User talk:Douglas Coldwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome from Ioeth

Welcome!

Hello, Douglas Coldwell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fabel.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fabel.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random Smile

Doug Coldwell has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] NRHP database

I seen you put in a NRHP info box on a new article I recently wrote of Southern Railway's Spencer Shops. Great improvement that I would like to use on future articles. I am researching for a new article on the Ramsdell Theatre in Manistee, Michigan. On the building there is a Historical Marker that says Thomas Jefferson Ramsdell—pioneer lawyer, state legislator and civic leader—built this theatre between 1902 and 1903. At the end of the Marker it says The Ramsdell Theatre was listed on the National Register of Historic places in 1972. Erected 1980. Marker Number L0124. However I can not find it on the NRHP database to use as a reference. Do you have an answer for this. Perhaps all places are not listed. The Chicago architect and builder was Solon Spencer Beman. If you have an idea, you can put it here as I will temporarly watch your Talk Page. --Doug talk 11:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just jumping in here. I can find it there. The NRHP refnum is 72000640. Try this link, enter "MI" for the state code, and "Ramsdell" in the name section. It's true, though, that sometimes the database can be squirrelly. Hope this helps. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, found it! Now I can continue with writting up my new article on the Ramsdell Theatre. I plan on taking a picture of it sometime this week so I can add to the article. James Earl Jones started his career there, so will be using this as a hook for DYK. --Doug talk 16:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ebyabe. I haven't had a chance to answer since last night since I was busy today, enjoying one of the few warm and sunny days we've had in Minnesota this spring.
In addition to the link that Ebyabe gave, I thought I'd mention that I downloaded the National Register database onto my machine and wrote some PHP queries that create {{Infobox nrhp}} infoboxes. I also have queries on there that will tell you what buildings were designed by a certain architect (although you need to use a wildcard, like "Beman%Solon"). You can find the query tools at http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/. I think you'll find them useful. Also, if you're interested, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places where you can find out more about the project. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 01:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conscript Fathers

