this becomes featured it will be expected to be long. -- Stbalbach 06:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
PS if we put others in, possibly the Swedish helmet now at the bottom of the page ought to be relocated to its relevant article (Vendel or Valsgarde)? Dr Steven Plunkett 06:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I just contacted about a dozen people on Flickr.com who have Sutton Hoo pictures - it will take a week or so to hear back from them; hopefully some will agree to release the images and then we will have a stock to choose from it should be apparent where to put things and then focus on obtaining any missing important images. -- Stbalbach 16:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Well done! the shield, purse and shoulder-clasp pictures are specially good. I've posted a picture comment on the site discussion. Dr Steven Plunkett 06:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King Kong

Hi. The Making Of King Kong is an incredible book because it was co-written in the late 60's (although it wasn't completed and published until the mid 70's) by Orville Goldner who actually worked on King Kong.

  • He describes the Elasmosaur as being designed as more slender then the ones known to science and its swimming limbs are less prominent.
  • The Stegosaur is a combination of two species the Stegosaurus ungulatus and the relatively unknown Kentrosaurus.
  • The great sauropod Brontosaurus or more correctly Apatosaurus.
  • The three horned Triceratops (none of which appears in the release version).
  • The Arsinoitherium another casualty of the cutting room.
  • The giant spiders and insects of the gorge were wholly imaginary although he said that a large reptile in the gorge was loosely based on the Cynognathus.
  • The huge serpent that appeared in one scene and was later cut out of the film had its living prototype in Egypt. This was a giant snake that menaces Fay Wray at the foot of the tree. It was cut but you can see Fay's reactions to it below her. Look at Fay's reactions just before the T-Rex comes into the clearing.
  • The curious reptile that menaces Driscoll during the gorge episode is largely imaginary. Although he said it was loosely based on the features of the Desmatosuchus.
  • The giant vulture, Teratornis, and the flying reptiles, Rhamphorynchus are authentic. The vulture is seen eating the dead T-Rex and the Rhamps are seen flying around Kongs cave and one flies away as Kong put Fay Wray in the tree.
  • He also describes the Pteranodon and the T-Rex. He explains in detail about the problem with the number of fingers, but that it was a T-Rex. (Although Cooper tended to call it an Allosaurus).

Hope that helps.

  • Edit: I saw the book you citied on the King Kong (1933) page. That book is about PJ's King Kong film. The Making Of King Kong book I'm talking about was written by Orville Goldner and George Turner and was published in 1975. It was later expanded by Turner's son and re-released I believe in 2002 as The Spawn Of Skull Island.

Giantdevilfish 05:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's added to the article. -- Stbalbach 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Newton

Hello. We may need to change few things, according to imdb http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0628579/filmoseries#tt0047705 Newton made 26 episodes, he just finished before he died. Now, on amazon and everywhere else i found there are 13 shows,volume 1 and 2, like article says, but the link above, 26 shows, but ???, meaning something is very screwy. But that is 8 shows, i was only able to find 13. Another thing we should add, when he died he left his 5 year old child, there was a huge custody battle over him, finally he was left in care of his aunt and his half sister, of course, i do not have link for that, but i found some info via old newspapers, i can not copy pdf file here.Are you a fan? What's the code to create archives and a rectangle, so my talk appears in a square?

What's your email? I can not show evidence with historical newspaper file, may be I can send it to you and you post it. -Boxingwear

[edit] Your reversion of links to teach12.com

Hello. I noticed that you have reverted my removal of commercial link spam in several articles. As you may know, teach12.com is a retail sales website. Such links are disallowed by WP:External links, which prohibits "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." May I ask why you have restored them all? Thank you for your time. -- Satori Son 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you removed not only the links but everything else including any mention the authors have published works through TTC. Teaching Company is more than just a retail site they are publishers of university courses and their pages contain valuable information. In one case you even removed links that were being used as footnoted citations. -- Stbalbach 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Sutton Hoo pics

Sorry, I live in Bristol which is too far from Sutton Hoo for me to visit it (or the British museum). Shame!! - Adrian Pingstone 21:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help in edit war

Can I ask your help in the poll to dirime this edit war at Castelseprio (see talk:Castelseprio)? I've stumbled in somebody with awful style layout, nad probably one of those guys getting stuck like children in their version of any article. Bye and good work. --Attilios 09:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frankenstein

