Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:48, 25 September 2012

Archives

Archive 1

Tullyhogue Fort

I was reading this discussion Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Tullyhogue_Fort which i found through the Tullyhogue Fort article's talk page and just have to comment that the site wasn't just a typical "old fort", especially since it was never a defensive structure but an ancient ceremonial site. Its historical importance is attested to and its symbolism was such that Lord Mountjoy, Queen Elizabeth I's deputy, destroyed the inauguration stone at it to symbolically smash the powerful O'Neills. It's notability is along the lines of that of Emain Macha and Tara, added in the fact it is also a "State Care Historic Monument". Mabuska 00:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on March 17, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/March 17, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Misplaced Pages doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* 08:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Anthony Roll is a record of ships of the English Tudor navy of the 1540s, named after its creator, Anthony Anthony. It originally consisted of three rolls of vellum, depicting 58 naval vessels along with information on their size, crew, armament, and basic equipment. The rolls were presented to King Henry VIII in 1546, and were kept in the royal library. In 1680 Charles II gave two of the rolls to Samuel Pepys, who had them cut up and made into a single volume, which is now in the Pepys Library at Magdalene College, Cambridge. The third roll remained in the royal collection until it was given by William IV to his daughter, Mary Fox, who sold it to the British Museum in 1858; it is now owned by the British Library. The Anthony Roll is the only known fully illustrated inventory of ships of the English navy in the Tudor period. While the inventories listed in its text have proven to be highly accurate, most of the ship illustrations are rudimentary and made according to a set formula. The only known contemporary depictions of prominent Tudor era vessels like the Henry Grace à Dieu and the Mary Rose are contained in the Anthony Roll. Since the Mary Rose sunk by accident in 1545 and was successfully salvaged in 1982, comparison between the information in the Roll and the physical evidence of the Mary Rose has provided new insights into the study of the naval history of the period. (more...)

Job well done. Congrats. billinghurst sDrewth 15:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Many congratulations! Great work! The Land (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A belated thanks to all!

Peter 00:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenating ship class names

Re: the October discussion you participated in on hyphenating ship names, User:SW is willing to make a mass move with a bot if there is a consensus here. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

Hey, I see from WP:PR page that you're interested in "medieval and early modern history". If you could have a look at Piers Gaveston, 1st Earl of Cornwall, I would be most grateful. Lampman (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong sound lh

Hello, please revert the file http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Palatal_lateral_approximant.ogg to the initial version from 2005. The version from 2005 was correct, the new one from 2006 is completely wrong. Please see the discussion page. --Sekelsenmat (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Swedish allotment system FAR

I have nominated Swedish allotment system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. P. S. Burton (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well hello

Haven't heard from you for a bit. I would hope that this time around we can have a more professional and civil level of discourse than previously. Not off to a good start, but I'm willing to extend some mutual respect and mutual assumption of good faith editing. Montanabw 05:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit in using obscure Anglophone terminology like hands. Any unit of height that requires a link for most readers to understand it should be avoided, and making normal units subordinate to it is in my opinion against the spirit of Misplaced Pages. I'm staying out of the genuine horse articles, but in article like horse artillery, which are on the fringes of WP:EQUINE, I'm not keen on using aficionado terminology just for the Hell of it, so I've suggested a compromise.

Peter 09:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

We still use "archaic" units for all sorts of things, it's called terms of art or technical terminology. Knots, nautical miles, etc. "Hands" is far from archaic, it is used every day throughout the English-speaking world by virtually all knowledgeable horse people. (And horse people in the English-speaking world who use metric measurements or inch measurements are in specialized fields) This is English language wikipedia and thus it seems that "anglophone" units are relevant, particularly in articles about "archaic" technology such as horse artillery. We may have to agree to disagree here, but it seems a more reasonable compromise to respect technical terminology and use a simple template that converts the technical term to standard measurements for the benefit of those who are not technically trained -- if you read the actual way the text is rendered and not simply the diffs, you will see that, for example, {{hands|15}} looks like this: 15 hands (60 inches, 152 cm) --note conversion to both inches and cm, which is how horses are often measured in Europe (in some places they use meters, but horses are like humans, in that even a cm makes a subtle difference).

I see that you almost completely missed the point. I wrote "obscure", not "archaic". Hardly synonyms. And the issue isn't of Anglophone measurements per se (or I would be chucking ft/inches as well). The problem is a hand is both obscure and Anglophone. It's just about completely unknown to non-English speakers and very obscure to English-speakers who aren't into horses, ie all but a very small minority. The comparison to the other measurements doesn't hold up either. There's a major difference in how well-known knots and nautical miles are compared to hands. (Though I would definitely prefer km/miles over kn/nm any day of the week.)

