Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:58, 3 November 2009

Noticeboard archives

• v
• t
• e

Law Practice Management

I hope I'm in the right place, apologies if I'm not.

User:Jurycom has "created" the article Law Practice Management by overwriting a redirect, the subject matter of the new article is different to the article previously redirected to and seems to be aimed specifically at the legal community rather than being an encyclopedia article. The edit summary was "Creation of "Law Practice Management" article that will ultimately bring together as many resources as possible to help attorneys better to control their practices and, give cost-effective services."

I've already undone it once today when the page was just a collection of external links, since then it's been recreated with text as well. I would have taken it to AFD if it had been a new page, but I think the redirect should be reinstated in this case. I would appreciate opinions on this. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a disambiguation page. Then each separate article can be judged separately, both the legal community and the general public articles. This is not an issue for the Mayor's office (just kidding). Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Order of content - sections and subsections on bryozoa

Testing this board out to open up a question for wider discussion. I have been reviewing bryozoa for Philcha at Talk:Bryozoa/GA1, and changed the sections around, which he is unhappy with. I do concede I was a bit bold but have explained my rationale on the GA review talk page.

Essentially, here is the version before I started messing with it. My view is that naming, taxonomy/classification, and evolution are so intertwined they are best treated in one large section divided into current sections (see the current version - they had been split into three segments previously and required some repetition), and as set up now, the subject matter divides nicely into four sections with subsections each. To facilitate understanding, I have placed the Description section above the taxonomy and evolution section. Philcha feels that placing naming down the page is problematic. Anyway, anyone interested please read and place opinions. I figured this was a good place as any as it is a content arrangement discussion (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As someone with no specialist knowledge in this field, I read through the earlier version before looking at the discussion, to avoid preconceptions. What struck me most was the emphasis given to naming of the phylum: in the lead; in "Name of the phylum"; in "Classification and diversity"; and in "Evolutionary family tree". To be honest, as a non-zoologist, I'm not really bothered about what specialists call an animal ("a rose by any other name"); it's the description and behaviour that I found interesting. Had I been reviewing, the first thing I would have suggested to Philcha would have been to reconsider the structure of the article so that the naming of the phylum wasn't so prominent or repeated - one full description in one place (if possible) and a mention in the lead. I would have recommended that the "Name of the phylum" did not need its own section, and certainly not the first one.

Having read though the present version of the article and the discussion at GA review, I can understand Philcha's concerns that readers with some background knowledge should not become confused by the different possible nomenclature for the phylum. However, the issue is pointed up in the lead and the current placing of the discussion, principally within the section "Taxonomy and Evolution" seems a real improvement to me. I'm not really qualified to judge whether the current arrangement of sections is ideal, but from my point of view, the article reads much better now.

The above represents no more than my humble opinion, for what it's worth. Hope it helps. --RexxS (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"county" - "County-Statistically Equivalent Entity"

All is here, please see: Talk:Washington,_D.C.#District_of_Columbia_as_county-equivalent I was told I should give a brief explanation of the subject, but that's just not really possible, only thing i can say is that e.g. for the page County (United States) it is disputed, that, altough the link-sources are clearly showing that, according to the u.s. census bureau, not only the u.s. states have subdivions called "county", but also D.C. () and the u.s. territories Puerto Rico () and other Island Areas () have subdivisions called "County-Statistically Equivalent Entity" - for a complete list of all both of this subdivision types please see  :  : —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.246.98 (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your sources are pretty convincing that the U.S. Census Bureau treats the entire District of Columbia as the equivalent of a county for statistical purposes. I haven't read the entire discussion linked to but it does seem surprising why it is hard for the other people in that discussion to accept the fact that DC is a county-equivalent for statistical purposes. Now being an entity only for statistical purposes, it probably does not merit mentioning in the article on Washington, D.C. Its mention in county-equivalent is probably sufficient. Here's a more explicit source on this: (page 2, end of 2nd paragraph; also page 1, 3rd paragrap, 1st sentence). --Polaron | Talk 01:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