Any particular reason why you reverted my edit to the Frankenstein page? I've put a query up on the discussion page for that article, so it would be good if you could respond there. Obviously if there's a good reason then fair enough, but I can't see one personally. Phil PH 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you've put it back -- thanks. Phil PH 19:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I left an edit note, your edit got caught up in a mass revert of a bunch of vandalism. -- Stbalbach 19:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

for your positive response on the Stern review talk page :D . Regards Sean Heron 18:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

There are two redlinks on your userpage. Just thought you might like to know. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ

[edit] Template for deletion

Hi. The template in question has now been deleted but earlier this month its creator also added a link as part of the main Project:Catholicism template inviting editors to use the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia [3] (also see the discussion - or lack of it - on the template's talk page). Presumably the result of the deletion debate also covers this addition (obviously, I'm not referring to the Project:Catholicism template as a whole). We shouldn't need another debate to remove it but I wonder if there is a quick way of getting rid of these additions - or do we have to remove them one by one? Cheers. --Folantin 14:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow - that was quick! Meanwhile, I happened upon a rather neat illustration of just why these templates and maybe categories are undesireable here (2nd item) Talk:Agnolo_di_Cosimo Johnbod 14:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is really weird. Category:Articles that could be expanded from the Catholic Encyclopedia seems to still be incorporating articles that contain a link to the deleted {{HistSource}}. I went into Talk:Fatalism and deleted the redlinked HistSource template and the talk page immediately fell out of the category. What the heck? — coelacan talk — 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be a delay in Wikipedia's cache. I've noticed similar oddities lately. Give it a couple hours. -- Stbalbach 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the entire category be deleted per the debates we've already held? --Folantin 10:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably, the article was created for the Catholic-link template, which was deleted. I don't think anyone was aware of the category. -- Stbalbach 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. If it doesn't disappear of its own accord, maybe I should put it up at CfD. It should be speedily deleted per the previous debates we've held. --Folantin 15:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Stbalbach 15:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about HistSource; I see that it has been speedied already. I hope we don't see any more of these things. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:MyWikiBiz

Pardon me for asking, but is there a reason you have a link to an indefinitely banned spammer's business (centiare.com) on your user page? --Calton | Talk 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I added it as a reminder to myself. It's not a problem in terms of linkspam since external links on Wikipedia are not picked up by search engines for ranking purposes. -- Stbalbach 04:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sassy555

You're welcome. Another admin actually beat me to the block, but didn't add the notices, so I filled in. I'm guessing we're dealing with a kid here. Never responding to a single talk-page message is odd, as if the user didn't understand what s/he was doing. Typical vandals usually like to start arguments with people who warn them, but this user's singular focus was really unusual, at least in my experiences. Anyway, good work, and please let me know if it resumes. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree it was very unusual, and persistent over many months, even adding red-linked images that had already been deleted, like a robot (but that would be too weird - incompetent more likely). -- Stbalbach 15:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uh-oh!

Dear Stbalbach: Your edits, as in this diff, have shown traces of a sense of humor, which is disruptive of the serious, somber, and relentlessly grim mood that so many other good people in all walks of life have exhibited just before burning out entirely. Be advised that if you continue on this present course, you face the risk of enjoying yourself while at work on this project, and you may even have a similar effect on other editors. Please consider very carefully whether you want to be responsible for such consequences. Thank you. -- Atlant 16:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] pdfs of books

They are being deleted because they were almost all put in a a linkspam campaign by the site owner and in general were reckoned duplicates of gothenberg texts. If you are active on an article and think they are useful you are more than welcome to put them back there. --BozMo talk 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

seeWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Special:Contributions.2FRiapress_adds_links_to_riapress.com. Maybe I was a bit hasty. --BozMo talk 19:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I apologise, but given the problem we have with spam 75 links which land on WP like this: [4] is pretty much sitting in a field mooing so if I mistook for a cow that's life. Also about 25% of them were non sequitor drop in spam... --BozMo talk 19:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The site owner point though is contentious. Funnily I always argue that EVERY change to WP should only be done if it definitely improves it but I always get voted down in favour of WP:COI link campaigns should be reverted on sight. --BozMo talk 19:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Gutenberg