If you want to call this "agree to disagree", fine. Considering how forcefully you push your own agenda when it comes to anything horse-related, I'm just not going to waste much time on arguing the issue. I am going to stand by one editorial issue, though: use of the template. The article works fine without it, and it's easier to give approximate height instead of the faux-preciseness of "152 to 163 cm". Giving height in inches isn't helpful to anyone. What horse breeders use or don't use is completely beside the point; Misplaced Pages is not for experts. The point here is to convey a sense of measurement that is widely recognized, not to have select aficionados nod in friendly recognition. In your zeal to convey knowledge about horse-related topics, you seem to forget that most readers who read articles about a topic are not experts who deserve some slack.

Peter 19:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I push MY "own agenda"? Um, Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot is on line one. "Obscure," fine. My point is the same, and it's hardly obscure if it's a term of art unless the art itself is also obscure. And as a landlubber, I'd say horses are every bit as important as ships in history. Shall we not measure computer images in pixels because that's obscure too? And yes, if you want to draw the line in the sand on the template, then you are missing the point -- NO ONE ever measures horses in feet and inches like you are trying to do, that is 100% OR. Montanabw 20:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere. If you have any further comments on actual article issues, take it to the talk pages. All I can say is that there's no hypocrisy here. I always try to think of how the general readership will understand an article and I often explain even basic terms like starboard and port in text. (Not that I'm anything but a landlubber myself.) I never assume that it's my job as an editor to force certain obscure terms on readers unless its absolutely necessary. And I never use the original terminology in sources or "terms of art" as an excuse to get more technical than necessary.

I consider that final. Please don't post here again.

Peter 05:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I won't post here again. Montanabw 18:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a disinterested third party and I expect to see articles about horses measure them in hands, and articles about yacht races talk about knots. I own neither a horse nor a yacht, but seeing those terms of art used properly in context makes it ever so much more interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.67.226 (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

How's your Portuguese?

Need I ask? Probably as good as your other 75 languages. The Portuguese translator of the arctic balloon journey has written to me on my page, and given me a link for his recent FAC of the article. Come on, go there and write a comment in fluent Portuguese! You know you want to! Bishonen | talk 18:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

My Portuguese is even worse than my French. Though I would wish to write a bombastic-fantastic praise and unveiled threats to anyone who dare vote against the nomination, it will not be. At least not right now. However, I could take a look and see if I could mutter something in Simple English.

But then I think I'd like to ask for a quid pro quo. Take a look at sv:diskussion:slaget vid Ölands södra udde (1676)#Flytt och motflytt. Comment at your own peril, though.

Peter 20:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ni är fan inte kloka på sv.wiki! Bishonen | talk 14:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC).

Nä, det är vi nog inte. It's a bloody miracle anything meaningful ever gets done over there. Right now, we even have users who pop in and, fingers no doubt wagging energetically at the computer screen, remove my attempt to bring a minimum ironic sanity to the issue. Strangely enough, they don't bother to actually comment in the debate...

I'll definitely keep to my standard modus operandi: build decent articles in English, get them promoted and then translate them into Swedish. A massive fait accompli tends to spoil opportunities for know-it-alls to bicker over minor crap.

I'll keep my eye on the Portuguese nomination, but to me it looks to be going pretty swell. I'd hate to spoil it with a "YO SOY OBRIGADO POR TODOS PARTICIPANDOS EN ESTA NOMINATIÕN GRANDE!" or something equally boorish.

Oh, and nice to see you didn't lose your head to deletionists.

Peter 19:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Mhm. Does that mean you saw this? It's pretty hilarious.. "Useful to show wrath of Bishzilla" ought to be a more frequent "keep" argument. Not quite as hilarious as the Portuguese for "good article", though: artigo bom! :-) Bishonen | talk 01:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC). P.S. "Tramsskylt"? Otroligt. Trams är det sista man får ta bort på en.wiki, vilket Bishzilla ju är ett levande bevis på. (Har du stött på User:Darwinbish förresten? Ännu tramsigare, mycket populär! )

Thank you

Peter, I must thank you for your help regarding this matter: ]. I was not even sure how valid SergeWoodzing's complaint was, so it was very valuable for me to know so much about the rules of Misplaced Pages concerning this issue. I have now been given help with the spelling check, and I think spelling errors will be a much less of an issue in the future. Thank you again for your help!--Aciram (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Aciram. You were right to ignore most of what Serge was telling you, but you had obligation to tolerate repeated insults and insinuations of bad faith. If that sort of behavior goes on long enough, it amounts to Wikihounding. No one should have to put up with that. Don't hesitate to let me know here or per e-mail if this picks up again.

