Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:02, 12 October 2008

Wikibreak. Back around October 16 or so.

"Arcaded and pedimented wings"

About time to you returned! Huge laugh reading The Times this morning, an unusual turn of phrase cropped up - you remember when we worked on "our page" in our early wiki days and my English was notta so good, I often used to babelfish Italian terms into English and the result would occasionaly be what I now know to be very odd turns of phrase. "arcaded and pedimented wings" being one, and it survived in our page - and is now quoted authoritively in The Times, and according to google elsewhere many time too, concerning that one particular house. To thiink I have introduced new architectural terms into English. I suppose I had better go and change it, but it soes seem a pity. Proves, though, what a widespread and authoritive place Misplaced Pages is. Giano (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, my calendar says October 9. Bish, you're 4 days late, where are you? Tex (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur. *worried puppy* KillerChihuahua 20:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, so the date gets changed. k, I will not worry. KillerChihuahua 20:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Augustan drama

Hello. I seem to remember that Augustan drama is one of your areas, so thought you'd be interested in the Featured article review on it that's just been started. Apologies if not. Regards, DionysosProteus (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't ask its author. He's being extremely hostile about it and plans to stay away and offer nothing but curses for the whole affair. I have it on authority, in fact, that he would prefer that the article not be an FA than that people who don't know the area, the field, or academic standards go mucking about trying to get rid of any sign of a thesis, any hint of insight, and any use to the reader. He has, after all, sworn never to get near FAC ever again, to intentionally ensure that his articles stay out, and to continue to write well, write good articles, and to continue to spit and hiss at the entire craniorectal inversion of ratings. He must be a newbie. Geogre (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you fishing for compliments, Geogre dear? You certainly deserve them. KillerChihuahua 23:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I actually meant that I am being extremely hostile. Of all the things I've done on Misplaced Pages, I'm proudest of a different article, but I've felt for a long time that Augustan drama was the single most useful article, the one thing that contributed most to the world. At least prior to the article, it was the best overview available on web or print. There are thesis-driven examinations of segments of the drama these days -- New Historicist examinations of this or that, the stage and images of the body here or there, that kind of thing -- but a general overview for a general reader that contained any theme, wasn't poisoned by prejudice and 19th century platitudes wasn't there. Misplaced Pages's existence has forced EB to get off their duffs and offer far greater depth than they previously did, so it's possible that they now have much better, but they didn't then. And now... despite that no expert would contend with any of the statements... we're back to "where are the footnotes?" and "inline must mean footnote." I lose the heart to even pretend to be nice. Geogre (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This was a summary of how I feel about it. Geogre (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And it was offensive, lazy and reflexive. Come on you have more wit and brains than that. The hubris in this romm is getting old. (sorry i cant spell) Ceoil 16:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I meant to leaven the situation with some minor humor, which fell flat. I apologise. This is clearly too serious to laugh much about. KillerChihuahua 13:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is that supposed to mean, beyond a clever celver in joke? I would be nice if ye reaised that FAr is not entirely populated by cranks, and although a fair share of them do drop in, we are always Kicking Against the Pricks. Frankly, I'm shit fucking sick of being taged with a generalised tag, by people who have nothing to contribute except scoring points and bullying, and no more. Its boring, it incorrect, and it is so its old. Ceoil 16:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What is it supposed to mean? Well, let's see. An article is off doing its job, informing the reader. A long process determined that it was an FA. Now, though, with a predisposition to "all things old were not ours," any person can come and say, "This article doesn't look the way I want it, or the author pissed me off earlier, so I can start a process that will last for weeks or months, keep anyone from interfering with any changing we do, and, in the end, change nothing except its status." That sure looks parasitical and hubristic. "It's old so it must be reviewed" is only valid if the "old" people were all wrong all the time or if there is some change in standards. The first is an insult to both authors and reviewers of the past. The second is untrue.

The question is, therefore, why FAR? Is it because the article had problems? If so, why not just fucking edit the thing and talk to those who know? Is it because there were factual matters that other sources contest? If so, talk to the author and get the citations. "FAR" is neither necessary nor good, and it isn't going to result in "improvement." It's either going to result in the loss of the star, which would be fine by me, or it's going to mean a bunch of nervous citations are thrown in when they weren't necessary, or it's going to be a phrase changed here or there, which, again, could have been done without any stamping and stomping with passive voice banners.

So, if there ain't a whole hell of a lot of good that can come from it, and if it allows for any random jackanapes to get revenge for affronts, and if it annoys or alienates the authors, then how is it different from a cheese maggot? Geogre (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you obviously have nothing interesting you here

Could you, Risker, or anyone of this page's regulars, start giving this User:Giano/The Winter Palace a copy edit, I have stared at it for too long now, and cannot see clearly the mistakes. There is just the "contents section" for me to complete, the rest of it can be copyedited - then I can give it the final tweaks. I would be very grateful!!!!! Giano (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to add "INUSE" if anyone does feel the urge. Giano (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for the amzingly spotted edits so far, I have jusy had a horrible thought, though, now you have all edited, the page will have to be eventually merged, rather than quick pasted - who on earth had the patience to do that? Buggeration! I don't want it in mainspace yet, as it is far from comlplete - we shall jusy have to think on it. I wil take this over to my page for further consideration, as Bishiperson probably wants some peace and quiet. So suggest at your leasure there. Giano (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)