Gutenberg does not produce PDF's - PD books can come in a number of formats: plain text, HTML markup, text->PDF, scan->PDF, audio. At least one example from each is acceptable as people re-use the material in different ways depending on their intended purpose and preferences. Just because there is a Gutenberg version is not reason alone to remove other versions. -- Stbalbach 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository of links. When two links are redundant to each other then we should prune them down to the most relevant & trusted. I can see where a visual and a audio copy would both be acceptable, but two visual formats would be redundant. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
nah, text and PDF are different, used in very different ways for different reasons. It is not for you to decide what format readers should or should not have access to. The "repository of links" argument only makes sense in the context of having multiple links to the same type of format (ie, multiple HTML versions, which is a common problem).
For example, many people are using things like the Sony Reader these days which supports PDF. There is no reason not to include a PDF version of a text if it is available. And BTW just doing a straight conversion from text to PDF is not what I mean, it requires skills and time to create a good looking PDF (book quality), it is an original work in its own right. Comparing text to PDF is apples and pears. -- Stbalbach 01:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The Sony Reader supports TXT files. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
..and it supports PDF files. Have you ever tried to read a text file on a Sony Reader? I have they look awful. PDF has fonts and formating it is much preferred. -- Stbalbach 14:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Permissions email

Stbalbach, the email read:

We have received the permission for the image(s) and have made the necessary modifications to the Image page(s).

Thank you for providing this to us, and for your contribution to the Wikimedia Commons.

Yours sincerely, Bastiq▼e demandez 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] histsource again

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 8#Template:HistSource. Anyway, was there any growing desire to take Category:Articles that could be expanded from the Catholic Encyclopedia to WP:CFD? I've seen no indication that it's intended to be used in any manner other than that which has already resulted in previous consensus deletions. — coelacan talk — 05:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed I think we need to CfD it. -- Stbalbach 15:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Seen this? There's a possibility it might just be acceptable but check out the "debate" on the talk page. --Folantin 08:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Good move. Thanks. I have it watchlisted just in case yet another debate arises on the talk page there. --Folantin 14:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Castelseprio

I would signal you the behaviour of user:Johnbod at Castelseprio: another personal attempt to put back the page at his will to a pre-Edir War version, when a large consensus had been reached to keep things as they were. He did an alleged splitting, but not the one discussed there. Bye and thanks --Attilios 01:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calling me an "experimenter"

Excuse me, sir. You left me a message on my "Talk" page that I was experimenting with Wikipedia. I was not. There was a factual error on the "Oliver Twist" page. Brownlow DID NOT induce Monks to give half of his inheritance to Oliver... Oliver gave half of his inheritance to MONKS.

Quote from Oliver Twist: "It appeared, on full and careful investigation, that if the wreck of property remaining in the custody of Monks (which had never prospered either in his hands or in those of his mother) were equally divided between himself and Oliver, it would yield, to each, little more than three thousand pounds. By the provisions of his father's will, Oliver would have been entitled to the whole; but Mr. Brownlow, unwilling to deprive the elder son of the opportunity of retrieving his former vices and pursuing an honest career, proposed this mode of distribution, to which his young charge joyfully acceded."

Please do not accuse me of experimenting with Wikipedia unless you are absolutely sure that I was placing a factual error in Wikipedia. Please respond to me on my Talk page.

VBKid

[edit] Justinian I

I'm going to revert the section life to the previous version, the way it was before it got touched by the sockpuppets (which includes the edits you just restored). I'm doing this in order to enforce WP:BAN, i.e. reverting a banned editor's contributions regardless of their quality. This aims to convince some banned, disruptive users that they're not welcome in wikipedia anymore. So it has nothing to do with the section's content. Miskin 15:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do that, the content is fine. Consider it me who is adding it. If you have any concerns about the content I have added please work it out on the talk page. -- Stbalbach 15:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Or consider it to be mine, I will take responsibility for it. I have been making some tiny edits - my very first - and I have been rewriting it, but not posting it yet, since I want to make sure I don't accidentally screw up. I honestly do not now what to do anymore. On the page Miskin referred to, about enforcing bans, it says it's ok to revert work by sock puppets, as long as you take the responsibility for it. It took a long time reading up on it. Miskin, don't waste your time - I was about to edit the whole thing anyway. La Belle Aude 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twain

Thank you for your help. I am a relatively unadvanced user, and appreciate your moderating my changes. All of the remarks regarding Twain that I posted can be supported from the actual text of the book. If I need to provide quotes (chapter and verse - which I can) in order to sustain the comments, I will.