Good luck with the editing!

Peter 10:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Galley

Hi Peter. I've noticed the work you've put into the article over the last while. Nicely done. Keep it up. I'm becoming more and more interested in these vessels, and it's nice to see the article steadily improve over time.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm making somewhat a final run through the literature right now. Trying to get some schools of historical research woven into the text. I'll start writing up more solid prose as soon as I'm done. If you have any thoughts or suggestions, don't hesitate to make them known here or at the article talkpage.

Peter 21:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Like the way the Galley article is going but a bit worried about length issues for when you take it through the review process, especially as I know you've more to come. Any possibility of break-off articles on specific subsections? Wouldn't want to lose all the detail you've put together. Monstrelet (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about the length and thanks for the heads up. This is a project that has kinda run away with me. I've never worked this long and had this many sources for one article topic. I see no problem with doling out content into other articles. I've been eying naval tactics in the Age of Galleys as one possibility to move content to. I would gladly accept any suggestions for other articles to fill with the content I already have. And content based on the notes I have in user:Peter Isotalo/galley.

If you have any general or specific comments on relevance, accuracy and clarity, particularly concerning how to handle size, I will gracefully accept it. And thanks for noting my work! :-)

Peter 16:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Swedish-Tripolitan War 1802

Hello Peter, i noticed you seemed interested in naval issues and was wondering if you know of any sources relating to Swedish Admiral Olof Rudolf Cederström's campaign against Tripoli in 1802. Ive tried to find sources in english, but what exists is rather scant and fragmented. XavierGreen (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of the man before you mentioned him. I recall reading something about Swedish forces sending naval forces against the Barbary corsairs, but I don't know anything about it. There's probably literature available in Swedish, but in English I don't think I can help you out.

You could try searching at libris.kb.se, the Swedish national library catalog for something in English, but it's probably a long shot.

Peter 20:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you so much for your kind words at Talk:Battle of Valmy. They mean a lot to me and I appreciate them deeply! SteveStrummer (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Medieval cuisine

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Medieval cuisine. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, look at that! Never realized it. Thank you so much. :-)

Peter 06:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Need peer review on foreign language learning through literature

I've written an article about Literature Circles in EFL 'English as a Foreign Language', teacher accompanied classroom discussion groups among EFL learners, who regularly get together in class to speak about and share their ideas, and comment on others' interpretations about the previously determined section of a graded reader in English. I'm wondering if you would have time to peer-review.

(Osmanbedel (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC))

Errors in the Encyclopedia Britannica

Hi Peter -- I took the liberty of removing your section on European cuisine from Misplaced Pages:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipediabecause there was no citation of which version of EB you were citing. I can't find "Gastronomy" in online version or the EB 1911 edition. I'm glad I stumbled across this, however, since it led me to Medieval Cuisine, which I found excellent! Maybe we can get you to look at Chinese cuisine, which needs help. All the best ch (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I completely forgot about that. I actually contacted the editors over at EB and pointed out the wealth of errors. And they agreed wholeheartedly! As far as I recall, they said they would simply remove the article "gastronomy" altogether and refer to the chapters on the cuisine of various countries and regions (or something like that). So the offending article should be in the print version from a few years back, but not in the online version.

Thanks for noticing.

Peter 17:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You've inspired me to go back to work on Chinese cuisine! ch (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know too much about Chinese cuisine and I don't really have time to do research footwork, but please don't hesitate to contact me if you need a review when you feel you're getting somewhere.

Peter 19:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do. But not for a while, since this will be a major job. ch (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:MainP.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MainP.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly 17:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mary Rose Trust

Template:Mary Rose Trust has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Nicola Karabatic is a self redirect

Are you sure you want to link to this? -- A Certain White Cat 17:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.

Isotalo (derived from iso + talo, large house) is a Finnish surname, how come? Does your family have any bonds towards Finland, or something? Frozen Jese (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My father is Finnish (from Turku), but that's it; don't speak Finnish, never lived there. Verisuomalinen so to speak. I have more in common with Russians than Finns in many ways.

Peter 20:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

I've never really nominated an article for Peer Review before, so I don' know If I'm doing this correctly. Even so, you're name was listed at the Peer Review volunteers page, and I wondered if you could take the time to review my nominee, the article on Leonid Brezhnev. Thanks for you're time, --TIAYN (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Bosnia peer review

Hello! I was looking for a user who would volunteer to review the article about Elizabeth of Bosnia and decided to ask you and Cerejota, as the two of you seem to be the only ones who could be interested in the topic. Too bad, the others don't know what they are missing! I would really appreciate your help. Please let me know if you're interested. Thanks, Surtsicna (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Swedish translation

You're listed at WP:Translators available, so could you spare a moment to resolve a question brought up at this AfD? Essentially, we just want to know whether the two Swedish encyclopedias linked to from the Gyllenhaal family article (Nordisk familjebok and Svenskt biografiskt handlexikon) support the information given in the article. Thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, never mind, someone else volunteered. Thanks anyway. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment at Ya Kun Kaya Toast's ongoing peer review!

Since you have listed yourself as a peer review volunteer interested in food and drink articles, would you like to support the quest to counter systemic bias on Misplaced Pages by giving a thorough review of the short, but interesting, article about Ya Kun Kaya Toast, a multinational kaya toast chain and Singaporean cultural icon? Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Siljan Ring

Hi Peter, I've added a brief geology section to the new article. I would expand on this and put this forward for DYK, but I'm off for a long weekend walking in the Derbyshire Peak District first thing tomorrow, so I won't be able to do anything to it until after the 5 day deadline has passed. If you feel like nominating it, then I'll be back editing on 17th or 18th and I'll finish off what I started on the geology - it doesn't have anything on the impact structure or the mineralization at the moment. However, no pressure. Mikenorton (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's over 1,500 k now, so I might as well try. Haven't had a DYK in ages, and I did this when I was lurking in the impact crater articles and noticed that all links lead to Siljan (lake). I'll nominate it right away and keep an eye on it.

Peter 17:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that moved fast - already been on the main page. Thanks, now I'll try to do some expansion as promised. Mikenorton (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Crecy

Approximation? No where does it say that. Basically sound? What is that? A new Misplaced Pages guideline? No where does it say Approximation. It is written as fact. I have read many books on the battles of the Hundred Years War and no one knows the amount of forces or casulaties, including Froissart, and it is preposterous to say that 11 Noblemen killed, 1,542 knights killed, 2,300 Genoese Crossbowmen killed Several thousand infantry killed and then put "citation needed". Same with Forces and Casualties. That is unacceptable in Misplaced Pages. I have changed it to say "an approximation". The rest is pure conjecture.

Moved discussion to the Battle of Crecy Talk page. Mugginsx (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Siljan Ring

On 17 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Siljan Ring, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Siljan Ring, a very large impact crater in central Sweden, has been the site for two attempts at commercial exploitation of natural gas and oil based on the theory of abiogenic petroleum? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siljan Ring. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Adriatic Sea FAR question

Peer view requested

Hi Peter, I've nominated Language which I've recently expanded drastically for a peer review - Given that the topic is so huge I am sure I've left out something important, but at this point I am blind to it myself. Also it would be good with a second pair of eyes to scout out any erroneous or dubious statements I may have introduced unwittingly. Perhaps you have time to look at it? The review page is here: Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Language/archive1. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If for some reason you have oceans of time I'd like to note that I've also nominated Otomi language and Benjamin Lee Whorf for GA review, and would appreciate a reviewer such as you with an appreciation of linguistics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• (Re: your post at my talkpage): No, please do! All copyedits will be greatly appreciated, in addition to any more substantial suggestions you might want to make. I am sure my prose can be greatly improved, and I know there is quite a bit of repetition in there that a pair of new eyes may be better able to weed out. Don't be shy!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Where does the 10,000 figure come from?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It appears you added it but that it came from natural language. Here's the original addition. A pure guesstimate, I believe. I'll fix it.

Peter 15:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't remember that. Thanks for fixing it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Peer review, English Language

Please review English Language, here, thanks!--Lucky102 (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Misplaced Pages email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Misplaced Pages will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Misplaced Pages).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your excellent review of Language, which went a long way towards improving the article. I am still planning to revisit the last point in your review, but it takes a little more time to find out to do it properly. Thanks for being so helpful and conducting the review in the spirit of collaboration! ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)