oh yes, thank you, your link clears it out to the end - interesting that it says that the d.c. area is handled as a statistical equivalent of both a county and a u.s. state, too - as i guessed, the political status has nothing to do and has no influence or relevance in this statistical category field of the u.s. census bureau. well, for me it does not matter whether the d.c. page editors decide to mention that fact or not, even though i personally would favour a such hint. also, user abductive has suggested in mentioning the historically d.c. counties on the page, maybe that information there could be combined with only half a sentence or so about "the d.c. area is not only handled as a statistical equivalent of county both of a u.s. state, too, by the u.s. census bureau", or such something, but as i said, that is not my business. as you said it, when the discussion here will be closed at some time, the County-equivalent page have to be edited to make it contain this information, as does so the County statistics of the United States page and the County (United States) page as well as maybe the title of the page of the map there pictured because it misleads to the impression that there are no county(-a-like) units outside the u.s. states, elsewhere in the u.s.a., in its territories, or visually adding there the "missing" "county-statistically eqivalent entities", maybe in another colour or so, i think. i do not know whether or not the County equivalent page title have to be changed or changed as a re-direct to a new-titled page of the same content, because maybe the brief title could lead to minsunderstandings, as it did in the discussion on the d.c. talk page this far. personally, i would favour a more exactly title, as suggestions have been made in bold script at the bottom of the discussion of the d.c. talk page, but clearly the essential thing for me is that the data given in the links, sources is reflected clearly in the content of the named wiki pages, what i am going to try do so, when this discussion here is decided and closed. 84.60.246.98 (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

File:I-726.svg

I tried to upload an "Interstate 726" shield to this, but it said the name was too general. Could an admin upload a general, no state name included, Interstate 726 shield, to this file, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tstarl0425 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is pointless unless there's an actual I-726, not just something you made up one day. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Interstate 726. --NE2 20:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving article over redirect

Could an administrator please help to move the article "Martin Pearson (rugby league)" over the redirect "Martin Pearson"? "Martin Pearson" is only a variant spelling of "Martin Peerson", so I think it is all right for a substantive article to occupy that name rather than for it to be a mere redirect. — Cheers, JackLee 05:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

The main page's "did you know" section has fallen prey to a vandal. The article on "painted suillus" states: "Did you know...

that the painted suillus (pictured) is not, in fact, the feeding appendages of an underground monster that wants to eat your face?"

--Twi1609372 (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Having an issue with an editor who insists on having templates work thier way, despite the fact that they are not editting the articles in question

I'm having issues with NE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After asking a question on templates, and getting them to work the way I need them too for the content I am writing. Rather than help, the user has come in and changed everything to standards they use to write American road articles. I am not American, and I am not writing American road articles. I am also using what I feel is a better system, avoiding abbreviations that are never explained to the reader in favour of spelling out the words. This is fully conformant with the manual of style, and NE2's insistance on changing it is disruptive to the process I am using to create several dozen articles, which they do not contribute to (Much less any of the roadways in Canada, or Ontario).

After making new templates to satisfy my specific needs (without causing any ill effect to other templates), the user then followed up with changing them to redirects, once again screwing up the alignments and setup of the articles which I am the sole contributor of. Please inform this user that this is disruptive and counterproductive to insist that things be done their way.

I am aware the NE2 is the creator of many of these templates. However, he does not edit the articles that they are used on. I feel he has ownership issues if he is not allowing me to make the minor changes necessary for my way of presenting information. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 20:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is at Template talk:Jct#How do I? --NE2 20:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Magna Pacific/Magna Home Entertainment

Can I request that the page for Magna Pacific (http://en.wikipedia.org/Magna_Pacific) be redirected to the new page for Magna Home Entertainment (http://en.wikipedia.org/Magna_Home_Entertainment) by an Admin. Magna Home Entertainment is the new name/identity for the company, however I cannot make this redirect as it has been disabled. There have only been minor edits to the Magna Home Entertainment page from the original content of the Magna Pacific page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnap (talk • contribs) 10:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Genre classification of Epic

An old dispute as started back up. Per use by scholars in the Philological field of genre classification, the term "Romance Epic" was used to classify works that were partially Romances and partially Epic. However, a few people want to use the term "Romantic Epic" for such works. "Romantic Epic" (, , , etc) is used for epics by the Romantic Poets.