Well, if you can cite someone else, a third party, who has been published, then we can use that. At Wikipedia we report on what other people say, not make original arguments (or in this case a counter-argument). I'm sure there must be critics of this author that can be cited? -- Stbalbach 21:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huns

Hi, i'm under probation, could you fix the category links (red ones) of the Huns article? Regards. E104421 22:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Appreciated. Thanx. E104421 02:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Divine Comedy as a Renaissance work

Hi! I think you know that I have been as active as anyone in protecting this article from casual and anonymous edits. But I thought that the recent anonymous editor's point about the lead's reference to the Commedia as a work "of the Renaissance" was pretty justified, as I stated in my edit summary. The designation would, indeed, not be universally or even very widely accepted, and the lead of an article is not the place to drop such a claim. I'm all for a section "Dante on the cusp of the Renaissance" vel sim. (with names and references), but that is what is needed in my opinion. Feel free to move this discussion to the talk page; I would have put it there, but I'm bringing it up here because I realized in practice that a comment on the talk page would have been meant only for the purpose of reaching agreement with you, and I didn't want to create the appearance of calling you out. Wareh 19:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi sorry didn't mean to just over-write you there, I didn't read the previous edit comments. Well, this sentence: "the last great work of literature of the Middle Ages and the first great work of the Renaissance", puts an emphasis on the work as being transitional between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance - it doesn't call it the "greatest work of the middle ages", which is certainly debatable, the period covers a 1000 years and seems kind of silly to say there was a single greatest work. I think emphasizing the work as transitional between two periods is a better way to go and more in line with how critics approach it. -- Stbalbach 14:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right that "greatest" is probably not the best choice (though it would be easy to line up a long list of good sources agreeing on it). But "last great" is worse, because it's simply false (Chaucer's Canterbury Tales are great and Medieval and later). I'll change it to "one of the greatest," which should work better. As to the "Renaissance" claim, I'll leave it in for now, but I think the anonymous editor had a point there; it's a common enough claim, but it's dubious and would be more satisfactory if explained with references, at least so that the reader knows how much a stretch it is in some ways. Wareh 23:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question about Twinkle..

Hey, I just noticed "Twinkle" and I created my own /monobook.js file and I wanted to know how exactly to use it since you seem to use it also. Tell me, after I add the first bit of code what do I do next? Here's my monobook.js page. Can you tell me what i'm missing to make it work? User:Wikidudeman/monobook.jsWikidudeman (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal style

Hi, This is given a "main article" link in Migration period art yet, though old, it is a very poor stub & much less full than the section in Migration period art. Either the stub should be zapped, or the fuller text copied over - or some sort of swop even. What do you think? Johnbod 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to keep what is currently in the Migration period art article since it forms a full article. Copying the whole section to the Animal Style article is fine also - it would be a dup - over time the AS article may be more fully "fleshed out", then it may be possible to go back to the Migration Period article and re-write it so it matches up with the main article. Unless you want to re-write the AS article from scratch which is fine too. -- Stbalbach 03:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No - it's not an area I know much about. I'll copy it over, and delete the Main article tag for the moment, as it won't give the reader any extra Johnbod 03:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I might not be able to help expanding that Anglo-Saxon art though. Oh dear. Johnbod 04:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two finger salute

"I can't tell what your up to with this article, creating a section title called "LiV" (what is that, a secret code?) and an edit comment of "1 + 2 = OR :)" it doesn't look like a good faith effort to improve the article. Just because you found some old pictures of people with two fingers raised doesn't mean they are giving a "two-finger salute" as it is described in the article. If you can find a source which says these pictures are of a two-finger salute then please do so. -- Stbalbach 13:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC) "

I like to explain you, that "OR" - you asking is not a secret code but I wanted 'it' to mean WP:OR. I just do not believe, that you believe, that counting is OR. Do You? I believe research may start from counting, lets say, above 10k but not counting below 5 or 4. I understand you worry that the two fingers may mean something secret, but I hope, I did not reveal any secrets .... | /
Nasz 02:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

For the first time in well, over a month, we've put something together. We've been a little busy / the tubes of the internets crashed so apologies on the delay. We're finally back to normal, we hope....

Anyways, all is good now, here's the new episodes!


As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 03:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

[edit] Category:Western art

"Western art" is an extremely broad catch - any category of that name should be composed almost entirely of sub-categories. For example I see you are adding very specific articles such as Ottonian art, which is already a sub-cat of Medieval art, which should then be a sub-cat of western art. -- Stbalbach 05:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm work my way to that. Thanks for keeping an eye on things! [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 05:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC) (please respond on my talk page)

[edit] Illuminated manuscripts Categorisation

Hi, I don't know if you are interested in the discussion going on at the IM talk page [5]. Any comments welcome. Johnbod 21:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: USMC film list

You have commented on the AFD discussion for List of films featuring United States Marines, the discussion can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines.

Following support for my suggestion, I have done a userspace rewrite of the article at User:Saberwyn/Films featuring the United States Marine Corps, with the rewritten article in the top half and the current article with annotations as to their inclusion or non-inclusion in the rewritten list.

I would like to request that you review the rewritten article, and if you think it is appropriate, amend your stance at the AFD discussion. -- saberwyn 12:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ars moriendi / manuscripts

Hi, I'm not sure the rock songs aren't a price worth paying to avoid a disam page, which I suspect is the alternative! A better section title is needed, as "derivative" is presumably over-stating it - "Modern works entitled AM" maybe. The article as it stands doesn't quite bear out your edit summary statement that it was a phrase in general use. What do you think?

Btw there is ongoing debate on sub-classifying Illuminated manuscripts here, if you're interested. Cheers Johnbod 16:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well there are two ways to look at it: derivative and adaptation. The first is a minor, perhaps even unintentional inclusion of a piece of a work in another work (the name, some element); the second is a re-make or adaptation of the work, keeping it mostly intact. I am fine with the second case, but derivatives are too open ended and indiscriminate per WP:NOT; without contextual description linking the derivative work to the original in some meaningful and notable way, it is trivia to even mention it. Most of those derivative works really had nothing to do with the original work, except in name only, which could be summed up in the article in one sentence: "Many songs, video games and other popular culture works use the same name." This whole thing is currently being worked out right now and is a hot topic of discussion, many "in pop culture" articles are being deleted. I have mixed views on it.

I read the IM category discussions above - I try to avoid category work as I find it confusing, overwhelming and frustrating, but trust you will come up with something, I will be happy to follow. I'm glad to see DMS involved as he is pretty knowledgeable. If you need a vote let me know. -- Stbalbach 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - it seems to be coming round ok I hope. Johnbod 22:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kong-Public Domain

Is there a particular reason why my edit to the King Kong page was removed? Kong is no longer in the public domain. His rights are split up between Time Warner, Universal, and the Cooper estate. The book Living Dangerously goes into detail how the Cooper estate fought to get the rights to the King Kong character back, and how the rights are split up among 3 parties. Alot has changed since the early 1980's. Furthmore why was my pinball machine add deleted?Giantdevilfish 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted vandalism and didn't scroll down to see there was a good edit in there. -- Stbalbach 22:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's Ok. Thanks for the revert.Giantdevilfish 22:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hun

What I wrote eralier today about the term being applied by RFC fliers to their German foe as being friendly and not derogatory has been removed. Why? Regards, Skipper

Skipper, regarding this sentence:
"..the English Royal Flying Corps (First World War) referred to their foe affectionately as "The Hun". It is true that actually no offence was indeed intended on the most part by the British but the Germans did themselves find it offensive.
From everything I know about propaganda in WWI, the Germans were called Huns to stoke up hatred against the Germans - stories were created about Germans eating babies and other similar atrocities, particularly as they went through the low countries. Even if certain members of society were more enlightened, such as the RFC who used the term with "no offence intended", it seems like trivia to the main importance that the term was derogatory. We shouldn't list all the exceptions of people who used the term "affectionately" (anyway, how can one be affectionate towards someone your trying to kill?). -- Stbalbach 20:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly thnaks for the response and I appreciate the point of view you are trying to put across. Nevertheless, I feel I must point out that while I used the RFC as a specific example, it was not just them that used the term without offense intended. Regrading your quetsion on how you can refer affectionately to someone you are trying to kill obviously I best elaborate. For me too it is difficult to understand as after all they were at war with each other but a strange bond existed between both sides as both new they could plunge to their deaths in a ball of flames. I speak from the British perspective when I say that they, atleast in the early years, treated it as a sport and were just as sadened to think of killing a German pilot as when they lost one of there on. In fact, some pilots were actually devestated on achieveing their first kill as, although they ahd achieved their aim, they did not actually hate their enemy as maybe the foot soldiers in the trenches did.

Therefore I request that perhaps it would be worth a dding a short paragraph explaining that not all of British Society felt this way. If neccesary I will type it and I can quote sources and give examples. Thanks again for your earlier response and I look forwrad to your reply.

Warm regards,

Skipper

[edit] Wilgefortis

Your edits on this are a bit problemmatic - the robed Christ is as much a Western type as Eastern, but in both areas it had been superceded by the loin-cloth by the C11th (with odd exceptions - the Theodore Psalter (Byzantine) of 1066 is the last Schiller shows). It was the West that had a concern over nudity; in the East the type was apparently designed to show Christ wearing the Collobium to show his royal status (not a feature of the original Volto Santo). There are numerous Insular examples including Muiredach's High Cross (other side from picture) and St. Gall Gospel Book, an C8th wall-painting in Rome & so on. The Volto Santo (when not dressed up for parading) shows more the Western type of plain tunic.

Also, I have not seen any examples of the lead figures & can't confirm they have survived. This was a very typical type of cheapish pilgrim souvenir & their existence may have been assumed - Hall does not specify. Schiller has pics of pectoral crosses, in gold, bronze etc. I don't like lumping the large wooden crosses with the small ones, as it seems unlikely the large crosses would have caused any misunderstanding, unlike the small ones. It would also seem more likely that the dealers you have removed caused the problem than pilgrims etc - another source I have seen in the past (Emile Male?) blames it all on them. I can't get the Volto Santo pic at the article to open btw. Cheers Johnbod 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded on the talk page and made some edits. Might be multiple views that need to be incorporated. If you think my sources are mistaken we can remove entirely, they are not authoritative or detailed. -- Stbalbach 19:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
ok, I'll copy an edited version of this to the talk page too. In general Schiller is pretty authoritative & detailed - theres no question there was a Byzantine type of robed crucifix, but whether the VS is an example of it is questionable. 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

This is a special episode we recored specifically dealing w/ the whole Essjay/Ryan Jordan situation. We recorded this before Jimbo's second comment, so it might be a little dated but still a good listen.


As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 08:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

[edit] Saladin article tampered with

Hey Stbalbach,

Someone has taken down most of the article on Saladin. Can you look into what is going on?Mk26gmls 16:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

    Silverwhistle got it fixed a few minutes ago, though it might not last long.  Thank you.Mk26gmls 17:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 13!

We've decided to avoid the direct link to the audio file in an attempt to prevent any sort of audio format war. You can download whichever version you want (we have OGG, MP3 and AAC on the site.

The direct download to Episode 13 is http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/03/06/wikipedia-weekly-13/


As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 07:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

[edit] Migration Period

I think you are in error so rarely, that it's worth contacting you. I have added this article to the Category:Historiography. I don't think the three paragraphs on changing perspectives in the history of ideas are any good, but I feel the subject of changing historiographic assessment needs to be available somewhere at Wikipedia, and linked from a concise version at Migration Period. I am sorry to have reverted your deletion, which seems like a coarse act. But Voelkerwanderung redirects to Migration Period. How should this be best handled? I'm not competent to write the historiographic account myself. You might well be, however... --Wetman 23:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it may have been a rash move. Thanks for the note. I'll keep my eye out for a source that discusses it. -- Stbalbach 23:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
There'd be some bibliography in the second part of Hanno Helbing's Goten und Wandalen: Wandlung der historischen Realität (Zurich) 1954, and there must be coverage in Donald R. Kelley, Fortunes of History: Historical Inquiry from Herder to Huizinga. Some main historians of the Romantic Volkwerwandung view might be ranged in relation to Theodor Gaupp's romantic nationalist view and Felix Dahn's view of echt German political virtues, corrected by Fustel de Coulanges and by Paul-Émile Littré. But I haven't read any of the old texts. --Wetman 05:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 14!


The link to all versions of Wikipedia Weekly 14 is at http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/03/11/wikipedia-weekly-14/

The OGG version is here The MP3 version (non free file format but it works on an iPod) is here

In this edition

   * We wrap up the Essjay affair, as the famous Wikipedian cuts ties to the online encyclopedia.
   * A look at the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year Competition, which finished earlier this week. In addition, all the Featured Pictures of 2006 are available as a bittorrent download.
   * The new “Username Usurpation” feature at the English Wikipedia.
   * Jimmy Wales travels to India for the recent Indian WikiCamp, and narrowly survives an attack of ninja monkeys.
   * One thousand Featured Articles at the German Wikipedia.
   * 300 Spartans.


As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 19:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

[edit] Gutenberg links

Hrm, I thought I had only removed Gutenberg links when a link was provided that offered the identical texts at Wikisource as well - if I made a mistake, I apologise. However, if both sites do offer identical texts, there is no point to the redundancy, just like we don't provide a link to "every" site that also lists Mark Mcgwire's career stats Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's really a matter of opinion that the texts are identical. Even if they are clear cut and paste, some people prefer to work with Gutenberg because they often have multiple versions available, or even the format of a plain text file with no formatting. Also some of the links you deleted were author links which go to more than a single work. -- Stbalbach 19:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nat Turner

Hi. I wanted to let you know that I reverted your edits to Nat Turner, which were reversions themselves, and which you made without explanation or comment. I've explained my reasons at Talk:Nat Turner, and if you disagree I hope you'll explain why. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 15!


The link to all versions of Wikipedia Weekly 14 is at [6]

The OGG version is here The MP3 version (non free file format but it works on an iPod) is here

In this edition

This episode sees Liam, more commonly known as Witty Lama, catching up with Rama’s Arrow and Ragib to talk about contributing to Wikipedia from and Indian and Bangladeshi perspective. Topics include their growing collection of Featured Articles, the success of the Indian WikiProject, and the problem of Internet access on the Subcontinent.


As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 23:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list.


[edit] Goths

Its Cappadocian, not Roman http://demo.lutherproductions.com/historytutor/basic/early/stories/evangel_goths.htm LOM

Better to resolve this on Talk:Goths. Wulfila's own ancestors came from Cappadocia (Philostorgius says from Sadagolthina, near Parnassus) but other prisoners from other areas may have also brought Christianity. Jacob Haller 01:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cilice edit

Hi - why did you revert my edit? It was clearly relevant information. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, Breadandroses 16:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consolation of Philosophy

Over two years ago you added a passage to the Consolation of Philosophy: "To quote V.E. Watts on Boethius..." Subsequently someone added a reference to the Oxford translation of the Consolation, rather than the Watts (Penguin) translation. Could you please straighten out the minor confusion here (preferably by citing the page). Thanks --SteveMcCluskey 22:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for picking that up. -- Stbalbach 01:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Acre, Israel

left some historical accounts for you on [7]. Jaakobou 11:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Close to 3RR

Just so you know, you are close to a 3RR violation on Historiography. I just gave User:TallulahBelle a block for 3RR for reverting 4 times, and you are at 3 reverts right now. If the edit is truly undesirable, let the other editors revert it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stanford Review

Why did you revert this article? I made corrections to correct inaccuracies. The Editor-in-Chief has changed. You can verify this information on the website if you would like. Please reinstate the changes that I made. Tckrtckr 23:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Stacking

Please see my reply on my talk page. ●DanMS • Talk 01:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopédie

Please address Talk:Encyclopédie#Beaten with cane?. `'mikka 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coquest of England

William III seems to be a conquest to me. Rjm at sleepers 16:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucan

Just wanted you to know (since the anon IP editor didn't sign his notice of the botched move) that it wasn't I who "moved" the Lucan article. Nevertheless, I still think that "Lucan (poet)" is the right place for it, per the most common English form of the name. Deor 01:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] old edit

Hi Stbalbach, do you remember where you got the information for this edit. I know it was a long time ago, but we should either add a ref for some of this stuff or else remove it, particularly the part about the military service. Thanks. --Duk 14:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I re-added one ref that had a dead link (found another url for it). But I still can't find a reference for your edit He left South Africa without his parents' support, in part because he wished to avoid compulsory service in the South African military. Do you remember where you found that? --Duk 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
All from 1999 Salon, page 3. -- Stbalbach 15:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book collecting

I saw you responded to my message in the Wikiproject Books, and I'd appreciate it if you took the time to read my response to your message. My contribution to the book collecting page, I believe, was very productive, and I'm confused why it was reverted one minute after I made the edit (which took a few hours to make); so, I'd appreciate it if you helped me figure out why the revert was made and if it is appropriate to revert the article back to my edit. If you're up to it, check out the WikiProject Book page here. Thanks. --'oac' (old american century) | Talk 04:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC) (Resolved.)

[edit] Medieval and Renaissance

I realize that there are no fixed boundaries for these categories, and that sometimes the Renaissance is even entirely encapsulated within the "Middle Ages". However, for the purposes of Wikipedia categories, it helps to have some general boundaries; and "Renaissance" in terms of categorizing Latin literature and authors need not have the exact same meaning as it does in, say, politics or art or architecture or even vernacular literatures. 1300 is a vague boundary, and if a person or text is within a couple of decades on either side, one could justify placing the article into both "Medieval" and "Renaissance" categories. But 1400+ is rather late. You could have a stab at classifying texts by style of language, as being more or less classicizing or humanist-influenced, but a classification by dates is really much simpler. RandomCritic 16:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about "simple" but each work/author should be looked at based on how modern scholarship approaches it. Is it most commonly studied and used by Medieval scholars or early modern/renaissance studies? Very often both, sometimes clearly one or the other. Petrarch and the Divine Comedy is a good example, that is both a Medieval work and a Renaisscance work, depending on who you talk too. It would be jarring for someone on Wikipedia to see it in the Ren. category and not the Med. category, or vice versa, depending on what perspective they are coming from. -- Stbalbach 16:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you're placing an interpretation on the categories which they are not intended to have. The categories in question (Category:Renaissance Latin authors, Category:Medieval Latin authors) are not attempts to say whether so and so is active in the Renaissance or the Middle Ages, or whether they are dealt with in medieval studies or early modern studies departments. They are part of Category:Latin authors by era, which is solely concerned with classifying authors writing by the period of time they wrote in (see further History of Latin). Nothing stops Petrarch from being classified as an author of Renaissance Latin and being classified, at the same time, as a member of Category:Medieval writers, for instance. As Petrarch stands at the head of the movement for the revival of Latin letters, in both stylistic as well as chronological terms, he'd be classified as a "Renaissance Latin author", associating his Latin (not necessarily anything else about him) more with Erasmus or Piccolomini than with Aquinas or Abelard. RandomCritic 16:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 16!

The link to all versions of Wikipedia Weekly 16 is at [8]

The OGG version is here The MP3 version (non free file format but it works on an iPod) is here

In this edition

Lots of stuff, too much to list here.

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in! Feel free to post to the mailing lists too.... apparently not many people know about us.... yet

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 06:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

[edit] Movement of Washington's Distillery section in American Whiskey Trail article

Stbalbach, See that you moved the Washington's Distillery information to the Mount Vernon article. Obviously, it could go there. Seems to me that the information is directly relevant to this American Whiskey Trail article, especially in light of the intent of the Trail (from the wikipedia article) : "...is a cultural heritage and tourism initiative of the Distilled Spirits Council in cooperation with historic Mount Vernon...". The existence of an operational distillery, and the uniqueness of the product sales at the gift shop, seems to me to be a sound case for that information being here. - Thaimoss 00:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) talk

In fact, now that I've read the additional commentary you placed in the Mount Vernon article (which is great additional info), I'm even more of the opinion that it should go in the Whiskey Trail article. I think it should go in both. - Thaimoss 00:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The trail article is about the trail. Individual distilleries have their own articles and are linked too from the main trail article. We should not replicate each distillery in the trail article, it leads to fragmentation and confusion as editors update one article and not another over time. -- Stbalbach 00:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm not much of a purist on the "fragmentation" issue, being more inclined to note that certain facts are sometimes relevant to more than one article, but I will acknowledge that specifics can become out of sync over time, as you point out. In this case, I hadn't concluded that the individual distilleries have their own pages, as Washington's clearly doesn't, and only 2 of the 7 on the list do. In any event, I'll leave it as it as you left it in light of your reasoning. - Thaimoss 00:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/b/User_talk%7EStbalbach_1ff1.html"