I did ask for advice on the article from an editor that specializes in ancient Roman History here. I noticed he edits Roman Senate, Senate of the Roman Republic, Roman Republic, History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic, Roman Constitution, History of the Roman Constitution and other ancient Roman topics. When I get back from taking my car in for repairs later this morning I'll merge some parts into Roman Senate. I'll ask for additional advice then from User:RomanHistorian if it looks good to him. Does that sound good? --Doug talk 11:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I didn't see that you were the main editor of Conscript Fathers. It is simply another way of saying "Roman Senators", is it not?. I see from the page history that it was originally started to supply an article to fit a heading from Nuttall's Encyclopedia, with the edit summary "Once, there were 14,650 articles in the Nuttall Encyclopedia that weren't in Wikipedia. We've almost filled in the gaps!" In this case the gap was already filled. The overarching article, within which all the others should fit, is Roman Senate. One section of that has a hatnote link to its main article— that is, its more detailed sub-article— Senate of the Roman Republic. And so on. I see, however, that you've spent a good deal of time over Conscript Fathers. --Wetman (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You have brought up some excellent points. I will try to answer them the best I can - as I could have very well missed some points that I overlooked or don't understand. Also ancient Roman history is not my specialy and I am out of my realm here. I did write this up in good faith and did not know there might have been very similar articles already going on the topic. Yes, I do believe I am saying "Roman Senators" - where I am giving a history on how they developed. Probably my article should be merged into the article of Roman Senate. I'll take your advice on this as I know you are much more knowledgable on the subject then I am. Yes, the term "Conscript Fathers" came from the article List of 19th century English language idioms letter "C". It was originally a REDIRECT of the letter "C". Here it was described as "members of the Roman Senate." In the article Senate of the Roman Republic there is nothing mentioned of "conscript fathers" nor "patres conscripti" - however there is in Roman Senate. It mentions patres a few times with some detail - where my article gives an in depth history of how these members came about and how the name got developed into "Conscript Fathers", which name is not mentioned in Roman Senate. The way I interpret and understand the "Roman Senate" is that it is an institution. My article describes the members, not the institution with a set of rules and procedures and laws. When you look up "Roman Senator" it REDIRECTS to Senate of the Roman Republic which is an article on "the chief foreign policy-making branch of the government of the Roman Republic." It does not describe patres conscripti nor "Conscript Fathers." It does however describe the role of a senator as an "interrex" for the 5 day period - the interregnum part I merged into the section of Senate's role in the election of a new king of Roman Senate. My article describes patres conscripti or "Conscript Fathers" where in Roman Senate under Role as sovereign power it describes only patres as "...the senate was filled with the patres of the leading families..." That article describes ONLY patres (father) with no mention of "Conscript Fathers". My article describes how the "conscript" fathers came about - which was they were drafted or compelled to become a senate member (my hook for DYK). Patres were the original fathers of Romulus time, where Conscript Fathers are the later member as I describe in the article after the time of Lucius Junius Brutus. What further advice do you have as to what I should do, since you would be more knowledgable along these lines than I am? Should I continue merging parts into Roman Senate or should I wait a few days to see how things develop on the article? --Doug talk 18:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See whether useful suggestions come up on the talkpages. Not every series of encyclopedia articles will fit one inside the other. The first priority is, how easily will Wikipedia readers find the material at Conscript Fathers if they begin their search Roman senator? I changed the redirect to Roman Senate, because a reader's search for "Roman senator" isn't limited just to Senate of the Roman Republic--Wetman (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have another suggestion: How would you feel about Roman senator and Roman senators being redirected to Conscript Fathers since this article that I started describes in depth the history of ancient Roman senators. If one wants to know further about the legislative parts of the Roman Senate they can just click on that link then. Would you agree also to removing the merge tag at this point or would you like to wait. I was hoping that User:RomanHistorian would give some input, however he has edited since my request for an input, but has not given a response. --Doug talk 19:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of further arguments that perhaps Roman senator and Roman senators should be redirected to Conscript Fathers is that the Roman Senate is described as "...the most permanent of all of Rome's political institutions." The article describes patres as it relates to the time of Romulus and Remus, however does not go into patres conscripti (some 250 years later) as the senators were known as. Lucius Junius Brutus was the founder of the Roman Republic and at that time patres became patres conscripti since he drafted (conscripted) many new senators to build the number back up to 300 members, since most were lost in the time of Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. Roman Senate has a section on Senate of the Roman Republic but does not say that the senators at this time were called Conscript Fathers (patres conscripti). In the article Senate of the Roman Republic it does not mention that the senators were known as Conscript Fathers (patres conscripti) nor in Constitution of the Roman Republic. Perhaps this should be added to these articles, which would make a link to the article Conscript Fathers. The article on Roman Senate describes a time period of from 753 BCE to 476 CE, however no mention of Conscript Fathers (patres conscripti) - just patres. I believe a line should be put in under the section Senate of the Roman Republic that the senators were known as Consript Fathers - perhaps in the image caption as "A sitting of the Roman Senate of the Conscript Fathers." There are several links at "What links here" for the article so Wikipedians will find it this way and I believe there will be more links in the future. I also believe Roman senator and Roman senators should be redirected to Conscript Fathers also since the article is an in-depth description of what Roman senators are and its history. If they would want the Roman Senate they would type that exactly. What do you think? --Doug talk 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I can't explain to you why the Roman Senate is the Roman senate. It survived all through the Roman Empire. Its revival in the Middle Ages isn't even touched on yet in its Wikipedia article. The late-Republican founding legend of patres conscripti in a distant past doesn't cover the topic. Just assk yourself the question "What will a Wikipedia reader looking for information on 'Roman senator' expect to find and under what heading will they search it?".--Wetman (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to merge Conscript Fathers within Roman Senate if you think that is best for the Wikipedia readers. I am just saying that patres conscript is not covered within Roman Senate - except for a recent line I added under Senate of the Roman Republic. In the second line I added to "Cicero noted that the senate was a self-sustaining and continuous body" the words "...consisting of patres conscripti. I linked patres conscripti to Conscript Fathers. So far there has not been any objections to the wording. I do believe a Wikipedia reader looking for information on "Roman senators" or "patres conscript" would expect to find the information I wrote for Conscript Fathers (i.e. history of patres conscripti). However, I know I am biased! I'll do whatever is best and easiest for the Wikipedia readers. If you think it best that I merge Conscript Fathers into Roman Senate, I'll be glad to do that. Here is an idea: drop the merge tag for now, allow "Roman senator", "Roman senators", and "patres conscript" to link and be redirected to Conscript Fathers until June 20. After that date I'll be glad to merge everything into Roman Senate if you still feel then that is where it should go. I am hoping that perhaps around June 14-17 that it might be selected as a DYK. If it is then there would be lots of exposure to Wikipedia readers. This would probably tell a story as to where it should be placed (i.e. stand-alone article or merged with Roman Senate). And/or place the merge tag back on June 17-20 when there has been more exposure and more readers have seen the article. By then several editors will have edited the article and it will be on their Watch list. They then would give an opinion if it should be merged with Roman Senate. Maybe others that are experts on Roman history (i.e. User:RomanHistorian) will notice the article by then and give their opinion on a merge. I have recently edited several ancient Roman articles linking Conscript Fathers, so if there is any objections or opinions then by June 20th they should show up. Does this sound agreeable to you? Or if you would like I'll be glad to merge all the material now into Roman Senate. I'll leave it up to you as I believe your opinion is better than mine in these matters. --Doug talk 12:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion: make a sub-heading at Roman Senate "Patres conscripti: origins of the Senate". Cut 'n paste your whole article there, then edit it down to condense it. Add a hatnote {{Main|Conscript Fathers}} that will guide the reader to your more detailed complete version, as you already have it. And don't fret about the merge suggestion; it wasn't intended as a reproach.--Wetman (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I have merged the material and condensed it. Look it over as I suspect it needs some tweaking. I changed References to reflect Primary Sources and Secondary Sources. Don't understand how to do the hatnote {{Main|Conscript Fathers}} that will guide the reader to the more detailed complete version. Can you help me here. Also need help on how to delete the existing article. I assume I strike through the DYK nomination, is that correct? Thanks for the help, as I am still quite young on all the Wikipedia procedures. --Doug talk 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I made the hatnote that directs readers to the main article Conscript Fathers. This diff show how I did it. Now there's a brief, condensed version of the material at Roman Senate, and for those wishing more detail, a link to Conscript Fathers. It's like a filing system with categories and sub-categories. No need to delete the article. --Wetman (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. I had a senior moment. Thanks! I'll continue editing the main article then. Is it o.k. to remove the merge tag now? --Doug talk 11:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is. --Wetman (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)