The "Romance" genre is not the "Romantic" genre. One focuses on adventure and loosely structured plots. The other emphasises the individual experience. They are also divided by a strong 200 year gap. There is no alternative term than "Romantic Epic" for epics by the Romantic Poets. There is a clear scholarly "Romance Epic" for those of the earlier period. I have tried to explain this over and over, with constant attacks and abuse on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why this "epic" argument over a minor point has been revived. This has already been thoroughly discussed by several users on a Misplaced Pages noticeboard . --Folantin (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing how you and your friends stated that fringe didn't apply, and now you are trying to claim that the matter was settled there. The matter was resolved by experts in the field showing that you had no basis. Even Geogre made statements to that effect. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"you and your friends". I forgot, it was a cabal. I'll stick with The Cambridge History of Italian Literature and all the other scholarly works which call Orlando a "romantic epic", thanks. It's a term that should be familiar to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject. It's perfectly good enough for Misplaced Pages. --Folantin (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Cambridge History of Italian Literature is not a work within Epic classification, which has been stated multiple times. Your claims are as absurd as saying a work on physics is accurate enough to contradict works on biology when the matter deals with biology. And yes, Dbachmann, Moreschi, Akhilleus and others have been proven to be your friends and come to your defend on multiple pages of different topics. The Meat puppetry guidelines make it apparent that your voice only counts as one. "all the other scholarly works" Classification requires direct and appropriate sources by those trained in the field. You have failed to provide evidence from those who specialize in the epic genre, nor do you accept the sources that are provided from such sources. This is the definition of disruption via tendentious editing. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Epic scholars that use the term "Romance Epic" (links are so people can see what is said about them because not everything is on google books in its own right, but some are).

• Dennis Looney Compromising the classics: Romance epic narrative in the Italian Renaissance
• David Quint "The Boat of Romance and Renaissance Epic"
• Jane Everson Italian Romance Epic in the Age of Humanism
• Hans-Erich Keller et alRomance epic: essays on a Medieval literary genre‎
• Tobias Gregory From many gods to one: divine action in Renaissance epic

There are many more, but these are just a few of the -epic- scholars who specialize in genre classification and components of of the epic genre. Only -they- can classify what is an epic or a type of epic. Folantin relies on people who aren't specialists in epic, who are merely translators, or some other non-notable scholar when it comes to epic studies. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This will provide a nice primer on the matter: "Ariosto did not invent the syncretic romance epic; rather, he raised an already successful hybrid genre to new levels of popularity and literary ambition." p. 103. As I have stated before, there are thousands of hits for the works of the British Romantic poets (the German and French Romantic poets were not shown yet) that show that "Romantic Epic" is used in describing their epics. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Orlando furioso is a work of Italian Renaissance poetry. I prefer to trust Professor Peter Marinelli who is a specialist in this area who wrote the relevant section of The Cambridge History of Italian Literature. He uses "romantic epic". --Folantin (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

All of the people I have quoted above are specialists that focus on the Italian -epics- not Italian -poetry-. Poetry does not equal epic, nor ability to specialise in epic. The fact that you keep pushing him when there are the -top- Italian epic scholars listed above and linked is troublesome. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Marinelli is a specialist in Ariosto, Boiardo, Tasso and so on. They are Italian epic poets. --Folantin (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If you bothered to read before responding, you would have seen that I have quoted half a dozen world famous specialists in the area. Marinelli is not one especially with one book and one article. You haven't come close to provide someone to counter David Quint let alone Jane Everson. Then there is Zatti that you haven't bothered to contradict. You have yet to explain how you propose to differentiate between the epics of the Romantic poets which have far more hits as "Romantic Epic". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Romantic epic" is a perfectly acceptable term to apply to Orlando furioso. Hundreds of books use it as I have already demonstrated on the page. Complete strangers to the debate such as User:Ettormo have no problem understanding it. It's a familiar term in English. CUP invited Marinelli to write about Renaissance poetry because he was a specialist in the area. No era or genre has a monopoly on the term "romantic", just as no era or genre has a monopoly on the term "Gothic". I have no idea why you are so persistent on this issue. --Folantin (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like it's just an issue of personal preference: one scholar uses "romantic epic", another "romance epic". Nowhere have you shown there to be any major academic debate over the use of the terms in which "romantic epic" was "deprecated" once and for all in favour of "romance epic". --Folantin (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question - how do you differentiate between Orlando Furioso and The Prelude if you want to claim that Orlando is a romantic epic and the Romantic Poets have no other descriptive? I have already provided multiple links which show hundreds of uses for each of the Romantic poets describing their Romantic Epics. The two uses are not the same and cannot be used as the same term. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, books on British Romanticism have no problem referring to "Ariosto's romantic epic" (e.g. this in a chapter entitled "Wordsworth's Ariosto", of all things ). --Folantin (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I already pointed out the way of distinguishing the two 11 months ago. "Italian romantic epic" (lower case), "Romantic epic" of the Romantic era (capitals). Here is the relevant link to a work explaining the background and using the terms in this way . Some relevant sentences from that section: "The term Romantic epic seems to be a contradiction in itself since it evokes at least two periods in our literary and cultural history I will refer to the Romantic epic in this essay mainly as a genre developed during the Romantic period in Britain and Russia The Romantic writers responded to the conventions of the classical epic, which were already transformed during the Renaissance when the works belonging to that era drew not only on classical authorities, but also on medieval folk epics. The term romantic epic is often applied to a number of these Renaissance epics, such as Ariosto's Orlando Furioso and Tasso's Gerusalemme Liberata..."--Folantin (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That work you cited is not a work on epic. It is a work on Italian literature. Why do you insist on claiming works on Italian literature and not on epic and epic classification are used to determine what an "epic" is? Furthermore, it has already been established that we have the term "Romance epic" which is used by leading scholars. Why are you opposed to the term? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, from your second link - "I will refer to the Romantic epic in this essay mainly as a genre developed during the Romantic period in Britain and Russia". I find it interesting that you left it out. The individual said it is "often applied" but does not say it was -correctly- applied. Instead, they make it clear that the term should be used for the Romantic period's epic and that you could say that earlier works were connected to the Romantic period ala "The inward turn". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

