User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2009/November

Castle
I've made a lot of changes to the article recently, pruning unsourced material and adding sourced information. I've also restructured the article, creating separate history and architecture sections as the previous layout was a bit confused. Although the article is far from complete, I was wondering what you thought of the progress so far? I've attempted to make the article as pan-European as possible but am worried that it may be biased towards Britain, if only in terms of examples given and possibly to a greater extent than that. Representing everyone is a thorny issue that's been raised on the talk page periodically, and I've tried to get it right, but unfortunately most of the sources I have are English and have a slant towards the country. Nev1 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree with the changes you've made, they make sense to me. As I was re-writing some of the sections I was concerned that I was using terms that aren't properly introduced until later, so that sorts out that problem. The article's a long way from being ready to be promoted, but my eventual intention is to get it to FA and onto the mainpage. It's an important and popular article, and hopefully doing the subject justice will curb some of the nonsense that has sprung up around the article. I'm not satisfied with what was the architecture section, although it's not the worst section. Now it's so high profile I might redirect my efforts towards it, but I've got my sights set on the section about scientific design (and crusader castles). Hopefully, the article should be interesting as well as well referenced. There's plenty of interesting stuff to be included, such as Bodiam Castle probably wasn't meant as an actual defence as it's just not built right (eg: the moat was too deep and the loopholes didn't allow guns), but more as a symbol of power. Also, that murder holes were used to pour boiling oil or tar on attackers is a popular myth and they were probably used to extinguish fires. If the article isn't interesting by the time I've finished, I've done something wrong. Nev1 (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Bodiam Castle was at the centre of a large debate about the purpose of castles in the 1990s, with opinion swinging from the militarists to those who had a more dynamic approach to the buildings. Bodiam is meant to look like a formidable castle, but probably wasn't a realistic fortification. It's an interesting case though, because it does a very good job of looking like a great fortification, until you read the arguments against it. It's led to an examination of castles and how they affected their landscapes. Either way, it's a stunning castle. Which reminds me, I'll need to add a section on that, although I've no idea what it should be called.
 * My time on Wikipedia is very restricted at the moment, so I've been forced to pretty much abandon my watchlist and have decided to more or less concentrate on this single article. Nev1 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures
Yes, I think it has been badly mis-sold. Obviously with 300px set as my preference, it hits me & others much worse than most. The current MOS & picture tutorial texts are very bad, & I'm battling to get them revised. Very soon, perhaps sometime this week, the default will go from 180px to 220px, ie that is what all unregistered viewers, & registered ones with no prefs set, will see. My suggested recommendation for the picture tutorial is then only to use "upright scaling" up to a factor of 1.33 (=293px for the new default), and otherwise to fix pics intended to be seen at 300 & above - 400 is the MOS recommended maximum in normal situations. Arguments are Wikipedia_talk:Picture_tutorial and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style here. Any thoughts on this Oz-inspired draft? See talk page too.

All the best! Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesus
Thank you for your clarification of what was meant by the portrayal of Jesus 'looking Jewish'. What you write on my user page makes sense, but this was not clear in the article.

Please note I was not telling anyone what Jewish people look like - it was the article that seemed to be making such an assertion, which is why I removed it. To be honest, I'm not sure what you mean by your last two sentences, but I'm sure you didn't mean them to sound as aggressive as they do. Bitbut (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Free offer
Amanda, would you like me to set up another archive for this page? I seem to remember the other ones were done by someone. Otherwise it's time for a new one. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - see box at top. Archive 4 has some room left - just cut and paste & update the period covered in the box. To create a new one just copy a line from the box, adding 1 to the number, & then click on the resulting redlink.  Or ask me again, by all means. When's the trip? Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or I can set Cluebot III to do it automatically, leaving any desired number of threads on the page, if you wish. It works for mine.--Charles (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Cathedral infoboxes
I completely dissagree with you, I really like the maps in infoboxes, particularly as a lot of our cathedrals are national monuments or even World Heritage Sites, its useful to be able to locate the exact whereabouts of the cathdral. I appreciate the larger infobox may distort some of the text further down the article, so I will correct those later tonight. But what I am doing is not vandalism, the infobxes themselves have a maps section, which means it is there to be used. It come down to personal taste at the end of the day, and I like them! Bleaney (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Amanda, the map is just too much in the infobox with an image of the cathedral as well. The map is only a click or two away, via the coordinates, or the settlement.  David Underdown (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the reply. I do appreciate what you mean. I guess i'm a bit of an infobox purist, in that if I see empty fields in an infobox, I naturally populate them. Certainly the maps used at the moment are not ideal, though if city or town maps existed (like that for Bristl) I think they are very useful indeed. What would be EVEN better, is if we could have a map with the cathedral's location in relation to its own diocese! Can I make a suggestion to you? If what you say is true, and most UK cathedral editors dislike the UK Cathedral infobox in general, then why not change it? Or even get rid of it? If that happened, there would be no issue. (I dont really support the idea of NO infobox at all however, this would bad wikipedia practice). One more point. If again what you say about cathedral editors not liking these maps in the articles is true, then why has this issue not been raised with me before, as I added maps the UK catholic cathedral articles some months ago? Bleaney (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, you didn't really answer my question though? :-) Anyway, further to my previous point, It is considered good practice for ALL wikipedia articles to have infoboxes, so I can't support their removal completely, however nice this would make the article look. Wikipedia is not a beauty contest, and while Photos etc are desirable in any article, they are not of primary importance. But What I mean is, why not edit the Actual infobox so that so many fields are not available? Or delete the infobox entirely and put a different infobox in the cathedral articles? Bleaney (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not "considered good practice for ALL wikipedia articles to have infoboxes" - where on earth did you get this idea? They are specifically banned by some Wikiprojects, and regarded with disfavour by others. Please stop promulgating this nonsense. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see noone is prepared to answer my queries. If you want to jealously protect the ANGLICAN cathedral wikipedia articles, then thats fine. I give up. Do what you want. And by the way JohnBod, I am NOT 'promulgating this nonsense', how rude! Maybe some wikiprojects dont have infoboxes, but the HUGE MAJORITY do. Its not exactly unfair to assume that they are standard practice is it? Stop being so offensive, I am a good-faith editor, and dont appreciate your assumption of bad faith. Bleaney (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC comment for Bale Out
Hey, thanks for your helpful comment at Featured article candidates/Bale Out/archive1. I adjusted the article according to your suggestion. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Johnston (singer)
Your attacks on the personal life section have pretty much made it meaningless. This isn't gossip, this is from an interview in The Times, not some rag. J Milburn (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The lack of father figure is a major point within the whole story- it's frequently mentioned, and no doubt makes up part of the "disadvantaged child" persona. We talk of his mother, we're really going to have to say what we know about his father- especially as it has received so much attention from the press. We have quotes from the father himself here to a similar effect, which I think would negate any problems about BLP. J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If he regrets them, he can retract them, or when there are stories about him and his father spending time together, the statement can be removed. Right now, I hardly think it's appropriate to fill the article with quotes from his father about how great their relationship is/was when we have a very reliable source with a quote from Johnston himself saying he's just not interested. Forget about the BLP issues for a minute and actually consider how we would address this in any other situation. J Milburn (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I admit the story's pretty useless. And I'm not denying that they had it tough- I'm just pointing out that the "single mother" thing is part of the whole picture, and so, especially as the sources have stressed it, worth stressing. J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, that sounds reasonable. I will look into reworking the personal life section when I get a chance. J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm still not loving those headings. "Sucess" is not a valid heading, nor is "recent activities". Further, details about where he is currently living do not belong under a discussion of his career, and those micro-paragraphs look terrible. Having a discussion of his early life is potentially valid within the history section, but the current format is not great. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)