More logic-chopping. "It is a work on Italian literature." Yes, and Orlando furioso is a work of Italian literature. "The individual said it is 'often applied' but does not say it was -correctly- applied." It doesn't say it was incorrectly applied either. Please stop engaging in original research. --Folantin (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A work on -Italian- literature is not a work on -epic-. There is a completely different emphasis. There are people who write books on Milton's religion in Paradise Lost but are not qualified to talk about Milton's politics or his use of epic. It isn't a stretch to say that people who understand Italian poetry, which is not just -epic- and epic is not just -Italian-, would not have the same qualifications as people who have trained, studied, and published many works in the field have. "It doesn't say it was incorrectly applied either", yes, but you were assuming it was using the term in that instance in a manner that verified you. It did not. It merely stated an existence then stated -their- use of the term. Clear differentiation of the two uses and evidence that there is a conflict. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just your say-so. It's complete original research on your part. Specialists in Italian Renaissance poetry are perfectly qualified to talk about Italian Renaissance poems. --Folantin (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Folantin, you just claimed that epic = Italian. That is not true. Italian literature represents many, many different genres and types. Epic is one type. A person who studies the epic genre knows Classical to Modern epic and is part of the Structuralist branch of Philology. Italian is a language and is based on the language. Epic is a genre and based on the uniformity within a genre. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

<--I am not sure how classifying scholars of literature into scholars of Italian literature and scholars of other literature, and then classifying scholars of Italian literature into scholars of Italian -epic- and scholars of Italian -poetry- serves any purpose whatsoever. As if epic and poetry are different genres. As if someone who has published on Italian poetry is not capable of correctly speaking of Italian epic, or indeed romance/romantic epic. Am I to cast aside Barbara Reynolds for not having published enough in some field or other, and likewise cast aside her rather elegant statement, "There is the authority of tradition, therefore, behind the combination of gravity and fabulous romance which is the feature of the three most important literary examples of the Italian romantic epic Luigi Pulci's Morgante, Matteo Boiardo's Orlando Innamorato and Ludovico Ariosto's Orlando Furioso"?

Sorry, Ottava, but you're clutching at straws here. This is not, as some watchers might think, a distinction without a difference--it's a case where the fluidity and polyvalence of a key term disrupts an easy and clean categorization. This talk of who is more authoritative than someone else, it's impossible to maintain that discourse. What if one of Folantin's references publishes the definitive work on Orlando Furioso, in Italian, and it's then translated and published by Princeton UP? Will you then change your mind? No, such hair-splitting is not productive, and Folantin's lower- and uppercase suggestion makes sense to me, and appears to have the weight of authority--if you'll allow that someone from the University of Ottawa can speak authoritatively, of course. And by the way, Ottava, the only cabal I'm a member of is the bacon cabel--I've never even had the pleasure of meeting Folantin. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards