User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 19

A couple of two things

 * I was one night out in seeing Emmylou Harris appear as a surprise guest at a 450 seater venue over x mass. OOOoooHHHhhh. Was there the following night, at the same headlining band. This is a regret I will take to the grave as I find her most impressive and have many albums
 * My feeling on Beaune is that efforts were well intentioned, but could not scale. Obv Gog is a nice guy with a substantial body of work and review history; certainly Reidgreg is somebody I'd like to see reviewing or helping more; there is a great eye for detail there.
 * Its been raining for 32 days straight in Ireland, and latent nationalism may crash our government, perhaps rightfully so, havnt figured it out yet though I do like Leo Varadkar, even if he is a bit of a young, socially conservative (which is odd as he is openly gay), fogey.
 * I have no other news. Ceoil  (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm all kinds of shades of green with envy re Emmy Lou! Lucky you! What an incredible surprise. She's been one of my favorites since, well, forever. Back in the day when she had long black hair.
 * Beaune proved what I've long suspected - I'm not fit for Wikipedia & don't know when I will be. For certain I'm not fit for that kind of FAC review with deadline, during the holidays, that landed right after a death in the family & my own issues. It reduced me to a screaming two-year-old & I very much want to avoid sliding into tantrums again. That said, yes, agreed re the rest.
 * Hmm, weather. 32 days of rain is a lot. We get everything; rain, snow, fog, cold days, warm days. At the moment the furnace is broken & the temps sliding down, so a bit chilly.
 * I have no other news either. Victoria (tk) 00:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * There is broad understanding that you are unable for article work, however I think you are doing great as a respected voice of reason.
 * Yomanthing and Outrigg are aboot; it feels like 2007 all over again, back when this place had genuinely, naturally funny people around. Obv everybody loves the gentle but extremely sharp minded Rigg, and re the other fella, - whats his name; I still think "Ask a Martian Chinese whore" is the most graceful, elegant last word, ever.
 * An abiding interest in funerary art has lead me to now identify as puritan.
 * Rain expected to the east, clearing Tuesday.
 * You rock. Ceoil  (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That Tsk thread was great! (We did used to have fun.) While I'm here, I have decided to take the TFA plunge, just to see how miserable the experience is.  In case anyone wants to copyedit Tourette syndrome.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "bizarre" in the lead sounds a bit old fashioned, if not in scare quotes. But this is nit picking of the highest order, having followed for years, the article is in rude health. Ceoil  (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing here or here is useful. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But this from 1975 and this from 2013. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As somebody that's often told they have ADDH, though I think I'm just wired, I find that language a bit off. Ceoil  (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Puritanism, eh? I think it's bred in the bone, hard coded. Very bleak, fatalistic. There's no chance of redemption or forgiveness (concepts that are alien to me, being born puritan) except for the few chosen elect - but the catch is that no one knows who the elect are until they die. The elect get to go to that wondrous door on the left, as van der Weyden depicts it, but everyone else goes right and slides into hell, regardless of good deeds, etc. Then there are the various sects, the Plymouth puritans of course being different than the Mass Bay Colony puritans, and various beliefs within the sects. I used to teach Ann Hutchinson & antinomianism (good word, that). No matter how often I taught it, could never quite get it to stick in my head and every semester had to reread that particular philosophy to understand it well enough to shove a small modicum of knowledge at my students. Never quite felt that I succeeded but it's important in early Am. Studies, so there you go. Since you asked, or rather mentioned.
 * I'd forgotten that thread on Karanac's page and don't think I even knew there are two Yomans - a Yomangan & a Yomangani. How many iterations of Yoman can this place take? And Riggr - how many riggrs are there? Outriggr, Riggrmortis, etc. Can't these people remember their names?
 * It's cold here, furnace is broken waiting for a part to arrive from some far off state, though I think that's meant to make me freeze for a week and then break down and beg for a many-thousand-dollar new furnace. Pfft!
 * During the holidays I got caught up on the Star Wars saga and we had a long conversation about that island off the coast of Ireland & the odd birds there. Then I realized we were talking about Skellig Michael & those puffins. I took a look at it yesterday - nice article. Well done there.
 * Not much else, no other news. Hi Sandy! Victoria (tk) 19:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This, re:Puritans. I’ve been trying to give Ceoil a crash course in Calvinism and the concept of the elect, stuff that I was taught in school, though I don’t know whether it still is. There’s no reason why this would have been taught in Irish schools; doesn’t apply to what happened there. We are working on this article about Puritan funerary art, and I was trying to explain what their view of the afterlife would have been like. No happy rest or repose, just a life of grimness with probable hellfire at the end. I’d forgot the Antinomism stuff - this is good, and I hope Ceoil reads it! User:Kafka Liz a girl is no one 21:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the concept of the elect is hard to explain and to understand, that idea that anyone can be an elect but no one knows until they die. So you live your life as though you are, doing the best you can, but knowing that most likely you'll end up in hell. A co-worker I worked with back in the day in Boston used to come to work w/ a t-shirt that said, "life sucks and then you die". That pretty much sums it up.
 * One of the reasons I like Netherlandish art is that those concepts are alien to me (daughter of many generations of New Englanders, student of early Am. history & lit, so awash in puritanism). The idea that someone can commission a religious work with the hope of improving one's chances of going off to the left hand door seems to me so ... decadent. Almost cheating, really.
 * The "life sucks and then you die" concept is one of the main themes in American literature, from the earliest writings, through to Hawthorne who gave us Hester Prynne & her scarlet letter (and she is a good puritan because she endures with grace), and is very evident in the modernists. Not until I came to Wikipedia did I learn about redemption & forgiveness & all that. Which is a scary thought.
 * Nice to see you btw! How are things? Victoria (tk) 22:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * P.s - I peeked at the article. That might be tricky or at least will require a bit of background reading. Peeked at the talk page too, & re this comment, the answer is that embellishment of any kind was eschewed. I.e Hester Prynne scandalized the community by embroidering her scarlet letter; she embellished it against the community norms, which was adding sin to sin. Victoria (tk) 22:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Feeling out of my depth here, but listening and learning. And I thought Catholic guilt was heavy duty. Carry on, its fascinating, and insightful into areas I had never thought existed, particularly re Ezra. Ceoil  (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons I like Netherlandish art is that those concepts are alien to me (daughter of many generations of New Englanders, student of early Am. history & lit, so awash in puritanism). The idea that someone can commission a religious work with the hope of improving one's chances of going off to the left hand door seems to me so ... decadent. Almost cheating, really.
 * The "life sucks and then you die" concept is one of the main themes in American literature, from the earliest writings, through to Hawthorne who gave us Hester Prynne & her scarlet letter (and she is a good puritan because she endures with grace), and is very evident in the modernists. Not until I came to Wikipedia did I learn about redemption & forgiveness & all that. Which is a scary thought.
 * Nice to see you btw! How are things? Victoria (tk) 22:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * P.s - I peeked at the article. That might be tricky or at least will require a bit of background reading. Peeked at the talk page too, & re this comment, the answer is that embellishment of any kind was eschewed. I.e Hester Prynne scandalized the community by embroidering her scarlet letter; she embellished it against the community norms, which was adding sin to sin. Victoria (tk) 22:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Feeling out of my depth here, but listening and learning. And I thought Catholic guilt was heavy duty. Carry on, its fascinating, and insightful into areas I had never thought existed, particularly re Ezra. Ceoil  (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * P.s - I peeked at the article. That might be tricky or at least will require a bit of background reading. Peeked at the talk page too, & re this comment, the answer is that embellishment of any kind was eschewed. I.e Hester Prynne scandalized the community by embroidering her scarlet letter; she embellished it against the community norms, which was adding sin to sin. Victoria (tk) 22:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Feeling out of my depth here, but listening and learning. And I thought Catholic guilt was heavy duty. Carry on, its fascinating, and insightful into areas I had never thought existed, particularly re Ezra. Ceoil  (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Ezra & imagism, yes, that makes sense. Simplicity, the lack of embellishment, is easily found in America, in our architecture (all those plain salt box houses on the Cape, if you've ever been there, and the simple pre-colonial & colonial homes in New England), etc., etc. The Victorian/Edwardian period of his youth was so fussy and I can understand the reaction against it, hence imagism, honing Hemingway's prose & Eliot's poetry, to make it clean & simple. Victoria (tk) 23:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Reductive burn all bridges and minimalism are two different things. I can only speak about music here (oh how I love one note songs) contrast Wire with minimilist techno...skip to 5:20, but notice how the the album art is the same. I think Pound crosses both bridges, or rather burned, but in terms of pared down to its bones words, he is supreme. Right now I'm getting the same feeling from the New England headstones: direct, this is how life is. Ceoil  (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. Life sucks. Deal with it. Victoria (tk) 00:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Basically, yes. Ceoil  (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

New Section
Just to avoid scrolling; forgive me.

I’ve never understood the motivation there. Why do good works if being good or being an arse gets you the same place? Not good motivation, in my book. Full disclosure: both sides of my family are Catholic, so I could have a bias ;). But it is interesting how much of the modern American ethos hearts back to those early Calvinist roots. “You’re poor? Didn’t work hard enough. Fuck Charity.” I could go on, but won’t. It’s all there in Hawthorne, and I know you know why he changed his name. User:Kafka Liz a girl is no one 22:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think, and this is Original Research on my part, that the simplistic style is related to what went down in the original iconoclasm back under the Romans. You can see it today in Islamic art, and it was a huge factor in early Byzantine works. Anything too realistic is frowned upon, yet people still love and learn from images, and the fact that iconography exists at all was a bow to those who could not read. An image of say, St Peter holding the keys to heaven, tells someone who can’t read exactly who it is. User:Kafka Liz a girl is no one 22:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've combined it, if that's okay? Yeah it is all in Hawthorne - another work I've taught for many years. I just peeked at the page for the The Scarlet Letter (a student once plagiarized from it, which is how I ended up editing Wikipedia!) and it needs tons of work. I might put it on my to do list. My understanding is that good works are just that, good, but if you're not of the elect won't get you to heaven. Better is to live in a state of grace, which very difficult to achieve, but Hemingway's writings are filled w/ sinners who "achieve grace under pressure". I don't really understand the good works = going to heaven bit either, or the idea that being poor = sinner. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong, that's a later iteration. The problem is that there were sects within sects, each with its own philosophy. I think by the time of Jonathan Edwards there was more of a shift towards fire & brimstone if one's life wasn't lived according to a specific model. The Plymouth puritans, if I remember correctly, had a different philosophy. But I'd need to look it up.


 * Re the plain lines, yeah, that makes sense. Probably one of the reasons Netherlandish paintings are called primitives & probably another reason I like that art. Victoria (tk) 23:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What's all this figurative self-flagellation, reformation dogma, eye of the needle rubbish? I want to know if The Scarlet Letter is "poopy. Hi Josh". That's what I come to Wikipedia for. Yomangani talk 10:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is poopy, Josh. Bros before ho’s. User:Kafka Liz a girl is no one 10:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that's all I wanted to know. Thanks Liz, see you all in another ten years. Yomangani talk 17:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't finish the internet yet, Yo-man; it's still winter 'round here, and I will get bored until spring arrives. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, a sentence jumped out at me in this article about a Van Gogh self-portrait that I read yesterday: "He was a Protestant and as a Protestant you have to accept the facts of life — if you suffer, you have to face the suffering." It seemed apropos to the conversation above. Re Liz, yes, that's the superficial reading but given that Hawthorne was a transcendentalist (another philosophy not easy to parse) it's generally believed that the work has more layers and that Hester is the better person, so to speak, in contrast to Dimmesdale & Chillingsworth (whose names tell us what we need to know about those two). I might take a stab at that article when I have some energy. I took a look at sources last night, but there is a lot of reading involved. Yoman, echoing Sandy's plea: don't leave. It's cold, it's winter, it's nice to chat & it's nice to have buddies around here. Victoria (tk) 22:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

FAC talk
Hi Victoria, Just to answer your question, no, Brian's comment wasn't about you (or either, as I'm sure some people will erroneously jump to that conclusion). Tim told me the names of the people Brian was referring to, but neither of the two is active at FA/C, and one of them has retired. I hope you are well. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not smart enough to figure out who it is. All I know is that I opposed Black Friday, felt at the time there might be behind-the-scenes discussion going on and subsequently struck all my comments, but now find out that it was being discussed and considered a railroading. At first I thought I'd overreacted this morning, but it's hard to find out that someone I've respected & admired had such a poor opinion of my reviewing efforts. It's hard to unring that bell, to use a cliche. Anyway, I'm sorry you felt that FAC had been railroaded. Victoria (tk) 19:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Victoria, Just a couple of points to clarify things: there wasn't any behind-the-scenes discussions going on that I know of, and Brian's comments on the subject were not aimed at you or Sarah but at the aftermath, where he was discussing a user who has now retired. I don't want to start throwing out the redacted names from the post, as that would be potentially pouring petrol on the flames, but as far as I am aware, Brian did not criticise you or your work at that FAC. I hope this clears up that point of your concern. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Creating an edit conflict notice for when you redo your archiving for the third time
That is all. Hahaha. Yomangani talk 23:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hahaha! Apparently I forgot how to archive! I thought I should follow your example and get rid of yesterday morning's comments. So it's all your fault. Victoria (tk) 16:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed the article and I was going to nominate it for DYK (as it had only recently been moved to mainspace) but somebody deleted it.  Yomangani talk 16:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I suppose you Ceoil's nascent conversion to 17th c. American puritanism might be hooky or maybe something about the Boston tombstones, but otherwise nothing much else of interest there. It was one of the very few times I wished I had tools to delete my own mess and not have to go begging. Oh well. Nice to see you around, btw. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Was reading on reddit about Archive 19; apparently it was over sighted by men (and women) in black because two few of us could DEAL WITH THE TRUTH, and a bunch of Ernie from Sesame Street and Iran/Contra stuff. My god Victoria, what have you been up to. Ceoil  (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, well my relationship w/ the truth is what it is & things don't go well when I try to hide things. Thankfully we have men in black to bail me out. I've been too embarrassed to check the internet but happy to hear you were able to read ALL ABOUT IT on reddit. Of all places. Haven't been up to much. We have sun today which is a novelty. Haven't seen sun for months. Victoria (tk) 20:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I hear your misery and raise you five. We have had three weekends dominated by storms....all originating from New England bty, tap tap tap. Whoever is organizing these storms to hit on weekends only needs to seriously question their methods. In other news, no other news.  Ceoil  (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * P.s Have you seen this about JvE? A couple days ago in the NYT. If I lived on that side of the ocean I'd try to get to it. Victoria (tk) 21:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No but wow...does this mean the resotation is complete? Ceoil  (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like the restoration is complete & now being exhibited, which is exciting. Yeah, I noticed those weekends storms - they looked very nasty. I can't really complain about our winter except it's been endlessly gray, which seems to bother me after about three or four months. Otherwise no new here either. Victoria (tk) 21:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW my understanding from when I last edited Ghent Alt. was that the restoration is going more slowly than expected and will be going on for years. (There was a brief surge of interest in the funny face of the newly restored Lamb.) But they move panels around a lot and many of them are available for public viewing at any point. Thanks for that article. Outriggr (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Huge apologies for the belated reply: today I had to read that article & then followed one of the links to find this 2016 article about the restoration. Looks like you're right ( why does that surprise me?), the restoration is ongoing but they're exhibiting anyway. If you run into a paywall let me know, will try to figure out how to share a NYT article (apparently not easy). Hope you're well. Victoria (tk) 23:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's a good article from The Art Newspaper with three before-and-after images from the restoration, and towards the end they talk about the current status of the restoration. As with most things, they need more money. Outriggr (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * well..."after about three or four months" is well understood, frankly :( Ghent is easily accessible from here (daily flights from cork to Amsterdam and then train), so happy days. Without wanting to offend any Belgium TPS's, the country is massively underappreciated from a cultural POV and is a serious and inexpensive treasure.  Ceoil  (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ps, https://books.google.ie/books/about/The_mourners.html?id=ew43AQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y is en route. She also has a monograph on the Tomb of Philippe Pot, also recently restored, but is in french only. Ceoil  (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd love to go to Belgium, but ... Anyway, it was nice seeing it in the morning paper a couple of days ago & for a few seconds I thought ooohhh, that would be nice to see in person. If you go take lots of pics & share them! Victoria (tk) 22:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No prob if you like shakey cam and the back of people's heads ;) On a serous note, cough cough, I meant what I said about guidance on the form of the Caroline era‎‎ page. Maybe its obvious and I'm just thick, but you might mull it for a bit. You tend to be especially astute on such matters. Ceoil  (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on it and if I can pitch in, maybe only on the talk page, I will. I'm vaguely interested in the literature section but keep fading badly & not up to much heavy lifting. It's a great idea and great to see so many people involved. Victoria (tk) 22:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand fading, but meant more if you wanted to adopt a, non heavy lifting, wise and all-knowing approach, wherein you watch others do all the work and get to take all the credit from on high at the end, clinking champain glasses with Yoman. Hmm, now that I say it out loud, should have kept that role for myself.  Ceoil  (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm the Jay Gatsby of FAC. It’s a great advantage not to write among hard writing people. Yomangani talk 00:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oooh, ! Why, thank you for stopping by. Victoria (tk) 23:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to chime in on the talk page if/when needed (tho I can't match Yoman in the edit summary sweepstakes) & when I'm around. No need for credit; that's for the heavy lifters. Victoria (tk) 23:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad to have you about anytime anywhere Victoria. ps, we can "take care" of Yoman afterwards. Pause. mwahahaha. Ceoil  (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Coping
Very sad to hear your family is split up under these restrictions; the whole thing is mind bending. Individually we can only practice social responsibility, after that its wait and see. But responsibility is one potential good by product of all this; also I don't think I've ever spent so much time on the phone to family and friends as I have in the last week and a half; had a skype pint with Denis (who lives alone) earlier and it was a blast. Ceoil (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is what it is. We spent countless hours on the phone for weeks trying to decide what to do & then the window closed. But yes. Lots of phone calls. Victoria (tk) 19:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Human beings are very resilient, have faced worse, and survived. How Churchillian; we are blessed with a good leader in Ireland atm; not the case in the US or UK. Ceoil  (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of that is true. Btw - tried sending an email via wiki mail some weeks ago; does that still work? Or no? Victoria (tk) 20:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * On Gmail again, if you have the old address. Eircom now a lost cause; am unhappy to admit defeat, as have had that address for 20 years. Ceoil  (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, just changed my wiki email account, if you right click on sig, will get to me :) Ceoil  (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know that email. Have you updated wiki mail w/ the gmail address? Victoria (tk) 20:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PING Ceoil  (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
Best wishes, here or not here, do what's best for you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda, hope all is as best as can be with you. I've not really been able to be around much but peek in every once a week or so. Life is stressful. Victoria (tk) 20:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, I told Kafka Liz, and on my talk. I keep singing in defiance, of fear, among others, - great text from the 17th century. See? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Mostly it's emotionally draining, having to rearrange how we live. Happy to hear of your defiance. Keep it up! Victoria (tk) 20:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, trying. Has been with me for decades, first sung with this great conductor. One of those I knew had died but couldn't change on Wikipedia because I'm no RS. Today's memory went to a singer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're lucky to have your music for solace in your life. I'm tone deaf, so music is somewhat of a mystery to me. Victoria (tk) 02:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thou knowest, Lord, the secrets of our hearts (Purcell) - one of the last things we could sing together, 8 March: "spare us, Lord", "suffer us not", - good texts, with great and simple music. I miss singing together. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you today for Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele, a painting "about old age and aging by Jan van Eyck dated to c. 1434-36. Its great for several reasons, most of all because of how van der Paele, a significant operator in early 15th century Bruges, allows himself to be depicted without any regard to vanity, at all."! - I thought of Purcell's music again on a recent funeral day. We walked to Kreuzkapelle yesterday, where I took 2 new pics, - singing outdoors. Best wishes for health and all! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you today for your share to Dresden Triptych, about a very "small but very beauitful and innovative 1437 triptych altarpiece, which had a significant influence on following generations of Netherlandish painters, but which is now sadly in poor condition"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! It was a pleasure and a privilege to work on that article. One the favorites I've been involved with. Have you ever seen that tiny altarpiece in Dresden? Victoria (tk) 16:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

No reason
Just saying hello and to thank for the headstone link. Was looking this morning over talk comments on various user pages from this time last year...different world. I dont think its going to be any different until early next year, at best. Well be fine in Europe as population is well educated, but over there, ye are only as good as the weakest state :( The global consequences are, will be, well trying not to think, not that I understand that stuff or anything. Ceoil  (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a pleasure to see what you've done with that Puritan article. I have strange memories of walking through the Granary Burial ground as a young child. The headstones were probably higher than I was & the death's heads maybe at eye level. Weird yet wonderful place. Hope you're all doing well. Be safe. Victoria (tk) 18:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC) P.s - forgot to reply at the talk page there: yes the Great Awakening seems to be a logical breaking point. Victoria (tk) 23:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello
Apologies for the random message, but I just wanted to say that I hope you are doing well during these incredibly strange times. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, no need to apologize; random messages always welcome (despite my very long response time!) All is well, but as you say, strange. Slightly less strange, but still not at all the same as life was in February. Hope all is well with you and stay safe. Victoria (tk) 18:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am glad you are doing well. I agree that things seem far less strange than they did a few months ago, but I hope I did not jinx it. I am normally not a superstitious person, but I do not want to take any chances with how this year s going already lol. I am trying my best. I am very appreciative that I have a place to hunker down and that my family is doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly pessimistic about this pandemic, particularly here in the United States and have generally been hunkering down & re-reading a very long and favorite fantasy series. A lot of my spare time these days is devoted to being a mask-maker, but apparently that's a political issue. So in that sense, still a lot of weirdness. Anyway, thanks for stopping by. Victoria (tk) 18:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I try to be an optimistic person, but I am fairly realistic about the pandemic. That's why I am still staying at home and taking all the precautions necessary if I need to go outside for any reason. I am also from the US, and I am very worried about what will happen in the future. For that reason, I am just trying to focus on what I can control. It's weird what is considered a political issue now, but I'm not opening that can of worms. I think it is very admirable that you are making masks, but that's just my opinion. Thank you for the responses, and I hope you have a good weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Get well soon...
Dear Victoria, Just to say I feel sorry to learn you are unwell at the moment, but am sending you my very best wishes, in hopes that things will improve for you before too long. Get well soon. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 08:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC) PS: You probably won't remember our exchange (Oct 2016) on Grace Hall Hemingway, and I've just seen these recent posts. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 15:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal, simply some chronic issues that are stubborn but nothing to do with covid. Of course I do remember our discussion re Grace Hall & your work on her page. I noted the recent work on that page. Coincidentally I've been slowly reading through this short biography Michael Reynolds published in one of Linda Wagner-Martin's books. There's a fair amount of info there re Grace; at first I thought about adding more the main bio but your work on her page made me think that's the best place for it. Anyway, thought I'm mention it. Sorry for the long delay in replying - hope all is well for you and stay safe. Victoria (tk) 18:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Victoria,
 * Thank you for your reply, and please accept my apologies for delay in acknowledging it. I am thankful to you for mentioning this short bio; which is already serving as a source at Grace Hall Hemingway, but I'll have another look with a view to mining it further; thanks a lot for the tip! Yes, thank you Victoria; I am keeping very well and consider myself lucky to be living here, within walking distance of a river and two beaches, especially since the weather has been so nice since March 21. I hope you are recovering well and that you are keeping safe.
 * If/when you have the time, I'd be most grateful if you would consider assisting our new joiner Wendy Ikoku, whom I have been helping with her first article. I'll be pinging you from her draft article's talk page later today, and am hopeful you might be able to offer advice there, if possible. Many thanks in advance for your consideration, Victoria.
 * With kind regards for now;

Thank you
Sorry to see you unwatch, but can appreciate why you have done so. Thank you for your help and encouragement, but way, way more importantly than anything else, please look after yourself. : ) Factotem (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the middle of those posts, and as I had just located this letter I was interrupted by a phone call, which made me lose interest in GW for the moment. The issue, per that letter, is that Donaldson was an overseer or some such, not a visitor, & really none of it has anything to do with Morgan's assertion. I wasn't able to explain well, so I gave up. I might look in again in a few days. Victoria (tk) 20:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yikes! Thanks all. Victoria (tk) 18:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 20, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/September 20, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I completely missed it! Which might not be a bad thing. Hope all is well with you. Victoria (tk) 21:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EzraPound&#38;IsabelPound1898.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:EzraPound&. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays

 * Thanks Johnbod, that's a lovely nativity. Hope all is well - or as well as can be - over there. We'll be having a white Christmas for the first time in some years, so that will be festive. Here's hoping the next year will be better - this one has been one for the history books. Victoria (tk) 18:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings of the season

 * Thanks Sandy, this is lovely. Thanks for the thoughts. Hope all is well with you and yours and that you had a festive Christmas. Ours was scaled down to tiny, but still very nice. Happy New Year! Victoria (tk) 18:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 * Thanks Modernist! The same back atcha and let's hope 2021 will be better. Happy New Year to you and yours. Victoria (tk) 18:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Natalis soli invicto!

 * Thanks Ealdgyth, hope all is well with you and yours. How you all do so much here is beyond me, but thanks for all the hard work. Happy New Year. Victoria (tk) 18:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays

 * Thanks so much! We're staying in, hunkered down, now with all the family at home, which is far less depressing and the house is busy. Hope all is well with you, Liz, and your families. Victoria (tk) 17:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays!
Hi Victoria, just a note (sorry, card-free; I'm never organized enough) to wish you and yours all the best for the holiday season and the New Year. I hope 2021 is a good one for you. Best wishes, SarahSV (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah, thanks so much for stopping by. I didn't get it together either. Hope all is well with you and yours. Enjoy the rest of the holidays and Happy New Year. We all deserve a good new year's celebration this year. Victoria (tk) 17:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

New horizons
Hi, Victoria. So I've moved onto Dracula for the time being. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at Dracula, then compare it to my in-progress rewrite, which you can see on my sandbox. I think it’s looking not too bad so far, but if you have any feedback then I'd love to hear it. Note that I will be doing the lead last to make sure it accurately sums up the rest of the article. If you're able to give me any feedback, you can do it on the sandbox talk?It helps to be able to flick back and forth between them. If not, don't worry about it :) I appreciate all the help you've given me so far :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I've put it on watch, but can't take a look at it for a few days or so. Re sandbox editing, it's useful to move work into main space whenever you can (i.e avoid writing the entire article in a sandbox) and attribute correctly when copying in to preserve article history. The under construction tag can be useful during rewrites, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 21:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Article rescue - Battle of Tippecanoe

 * Thanks,, that's a nice surprise and nice to receive. Victoria (tk) 22:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant to thank you, also; my sincere apologies for being too caught up in my own miserable Wiki experiences to remember you ;( Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing to worry about. It was an enjoyable experience and I felt it important to rework to match sources w/ text. But it ruined me and I needed to few days, so I've barely been around this week. Hope you're well (miserable wiki experiences doesn't sound good). Victoria (tk) 23:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, for the moment, I'm still here, but I really don't know why anymore. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with logging out for a while, taking some deep breaths, and taking care of your back. Have some tea or coffee or booze, definitely some chocolate, and take some more deep breaths. I'm always in awe of the amount of energy you have to get things done, but don't let it overwhelm. Be well. Victoria (tk) 02:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Dresden Triptych TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 30, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/March 30, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much ! I'm excited to see this article scheduled for TFA, especially since I thought it had been years ago. Thanks, too, for the advance notice; given how slowly I work and how seldom I'm here, I might even be able to go through and polish. Hope all is well! Victoria (tk) 17:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, fine, thanks, hope the same for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Trilled to see this notice here. Was a great collab V, happy memories. Hope all is well; please chat. You have been missed. Ceoil  (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was a great collab and it's a lovely article. Very very pleased to see it TFA. Can you work your magic re removing fixed pixel sizes and substituting with the newer markup that I haven't managed to learn? I feel stupid and slow around here these days, otherwise, ok as ok can be. How are you? Victoria (tk) 22:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Am, or at least the people I care about, are fine. Its been a slow, slow, slow year for all; my nieces and nephews are bursting with frustrated energy, while my parents are similarly bored out of their minds, and notice that in the latest lock down we are all tipping into varying degrees of depression. Ireland did great in managing lock down, but access to meds hs been slow. ~In addition, the Brits are being a pain in the arse, with their brexit fantasies, the impact re tarrfs etc here is quite sever, and their are a lot of warnings about job losses. Ceoil  (talk)
 * Slow year is true. I've turned into a sloth and been exceedingly lazy - lots of mindless reading. Since we don't do lockdowns here they have to be self-imposed (for those of us who try to stay safe). One of mine is in quarantine - after making it this far (with a house full of housemates). Access to vaccines here is frustratingly slow but promised to pick up. Tipping into depression is about right and spring, for some reason, seems to make it a little worse. At least for me. Though I'm perpetually grouchy. Good to see the work on the funerary monuments. Victoria (tk) 22:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The last 12 months have been hard on everybody, but we preserver. Its always nice to hear from you, and to say Magdalen Reading is my favorite article on this website, because we were both figuring out the style at the same time, and because of its inherent, undeniable beauty. Ceoil  (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Tbh, I think we're all lucky we're only talking about a year or more when it could have been much longer. The death toll here is so staggeringly high that I can't really wrap my brain around it and plummet into hole whenever I do. Magdalen Reading seems like a life-time ago and the scale of what we knew then vs now (and you've continued, whereas I haven't) is fairly staggering. I was just thinking about the Dresden altarpiece and how small it is; it's those bits of information that stick with me: that a specific noble family commissioned a portable traveling altarpiece. Not to get too philosophical, but maybe after this year I have a better understanding of why that might one of life's necessities. Victoria (tk) 00:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * haha, one thing I've always wanted is a time machine so could go back to myself and say...wtf. But yeah, we know a lot now that didn't before. And if this pandemic has thought anything its: don't take anything for granted. Also that c. 36% of US politicians are more interested in re-election that the mortality rate of their electorate, but I digress.  Ceoil  (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For sure we've learned not to take anything for granted. I have lots of weird memories of a year ago, empty store shelves, the world just stopping. RE politicians, imo your calculations are low. But I can't get started: it's the sort of thing that I can work up a good rant over. The walls in the house are the best audience for that. Thank god I gave up social media before the pandemic! Victoria (tk) 20:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Its fun to listen to historians speculate how the last five years will be viewed in 2120. Rather bitterly, is the general consensus, but the start rather than the end of the republican mastication. Jesus christ, the cancel culture scare stuff during this week re 1940s children's books was farce. They are inventing a mindset enemy that DOES NOT EXIST, just so they can rouse and then placate their base. Anyways back on planet earth, my big regret is that we never properly went at the Madonna of the Dry Tree article. Its a deeply particular and interesting painting, and works on several levels.see the backround tree and cliff imagery here Maybe someday! Ceoil  (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've not counted it out yet, nor have I given up yet. I'm treating the lack of editing as a fallow period, a hiatus, something like that. The Dry Tree folder is on my desktop, so still a possibility. It is a lovely image. Victoria (tk) 02:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Its a date - hopefully, if the lord spares me, I'm not going anywhere soon....ulp! Ceoil  (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've put it on my page as a reminder and because I'm in a bleak bleak mood. If/when I'm up to editing will give it a go. Keep at me. Hope all is well. Victoria (tk) 23:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

On my talk
I have the same problems with pings, which is why I hate them ... responded on my talk. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's weird how they disappear. If it's a page I don't have watched, then there's a good chance I'll not find my way there. Will reply more at your page. Victoria (tk) 22:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this one is doable; perhaps I can convince you to reconsider, now that a new editor with sources has engaged? Talk:Anna Laetitia Barbauld I completely understand if you don't want to, but we have the chance to encourage this new editor to take on the rest. It looks like we just have to do basic new editor cleanup ... as in helping with citation formatting, and so on? Then we would be left with only a few untagged sentences. Bst, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not at the moment. Bad week re health but will put it on watch and let you know if I can get to it in a week or so. It looks like it's only an issue of reformatting citations to Awadewit's style which anyone can do. Or to reformat all of Awadewit's citations - whatever it takes to make it all consistent. Happy to see that someone has access to the relevant texts. Victoria (tk) 21:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
Good to see you around! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * More than I want to be, to be honest. But, thanks. Nice to see you around. I hope you're having a nice spring and that all is well. Victoria (tk) 00:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yes I go outside a lot. We had a beautiful Main page on 10 April, all nature pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to double check
Hello V. I saw your post on SV's talk page and I am devastated. Please forgive me as I posted about this here Administrators' noticeboard just to make sure that the proper steps will be taken regarding this. I am not doubting your news but I have seen a couple editors chastised over this and I don't want that to happen here. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to worry. While you were posting there I was trying to think who I could ask to do exactly what you did and was on my over to 's page to ask for her help. I know that there's some bureaucracy involved and am happy to see her page protected and not to have to do more. I'm not thinking that clearly at the moment. I did know she'd taken a turn for the worse, but we've kept in touch, so I'm deeply shocked because it seems so sudden. Victoria (tk) 00:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My deepest sympathies to you V. My hands are shaking and there is simply no way that she can be replaced here at the 'pedia and I am sure the same is true for her friends and family in real life. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My hands are shaking too and it's difficult to think. Hard to imagine this place without her. I've been friends with her since I was a new editor, for over a decade now. It's a deep loss. Victoria (tk) 00:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Got your ping, Victoria; this is very sad news. You did the right things, and those of us who work in the background have taken care of a few security details. Thank you for letting the wider community know of this turn of events. You may get a follow-up email from someone or other, but your description of the exchange of emails correlates. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns, or just need a virtual hug.  Risker (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Risker. Her privacy was important and she asked last week that I not share family information. I won't have to forward email or do anything to reveal identities, will I? Victoria (tk) 01:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason for that, Victoria. Your explanation of the way that you received this information is entirely in keeping with Sarah's nature, and correlates very well with both the on-wiki details and the information held by a few close wiki-friends. I'll drop you a brief message. Risker (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Victoria, thank you for your information on Sarah's talk, - you did that well, it was still a shock. I was out all day. You are on my mind now, - how terribly must this be for you! We just lost Yoninah, with whom I had almost daily contact. Take care, virtual hugs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda. She's the only person I've had such contact, so consistently, for such a long time, and about small things not to do with Wikipedia, but simple little chats. So, yes, it leaves an empty space - as you know. It's odd, too, to have a friend and yet never to have "met" that person. Thanks for the flowers and hugs. Thanks for putting flowers on her page; I wanted to, but had to put words there instead so I was happy to see that you had taken care of that task so perfectly. Victoria (tk) 19:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying that. I hope to find a few more words, but they need to grow, slowly. For Yoninah, nobody started the Signpost article, so I felt I had to, and it even helped, also that many more then contributed. I still do DYK in memory of her. Psalm 95 will be next, after expanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I gave her Impact, after all, - should have done earlier but had no idea how soon she'd have to leave us. I wonder what we could do to commemorate her. For Jerome Kohl, I keep writing articles related to Stockhausen (one is on the Main age right now), on top of fixing the deprecated ref style he used, in hundreds of articles, - did 12 today. For Yoninah, I write about psalms. For Sarah, I know her too little. The image she chose to represent her: could that have an article, The Quiet Pet, by John William Godward? (I wonder about inconsistent titles in the artist's page, and am surprised at soooo many images.) Or perhaps music she liked? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda, I'm not able to give you any definitive answers in terms of a commemoration other than to tell you to do whatever seems best to you. You know music well, so perhaps there's a piece that might seem right. But I don't think it's anything that has to be done. We hold memories in our hearts, she gave far and beyond more than was necessary to this project, right up until her very last days, and perhaps that's enough? As it happens, a few weeks ago Ceoil and I returned to Madonna of the Dry Tree after leaving it alone for many years. It speaks to me right now - dark, yet light. Btw - yes, a very large gallery on Godward's article. I can't tell you why the image was switched out, but I am impressed with the tidiness of her user page. I might have to emulate it. Victoria (tk) 20:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and liked. When I write a psalm article thinking of Yoninah, I don't do it because I have to do something, but because keeping doing the work we did together helps me, - I think you'll understand. I knew Sarah's talk as a place where a woman sleeps, and sometimes found posting almost like disturbing slumber ;) - Now she picked this young woman on light green background, and to me its how she'd like to be remembered, in somewhat remote harmony and peace. Others may see and think something else. My user page is a workshop. This year I turned to write a note to self there on top every day: about one article to create or expand, one on DYK, one in memory, one for higher quality. - Thank you for the Dry Tree, - yes, it speaks to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda, I don't know anything about the new pic at the top of the user page and am not sure it's worth trying to read into it. Your user page is a wonder. Mine is a barren desert, but I am somewhat motivated to bring it back to life. Victoria (tk) 20:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is my perception of the Dry Tree also Victoria; a sliver of light against a wall of eternal, infinite darkness. Unfortunately its all too apt for the present, an era has passed with Sarah. Ceoil  (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. And in case you were wondering why it was picked up out of the dusty corner where we'd left, now you know. I'll get back to it when I can. Have you seen User:Risker/SV? We need to put together a Signpost obit and thankfully that's happening. Do you think anyone in the FA community would want pitch in for that section? Victoria (tk) 20:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think many in the FA community would want to pitch in, given how highly respected she was. Maybe a shared workshop sub page where a number of people draft up a section for the obit. I'd break it down into two broad thrusts - the quality of her nominations which set new standards (certainly for me), and meta...ie approach towards the areas that reviewer should focus on (cant really express this properly atm...brain slow...gimme a day or so! Ceoil  (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's beyond my skills atm; my brain isn't working at all. Kudos to Risker for getting it going. Victoria (tk) 20:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC) P.s. Yes, you're right about getting at from a meta level - i.e range of interest, range of difficulty, instead of a long list. Victoria (tk) 20:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

useless but meaningful
See my talk today, - it's rare that a person is pictured when a dream comes true, and that the picture is shown on the Main page on a meaningful day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

some impressions of places, flowers and music for you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda! I see that you've been out and about. It's lovely there and the fields of wildflowers evoke my childhood memories. I'm trying to remember whether I've been to Idstein, but I'm sure I would remember it. Maybe only passed through on the way north. Keep on enjoying your summer and thanks for sharing. Victoria (tk) 21:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Idstein has a highway exit that you may have seen. Lovely little town, - I'll give you a strolling tour of an hour whenever you come this way. Enjoy your summer, too! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I took a look at a map and I think not. I've been on the 60 & 61 a number of times, through Bingen and up to Koblenz and north from there, but not directly north of Wiesbaden. But there are so many lovely places in that area. You're lucky to be in such a nice town. Thanks again for the flowers. Made my day! Victoria (tk) 22:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I updated the impressions, with thanks for your efforts for the Signpost obit that finally appeared. Yesterday (see bottom there), I had the chance to take one pic of three people "with an article" yesterday, - hasn't happened before. Sibelius and Mendelssohn's Reformation were the lovely occasion, - listening to the first live concert this year, on livestream in today's version (- president's speech, + another Mendelssohn). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Just today, I looked at Sarah's talk page archives, and saw that her last reply to me was in a thread Green for hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Perhaps you had an influence for the new color of the page redesign.

Question
Hi Victoria, hope you're well. I noticed this edit and wanted to double-check something. Since Sarah did work on the article The Holocaust, should perhaps that be linked and capitalized? — Ched (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It is linked in the para above the one I just added. In prose it's a lower case "l"; at the beginning of a sentence or as a title an upper case "L". Victoria (tk) 21:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to say this over there because I don't want to hurt their feelings.. but.. I don't even read the Signpost all that often, so I have NO idea. lol. — Ched (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes two of us. Enough people have the page watched that hopefully we'll get some answers. But there is a cheatsheet of sorts that I found at the Signpost re markup, see Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Formatting. Victoria (tk) 21:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thirded re "even read". lol indeed! Ceoil (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Petrus Christus Nativity (Cain and Abel).jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Petrus Christus Nativity (Cain and Abel).jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

In Our Time (short story collection)
Hi, I saw that you reverted my edit on this page. What do you think would be the best way to proceed? After all, this is a book, so why is Infobox book inappropriate. Yes, the work has multiple editions, but so do many books. Any ideas for a possible solution? --Languageseeker (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sorry that I didn't take the time for a manual revert or to explain on the talk page but I only pop in for a few moments at a time these days. As I explained in my edit summeary the image formatting broke, making it looks like this on my computer - actually I have this site boosted to 125% so the images were overlaying the text, but even at 100% it causes MOS:SANDWICH which we want to avoid, especially on a WP:Featured article. As to the the merits or demerits of an infobox, I've always thought that page is an example of one that doesn't lend itself to an infobox; the two volumes (or editions) have different publication dates, places of publication, editors, number of pages, book format, cover artist, genre (one is only vignettes the other vignettes and short stories), etc. As for the Wikisource link, see Wikimedia sister projects for where to link. Should go to external links. Victoria (tk) 19:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Io, Saturnalia!

 * That looks like a delicious spread - thanks Ealdgyth! The same for you and the Ealdgyth family - good wishes for the holidays and the year ahead. Victoria (tk) 00:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award

 * Congrats and very well deserved. Ceoil (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm a little embarrassed about this, because I worked through it quickly and didn't put as much work into it that it probably needs. But thanks to for nominating and everyone who supported. When I'm in a better state for editing will try to polish it some more. Victoria (tk) 21:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You have nothing to be embarrassed about. Now me, that's a different story, because I've been so busy polishing toads at FAR that I haven't yet sent a Christmas card this year!  I seem to recall many years of getting out a Valentine's Day card eventually ... so, Merry Christmas to all of you while I'm here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I sent physical cards this year, but didn't around to the virtual ones. Belated Merry Christmas to you, too, and Happy New Year. It's been great seeing you back again this year. Victoria (tk) 00:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All the best to you as well! (How old do we feel when we see a talk thread with you, me, Nikki and Ceoil :)  I sure could use some Karanacs, Ealdgyth, Yomangani, and Moni about now! Buried in a CCI mess at FAR, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How old do we feel? With the four of us on a talk thread, feels like 2011. But I definitely feel a decade older. It would be nice to see Karancs, Yoman, Moni, Malleus, et. al. around. I've not been able to edit much at all, and I worry about keeping my own work in some sort of decent shape let alone adding new content. It makes me wonder whether Wikipedia is facing a phase of deterioration, rather than those heady days when we were intent on building an encyclopedia. I see a lot of bot edits and stuff on my watch (and of course time sinks like the complaint against you re edit summaries) but not a huge amount of writing. Though Ceoil is still going strong in that area and you're going strong in the stewarding area, so that's all good. Anyway, some rambling thoughts on a migraine-y day at the end of the year. Enjoy your New Year. Victoria (tk) 20:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish I had something uplifting to say about how our efforts have turned out. Well, here’s to the many good friends made during this adventure, and a Happy New Year.  (I may still muster the energy for a card :). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The friends aspect isn't a small thing and probably is one of the few things that keeps me coming back. You have one more day before the New Year! Victoria (tk) 21:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Under other circumstances, I would collapse or move, but would rather wait to hear from them again first as there seems to be some sensitivity. Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ok. I don't really understand that thread and not comfortable w/ all the detail. I Yes, there were edit conflicts on Barbault and it was annoying, but there was more going on at the time and I wouldn't have been able to get that work done under the circumstances. Anyway, will stick to working in the sandbox. Victoria (tk) 04:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

 * Thanks for the lovely Wiki-card, . Merry Christas and Happy New Year to you! Victoria (tk) 22:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 * Thanks for the lovely message, . Will work hard to keep hope alive. Happy Holidays to you. Victoria (tk) 22:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Holidays

 * Back atcha! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to and  and all the family. Hope everyone is well. Victoria (tk) 22:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Things are well. In CT atm, and Liz's mother is much improved and back home, after 6 months in hospital, as of the last few days (hence my editing and giving them breathing space to talk!). Onwards :) Ceoil (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Very happy to hear that good news. We're having the most laid back relaxing xmas ever, which seems about right for the times. Onwards indeed. Victoria (tk) 21:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Jane Austen
I wish I'd thought of just doing that, it's a much better solution. Argles Barkley (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've not edited it for a long time and never finished the re-write I began years ago, but I do watch the edits. The article is getting bloated and the edit warring isn't good. I've added a hidden comment to avoid that section from bloating up again. In the new year I'll try to go through to trim and tidy and finish the sections that need to be rewritten. Victoria (tk) 01:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
It's hard to convey the gratitude for the support. Taking on the Joyce article was intimidating, and though you said you weren't available much, you were. And you were patient with my style as well. Thank you as well for your affirmation when it became clear that I had unknowingly found that another editor was a "groundskeeper" of the James Joyce article whose footprints I had missed in my looking at the flora. I think you made it possible for the working together to eventually become smooth. I also appreciate the pictures. Though they were suggestions, it made me keep thinking about how to arrange the pictures to help add another dimension to the James Joyce story. Appreciatively. Wtfiv (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thanks! You did a great job on a difficult article. It was a joy to watch the enthusiasm and energy, enough to bring me out of hiding. Well done. Victoria (tk) 14:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Who was this groundskeeper? Between this and the message at, I feel like I missed the secret code.  (I was pretty happy that those who could have been problematic didn’t show up, so that the work could proceed.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry just noticed this message, which seems to have slipped in w/ the arb vote message and I've been busy with dr appts, family arriving, cooking, etc. Anyway, no idea. I was simply responding to the barnstar one morning before coffee - you know that's never a good idea! - and was still a little blurry eyed. I just looked at the message over at chez Ceoil and agree that the thanks should go to you for pushing this one along.  can you clarify re groundskeeper? Victoria (tk) 22:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No prob, I know how much is on your plate and never expect a speedy answer. Was just worried I missed something important :)  Our niece with leukemia died (tragically, after surviving the cancer, the chemotherapy-induced diabetes put her in to a coma) on Thanksgiving; I hope yours was better. I don't want Wtfiv to have to clarify publicly something that might be uncomfortable, but I was also concerned that we might get some unhelpful contributions, and was glad we didn't! Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm so sorry to hear! That's just terrible. My sympathies. We were lucky to get everyone home, but it's a bit busy. I'm passing through briefly because someone else is on kitchen duty tonight! Victoria (tk) 22:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks; it was quite a blow that she survived the cancer, but if what I am told is true, the hospital forgot to give her insulin. Whether or not it is true, that is what her parents believe, so it hurts like crazy.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, got stuck with clean up duty! That's really really a tragic story. I'm so sorry. Condolences to you and all the SandyGeorgia family. I wouldn't be coping too well with a situation like that. Take care of yourself. Best, Victoria (tk) 00:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Best to you as well, thanks for caring, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi I'll answer Sandy on  Sandy's page, as my purpose for posting here was to express gratitude for your editing and support. Your supportiveness was one of the things that played a role in helping me feel comfortable keeping going, and I'm so glad it brought you out to play as well! Wtfiv (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didn't really play much, but it did give me a reason to log in to see what was going on. As it happens Joan of Arc has been on my watchlist for years and so, well, I'm still watching. I think I have a dead wood source (i.e a book), a biography of Joan of Arc, in what was my office pre-pandemic and is now someone else's workspace; I'll try to get in there and take a look at the books on the shelf. P.s, fwiw, Sandy is a "she". Victoria (tk) 04:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Victoria. That sounds great!  And I can't believe I slipped into a gendered pronoun!  I try to avoid them. Wtfiv (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I never worry ‘bout genderness of pronouns, and don’t care what people think I am, although neither do I mind when others clarify :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling
Wanted to thank you more personally for you painstaking refashioning of my very rough initial draft. It is impossible to do quality writing or thinking at the pace we've been trying to do it so I completely agree with your comment here and hope this isn't causing undue stress or exasperation. We (should) do this for fun. I've been glancing at this by Julia Eccleshare this evening and found it clear and refreshing as compared to some of the more ponderous journal articles. It may be a nicer read than some of those others, if the Rowling project is still motivating for you—which it needn't be. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your note . I am very much interested and fine with following my normal routine of research, read, take notes, write the text. Your initial draft is really very good and I'm using it with the research as a springboard. Thanks, too, for the many links - I'm still catching up. The one you posted earlier that's on Springer (sorry, don't have the FAR page open and can't remember the name of that author) isn't one I can access but I've spent the past couple of hours - when not in the kitchen - reading a helpful chapter in Heilman that I have to try takes notes from before I shut the computer, otherwise gbooks will eat it. I've not had a chance to look at the other links you provided re friendship, but will. The link you've posted above looks good - will also take a look at that. The biggest problem with these sections is that they require a lot of reading and then a ton of information has to be squashed into a single section, and because we're writing about an author there's more emphasis on prose quality. Added to the normal angst-ridden anxiety of navigating life during skyrocketing covid numbers where I live, some chronic health issues, and the fact that I've hardly edited in the past few years - and I get more than a bit grouchy. Sorry about that. I'm seriously impressed with all the work that you and Sandy have done. Victoria (tk) 00:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, the need to compress an interpretation to at most a sentence or two, without making the article's text a litany of "here is one scholar's opinion, and here is another", is the most challenging bit (and the one I was least successful at). No need to look at any particular texts I've strewn on the various project pages; I mentioned Eccleshare because I found it unusually clear and perspicacious, and so more pleasant to read than some of the other criticism. Certainly no need to apologize for covid angst: that anyone is able to think at all these days is a marvel. All my best. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The best way to get around that is to read a lot. If the preponderance of the critics agree, i.e good vs evil, death, etc. then it can go in Wikipedia's voice, and using more than one source is necessary. For sections like this I tend to use attributions sparingly and only for claims that aren't in the mainstream. I'll probably add back a few attributions, but it's too early to tell. Victoria (tk) 00:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree we should be able to slow down now; the pace has broken records. Earlier on, the concern was the rush to delist, which I fought to forestall, and felt like we had to show it could be done. I think we’ve turned a corner and shown the star is still within reach, and what kicked that off, AP, was your quick addition of the first literary analysis, along with your persistence in getting the cleanup of other stuff done so fast, so kudos on you. Sorry about any pressure, and both of you have done amazing work. I can sit back and watch you work your magic now :). Please call on me for any grunt work needed.  Would this be where I would confess that I have a) never read a Potter book, b) never seen a Potter movie, and c) scarcely heard of Rowling until the recent kerfuffles?  Yep.  I can write an medical FA, though :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes agree with all of that. Read them all; seen them all. The lit. crit. is fascinating (the lit geek coming out in me), one reason I want to take it slowly. I'm enjoying the reading, which isn't always true. Victoria (tk) 00:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Following this one step-by-step, I see how very different our work is. I can read a new medical review in an hour, highlight all the new stuff, and have it in the article fairly quickly (that is, for an article I wrote, where there aren't cleanup needs).  I just read through all the Transgender sources parked on FAR talk, and can see what a chore it is going to be to gel that kind of material down to the important points, in compelling prose.  Be well, I'm going off to my bubble bath to calm the tree-back spasms :)  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Take care of your back. I'm out for the night too. Thanks for stopping by to chat. P.s reading Lit Criticism & art historians aint for the fainthearted. If I could read in an hour, I'd be much more productive. We're supposed to be trained for the reading, and we are, but we're also trained to read thoroughly and that training is hard to shrug off. Victoria (tk) 00:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Back has finally calmed today. But in an installment of "2022 sucks like 2021" did, a friend died of COVID this morning.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I'm so sorry to hear! Please take care of yourself and don't worry about this place. The work always gets done. Yes, my fear is that 2022 will suck like 2021, but it's already hit you hard. Victoria (tk) 21:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, we are pretty much homebound per COVID escalation all around us, so … I edit. Yes, the last two months have hit hard, and I miss IRL people (I ‘spose you know what a social extrovert I am), so my other people are here on Wikipedia. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Victoria, see my notes at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox6; is that source at all useful for influences? He draws heavily on Rowling's own words, but you may have some of that kind of material in higher quality sources. Ealdgyth has approved of use of that source, but it is a bit old, and you and may have more scholarly sources on Influences. If it's worthless on literary analysis, let me know, and I'll stop adding those notes, and stick to just biographical detail. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's okay to use the author's own words for influences, keeping in mind it's a primary source. The info re The Little White Horse is interesting and I've not seen it elsewhere. Victoria (tk) 21:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * For literary analysis we have plenty of more recent scholarship, so we can probably do better than Smith for the analysis part. So sorry to hear of your loss. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed for the analysis. Victoria (tk) 21:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I will probably delete all that from my notes then so I can go back and see what I want to use from there. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See what I wrote above "I think it's okay to use the author's own words for influences, keeping in mind it's a primary source. The info re The Little White Horse is interesting and I've not seen it elsewhere." Don't delete it all. It's just a question of where it goes. Victoria (tk) 21:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ack, will add back to my notes then … Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , there's biographical information here in Pugh. Let me know if you can't see it and I'll take screen shots before it disappears. I'm about to walk away from the computer for a bit and have only quickly skimmed so not sure how helpful it is. Victoria (tk) 22:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * got it, will try to print or screen shot, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wonderful … I was able to screenshot those 11 pages, and will work them in among my Smith notes before tackling article edits. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good, glad you got it. Calling it a night. Victoria (tk) 00:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Break 1
Victoria (and ), I had to take the morning off to get my tree and the rest of decorations down lest I burn up the house. Victoria, when you said "literary criticism and reception ... should ideally be written once the bio is finished", is that because you are seeing what I am seeing from reading Sean Smith? That is, how can we write the analysis when so much of the stories involves things related to her life and childhood? Do I need to go back and take better notes of things from her childhood for writing the bio? Sean Smith covers a lot of that territory, but he is dated. Does Pugh give you everything you need on that? My plan next is to finish Smith, then merge back in to my notes everything from Pugh, then see if there are any very simple matters in the text that can be sourced to these books rather than dated newspapers, note where there is conflicting info that needs attribution/sorting, then make a list of what needs to be added new. I still anticipate a day or two more (at least) on this, and then one or both of you will need to clean up my pedestrian prose ... although we have a funeral pending, as a dear friend died yesterday of COVID ... 2022 sucks already. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * My tree is down but I still have some decorations to deal with and also have work to do in the house today, so don't know if I'll get here at all. No, I didn't realize reading biographies might change the critical analysis section. It's just generally how I do it; biography first, then literary criticism. I'm not seeing much in the literary criticism that she's an autobiographical author and I've not come across it in my searches, but you raise in interesting point. Generally the critics discuss what we already have, good vs evil, parallels to the Narnia stories, magical realities vs. non-magical, the motif of the "lost prince" and his companions, the nature of heroism and so on. I don't think you need to tie the biographical texts to the critical texts: that's what the critics are supposed to do and, interestingly, I'm not seeing much of that. The thing is, there are still many years of Rowling criticism to come to we might see more of that in the future. Sorry this is bit rambly. Victoria (tk) 20:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's all I needed to know ... I will stick to straight bio stuff and not worry then about tying in influences, etc. That will make my work go faster.  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Chiming in: I also have seen nothing suggesting that the books are autobiographical (beyond that little bit about Hermione being JKR at 11, which none of the serious litcrit talks about). So, in my mind, the sections can be clearly distinguished between bio and critical analysis. The point where that gets tricky is that, beginning with the first HP's publication in 1997, there's not a whole lot of straight bio that isn't linked to her job as a writer. Hence why we have the (logical IMO) career/thematic division in our bio at the moment: first just "life", then different projects in her career (HP books, HP movies, other stuff). But her job as a writer (and, eg, the $$ she got from doing the job) seems like it can be detached from the writing she does in that job (i.e., the writing isn't "really" about MS or potential intimate partner violence etc; it's about what VE said: the lost prince, heroes, etc). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * got it! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Victoria, I forget if you were around when The Entire FAC Crowd worked on Ima Hogg for the April Fools 2008 TFA. Karanacs took the lead in writing while I herded the rest of the cats, and we got that done in about a month. It was Wonderful Fun. Regardless of what happens with J.K., what a pleasant experience seeing so many competent writers come out of the woodwork to turn this article around so fast. I am heaving a sigh of relief and feeling like I can back off a bit … Olivaw’s version of Awards and honours is so much more elegant than mine, and just as AP took over legal, maybe she will take over Awards … this is becoming a fabulous group effort, which makes me happy happy happy, because it’s like the old days, before FAC was destroyed. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * PS, had to look up how to spell User:Olivaw-Daneel (AP and Olivaw, I am sometimes forced to iPad typing per The Saga of the Hammock and the Tree, whereby I can’t sit at a computer for too long). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * SG, take care of your back!! Also, I had to dig up this, as it turned out, unhelpful edit on Ima Hogg, which I made under my previous iteration. What a treat to cross paths again. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh my, the dreaded infobox :) Did you like the Ima overall ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't sit at a computer for about 15 different reasons but I make do with my MacBook - as I have for about ten years or so. I'm so used to grabbing urls for diffs that it would drive me nuts not to be able to have a gazillion tabs open at once. Speaking of which I've just retrieved Pugh's bio and will start reading that tomorrow or so. My Project Muse just got renewed, so now I have it in pdf form. If you'd like I can send it you if it would be easier to read that way.
 * Re Ima Hogg, was not yet here for that but have heard of the good times then. This reminds me of when we decided to make the final FAC push on Van Gogh. Modernist, Ceoil, Ling(zhi), John, myself and lots of other hands. Many many people chimed in at the FAC and I believe it was one of the top edited articles of the month when we were at FAC. This is similar. It is good to see lots of new talented editors around who are enthusiastically engaged.
 * Re the "Reception" section: maybe let it sit for a day or so to percolate and come back to it with fresh eyes. I've not read the other version yet, but will try to get to it tonight. Victoria (tk) 00:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Victoria, please do send it to me … do you still have my gmail ? Trying to take notes from a screenshot on an iPad … yikes.  I will get going on it again tomorrow … had a slow day for grieving COVID. Yes, the art cabal is famous for wonderful collaboration!  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hah, Isaac Asimov is to blame for that spelling. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I sent it late last night. Forgot to post a message here. Victoria (tk) 13:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, thx, got it … quite wish I had read it first. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good, glad you got it. ProjectMuse is good for children's literature and I thought there'd be something there, but the renewal took longer than I expected. Just so you know, am feeling fairly crappy today. I have to be out for a bit, hopefully only a day or so. I can keep tweaking in my sandbox if I feel better in the evening and I am reading the FAR page. Victoria (tk) 17:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * i don't think i will feel better anytime soon. funeral thurs and friday, and now my dearest sister-in-law has liver cancer :(  things keep getting grimmer here :(  off to doctor with my husband now, will do some reading of Smith from the car, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear, you're getting hit right and left. I only have a kidney stone that will soon pass, but sounds as if you have some rough days ahead. I'm so sorry to hear. Take care and try to enjoy the trip out. We went out a bit ago; it's a lovely day. Victoria (tk) 17:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Break 2
Can you please explain this series of edits? Variety lists her as a producer, Time quotes HBO saying " in order to cut down Rowling’s 500 pages into three hours of TV, the network says, writer Sarah Phelps “was given free rein to reshape the story,” whittling down some storylines, expanding others." AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I couldn't see it, but there were lots of ads on the page. I saw the reshaping, but in neither source do I see she was producer or that she added little, and I don't think we need a source for every single clause, especially if failing verification. Feel free to revert if you want. Victoria (tk) 22:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The only reason I wanted to include something about it is that it does (to some degree) relate to R's creative work, but unless someone asks for more info on the miniseries, I don't see a huge need for it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In my view there are too many web sources being used, but I'll step aside now. You and Sandy have this well in hand. Victoria (tk) 22:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * At only eight days after we got the FAR to stay open, I don't think at least I yet have anything "well in hand"; I am still unsatisfied with the bio parts of the bio, have more reading and reconciling of sourcing to do, and think we have lots more work ahead of us. Considering that a FAR like this is likely to be open for at least a month, I am all in favor of taking things slow. FAR is a deliberative process based on years of experience that have proven that to be a good course. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. The tearing down process always goes quickly, rewriting to FA quality not so fast. It's time to slow down a bit and pivot. I've made some suggestions on the FAR page. There are so many edits, posts, etc., that I'm either a week behind or have to skip it all. Plus I'm still researching and reading sources. I've found a couple of interviews on the New York Times that I think we could use to augment sources in the bio section, but I've only skimmed them. It's half a step up from her own website. Do you have a subscription there? I can post urls later, but I also think I can download articles from there. But all this takes time, and my house manager duties are calling. Victoria (tk) 15:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, I do have NYT subscription … pls link! I am becoming quite concerned that the FA status will be jeopardized if we move too fast.  Rowling’s early life needs to be carved out, and I have hesitated to start putting in work that is still in my head while there are too many moving pieces, and knowing that my prose will need smoothing by you prose gurus (you meaning you, Daneel, AP).  Plus Vanamonde hasn’t gotten in their bits yet.  Work in sub-articles doesn’t seem to be happening (re critical analysis of each piece of her works).  There are still structural issues in the article, and it is a pity if any of the good writing is lost rather than moved to the sub-articles where it might have been written to begin with.  We are using some sub-standard sources.  We have Coord approval to slow down; we can’t write an FA at this pace. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Break 3
Sandy, here's the interview I mentioned. I've only scratched the surface of the NYT offerings, so there are probably more. Taking a break for a bit now, back later to reply to the rest. Victoria (tk) 16:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Re this, it says earlier Church of Scotland, which I don't think (??) is Episcopal. She seems to have become Episcopalian, as an Episcopalian priest married her to Murray (per Smith bio). I wish I could find a chance to do the complete rewrite ... that I'm still working on ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wondered about that. It seems muddled. BBC wouldn't let me past the wall, so I cut it. The sources are a decade old, so we should update with whatever the bios say, if we can. Or with more recent sources.  Do you think I should put it back? Anyway, I'll leave that section now. We're getting a storm, so I should probably get out to shop this evening to beat tomorrow's crowds.  Victoria (tk) 22:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't found anything more recent that we can use (maybe we can check news sources to see where her two younger children were baptised?). Smith says that an Episcopalian priest made the long journey to her Scottish home to perform the "very private" secret wedding ... so I assumed she's now Episcopalian (which fits with the rest of her profile) ... the Scottish Episcopalian church split from the Church of Scotland long ago ... so maybe safer to leave both in, as she could have switched.  But I am thinking the entire section also needs to be split and moved, depending on what Vanamonde93 comes in with, since we don't even have the religious debates yet (which Smith also covers).  We need to figure out better where to communicate about regular editing (as opposed to non-FAR major stuff) like this ... maybe we should all (you, me, AP, Daneel) use User talk:SandyGeorgia/sandbox6 for all the stuff about early and personal life, as that is where I have all my notes ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, I was wondering about that section. It seems that we can fold into the bio; it doesn't really merit its own section. What I'm seeing is tiny phrases taken from news articles and cobbled together. Actually the press/media section can also be folded in the the bio. Let me know where to post; I'm good with anything. In the meantime I'll put back the bit re Episcopalian so as not to leave an inaccuracy. Victoria (tk) 22:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My plan was to fold it in to the bio, which I mentioned to Vanamonde on the FAR page, waiting to see what they come up with on religious debates, but them assuming there will be a split re her personal views v debate/controversy witchcraft, etc. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, that sounds like a good plan. I'll move on. Victoria (tk) 22:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you put Richards back? It's a secondary source that verifies the claims made regarding the single mother's manifesto and shows that it received attention in scholarly work. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was in the middle of something. The Times piece is primary and behind a paywall, Kitty Richards is an abstract. The sentence only tells us what she says, without an analysis. If you feel strongly about it, I have no problem if you revert. Victoria (tk) 03:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. The PDF is free here. I'm actually going to replace the Times with it, because as you say it's primary and hard to access. The Richards piece actually quotes the relevant portion of Rowling's op-ed while contextualizing it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes much more sense. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 03:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Stayed out much too late last night with friends; just now getting through my watchlist … and coffee. Discouraged to see early alarm and POV battles busting out re TG people section, when we still have so much work to do. I need to get focused today; where do you stand on Kirk and what bits do you plan to work on, so we don’t edit conflict? I was thinking to focus first on sorting out the chronology of her parents … moving on from there … good plan ? I would be mostly working in the first section, and my idea is to not even worry about what bits will get folded in from other sections yet … we can move text around later. Another concern that has been festering in the back of my mind is the amount of writing that is happening at this article, rather than in sub-articles, such that I fear we have gotten a long ways off from summary style; is the main article now even summarizing sub-articles? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad you were out late! Take the fun whenever possible. I won't be editing the article until later tonight and depending on how bad the snow storm is, maybe not at all today. Will have to shovel out in the am b/c I'm getting boosted tomorrow - had an allergic reaction the first time, so it might not go well. In other words, if I do get here in the next few days it'll be later tonight. Re Kirk, I'll wait for the book to arrive and we can use it either to plug holes or to vary sourcing or not at all, so carry on what you were doing. Re summary style, yes, I've noticed as I've been weeding out web sources. At this point we probably have the content we need (except in the bio section) and should be addressing substandard sourcing and converting to summary style throughout. Stuff can and should go to sub articles. Re transgender - it's too early in the process to address it, in my view, but when I think it should be written as concisely and objectively as possible, keeping in mind this is an encyclopedia. I've not been following the TG discussions and did not know until this morning we have a draft. Will look in a bit later. Victoria (tk) 18:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, all good; will proceed to get done what I can today, but if the POV battles aren't contained to one page, I will lose interest altogether in trying to work on this article. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Did I see a FAR subpage? If not, we should have one and push everything there so discussion can take place on a single page. I'll post to the FAR page before I grab some lunch. Victoria (tk) 18:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

in friendship
Thank you for being around! - Happy new year, in friendship! - Today I show - in "songs" - yesterday's snow, and today's music, Schon gewusst? in memory of Jerome Kohl, a friend whom I miss much, - you will understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yikes, sorry for the very late reply . Thanks for the lovely picture. Yes, I'm sort of here for now - we'll see how that goes. Hope all is well with you. Stay safe. Victoria (tk) 20:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We try, thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Gerda, I see you've been travelling. For those of us stuck at home, nice to see the pics. Btw - I wasn't thrilled to wake up to this this morning. If you must fan infobox wars on an article I wrote please do so at the article talk page or here. Victoria (tk) 20:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried to do the opposite: tell a new editor, who asked why no infobox for Ezra Pound, that the infobox wars are over, and that they should do something better with their time, and leave the article alone. I think to do that on their particular talk page is better than to say the same on the article talk. If you don't agree, feel free to move the discussion to the article talk. I believe that the infobox wars are over, agreeing with Voceditenore's (2018). My health is much better since I left the topic, in 2015 that was (but I'm afraid I will be connected with it forever). Best wishes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My advice is not to react. The question was asked on the talk page; the question was answered there. Nothing more needs to be said or done. I appreciate that you pinged me, but reading that thread in the morning made me cross. TMI (too much information) there. Victoria (tk) 22:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Citation density
As this isn't directly relevant to the FAR update on Rowling, I thought I'd raise it here; I hope you don't mind. I frequently use multiple citations per sentence when writing literary analysis, and am likely the worst offender on this article; but I'm doing so quite intentionally, and perhaps I can convince you that it's not a problem. Given the considerable scholarly literature that exists here, I find it's not always easy to establish when a certain point is representative of the field, when it's a major but contested opinion, and when it's fringe. Reading all the sources will give me a pretty good idea, but there's always the possibility that I will miss something, or that someone will contest the text in question, or that I will want to revisit the text years later. In all these cases I find it quite helpful to have multiple sources present. Of course it's easy to go overboard, but when a certain point is made by multiple authors, I cite a couple of them to buttress that fact. In the long term I believe the aid to verifiability is worth the marginally higher clutter. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll strike it. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 21:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was coming here to say similar; in my reading of all the bio sources, it is just unavoidable that at times more than one should be used, and I think we may be stuck with that because of a) the absence of biographies and b) the popularity of a contemporary author. As the pace has considerably slowed now, I hope you will be able to keep a watchful eye!  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand quite corrected. Thank you all. It might be best that I unwatch at this point. Victoria (tk) 21:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to add: my problem is that it's been very difficult to read through the edit window. But I don't use citation templates - for lots of reasons - and am used to a clean edit window where wiki markup doesn't overwhelm the text. For an article like this, it might be the way to go. Dunno. I don't mean to sound snarky, but I am a bit grouchy today. Victoria (tk) 22:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify even more: yesterday I was reading in a book the print runs, numbers sold, etc. and checked to see how much we cover that info - because the print runs were phenomenal and though can go to each sub article should be mentioned in the bio for the series as a whole. As a mother who stood in unbelievably long lines with her kids at midnight for each of the books, it was a very big deal. Taking a look at J. K. Rowling, the third para that starts w/ Scholastic Corporation, there are still web sources, i.e Toronto Star, Christian Science Monitor, The New Zealand Herald and so on. So the comment I made was about sections like that and it was not meant to be critical. I have happily been watching the lit sections and the bio sections and didn't mean those sections. Apologies for being so unclear. Victoria (tk) 00:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No apologies necessary, I think it's a perfectly valid concern; I just wanted to explain that it was also something I was doing intentionally, with a specific goal in mind. I recognize the challenge of readability; it's one of the reasons I use sfn citations; also, have you explored the syntax highlighter? I found it overwhelming, myself, but perhaps it'd be useful to parse text from citations (and apologies if you're already aware of it, and it doesn't help). Vanamonde (Talk) 00:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've recently changed skins and in all the changes forgot about turning on the highlighter. Thanks for reminding me. It's helpful in finding the text within the citations, though, yes, a bit overwhelming. For now I can toggle back and forth. Victoria (tk) 21:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Structure
Re "should we re-name this talk section "Structure"? It would be nice to get input from others too", I've been up nights fretting about this :) It seems that, realistically, "others" aren't as involved as we hoped, and that the important decisions are going to have to be hashed out between you and .  I can do other stuff to try to help, but I've probably already added everything I can, and can keep up with the little day-to-day stuff until we are ready to tackle Transgender and the lead, but my opinions on literary analysis are worth the paper they're written on. Maybe the three of you should just get somewhere in a sandbox and play around with the structure.  I dunno what else to suggest, since even though I set up a "pingie-thingie", we just aren't getting enough feedback from others to be able to form consensus. Ideas from the three of you? I think you all just have to find a way you can agree on to forge on, as others just aren't that active. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your input is extremely valuable, because a., you've read the biographies (I've not yet, still waiting for the library copy), and b., because you're a lay reader. As you know that's important and I'm taking what you're saying seriously. I'm not too worried about the analyis sections; they always come together and usually they're the last sections I've tackled when doing a big bio. For example, until I read our article I knew nothing about her remarriage and honestly I'm a lot more interested in that, and how she managed pregnancies and writing, and everything else she did than I am in the themes. Anyway, as you know I work at a snail's pace, so give me a few days and in the meantime we might get some more input. We'll get there, I'm not too worried. I'm feeling a bit better at the moment, which helps. A little less grouchy. Victoria (tk) 00:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Victoria and OD: I think you two should decide what, if anything, happens to the overall structure. I'm probably too attached to the content I wrote in all the sections that aren't biography and literary analysis to have an objective opinion about which of it should stay or go. The tldr of this rant is that beyond a sharp divide between life and career, I don't have much of an opinion beyond "ah, don't remove all the stuff I did". If you think a structural rework would improve the article, by all means go ahead—maybe there's a benefit my blinkered vision can't detect. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if one, or half of us can avoid being grouchy, we'll get it done :) I've been in a terrible frame of mind lately, so I'm relieved to hear that Victoria is feeling better.  Victoria, I don't want to impose my views, as I just don't believe I am the norm.  I think her life story is fascinating; the stuff she overcame, and how she did it, and that she was able to do this writing through it all, is an interesting story. Truth be stated, if it were not for the Transgender section hanging over our heads making us nervous, we could write a real lead, and call it a Keep now at FAR; it's close enough.  Now is not the time to get discouraged; all three of you have done amazing work; stay the course.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't need or want to impose my views either, so let's let it go. Was simply brainstorming, which is part of the process. Thanks all. Victoria (tk) 02:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When I needed to step away a couple of weeks ago it made me feel guily, but on reflection it was the right call. It's best for you and  to carry on because you all have the energy and I haven't. It's too stressful to figure out a good structure and requires many more brain cells than I have.  AP I've already messed up lit analysis once, quite frankly my editing these days sucks, so it's best that you carry on with the analyis with OD. I have read the TG sources and might chime in when it comes up for discussion if that's ok, but it's too early to know if I'll be up to it.  Victoria (tk) 03:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We'll figure something out. No matter what happens, as SG says, we've all improved the article substantially. Hope you continue to feel better. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, hope you feel better. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * and belated thanks for these messages. AP, thanks for fixing the citation mess I copied over a few days ago. I must have either saved the wrong version or copied from the wrong tab or something. Also that section in the films can be reverted or changed or whatever. All that's left in my sandbox are some copyedits/tightening on the bottom end of the "Life and career" section, which I've decided not to copy over. I'm on the fence as to whether it's necessary or an improvement. Instead it's best for the two of you to take a look and decide whether it's worth keeping, copying, or whatever. I'm good with whichever decisions are made. I'm also good with whichever decisions are made re literary analyses. Thanks for the stellar work. Victoria (tk) 20:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for multiple pings, and . Actually, I'll delete the sandbox material; the article has already changed since I last looked in. That's the problem w/ not being able to work quickly :) In other words, ignore previous post except well-deserved kudos. Victoria (tk) 22:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow is always a new day, and things always look better after a rest. I honestly think this FAR has been harder than necessary because of anticipatory tension: knowing that when we get this part done, there is still difficult work ahead of us in the Transgender section. And then after that, the lead. That has made it harder to take this work at the pace, or with the clam nonchalance, that is needed.  It doesn’t help that we aren’t getting consistent feedback from others, which would help in consensus forming, and the feedback we do get is sporadic, so it feels like we’re working with one foot on the gas pedal and the other on the brakes. Things are not as bad as they look.  We just need to give ourselves a collective break. Maybe putting a name on the anticipatory tension will help us. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally, yes, agree to all of the above. But I have to admit to myself that keeping up isn't possible, so it's best not to try. Thanks for all your hard work. Victoria (tk) 20:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Still losing sleep over this :) Here's my take.  We would not have the possibility of a FAR save at all if not for how quickly  and  had moved to correct what were perceived as the early deficiences.  (I say "perceived" as I remain unconvinced we need all this literary analysis, but I recognize that is my personal preference.)  First, AP plopped in the early literary analysis that allowed us to keep the FAR open.  Second, AP corrected the ELNEVER problem post-haste.  Third, both AP and O-D have been able to keep this article ahead of the possibility of delisting by their ability to put up better-than-competent prose quickly.  (In contrast to my less-than-competent prose slowly.)  In that sense, should this article be saved, it's mostly thanks to them, and I'm only here to support them.  My role became larger than optimal because I was the one to read the bios, and I'm happy to do all the tedious bookkeeping-type editing so the rest of you can focus on prose and content.  What matters is that we get the rest of the content to a place of being settled enough that we can turn our attention to the problematic areas remaining. My sense is that we are now in a lull where we have the luxury of pondering the text before moving on.  I am unclear where  stands on additions to literary analysis. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, it is particularly encouraging that Z1720 and Buidhe found so little to pick at. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My take is that we should start on the lede and transgender sections. We discussed changing the structure and found that there was no agreement on how it should be changed, so it should stay as is. The body text is generally in good shape. I'm staying out of the transgender section but I have been playing with User:AleatoryPonderings/Rowling lede for a while and will continue to do so. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AP, per my earlier warnings about the amount of discord that exists among some editors of this topic, it is still very important to move very methodically; that is, transgender section first, and separate from, lead next. We can take our time. Once transgender is done, the lead will write itself, and I don't foresee there being enough changes to the TG part of the lead that a new RFC will be needed.  But if it is, we'll have one. I have more thoughts on this which I will type up for you (have my head in some FAR numbers right now and have to stay on track).  My fear if you move forward with the lead, before we make sure all voices are being heard on Transgender, is we'll get the same kind of blowback we got last time. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't planning to move forward with it, just noting that I have a version in progress. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The TLDR version is that FAR presents the opportunity to present a more collaborative way of working than the edit warring that had predominated; FAR is a model for what NOT to do (which is what was happening on that article pre-FAR). Take good advantage of that opportunity, to show how collaboration, rather than POV edit warring, is supposed to work. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That said, after I typed all that, I looked at your lead sandbox, and see GMTA; the lead re TG is not significantly changed. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AleatoryPonderings@undefined, tackling the TG section will be time consuming so it's probably fine to start fine tuning which sources to use. A few weeks ago I spent some time trawling through a newspaper database via my library (I believe it was Gale One file) and was surprised at how much coverage there's been in the British press just in 2022. The Sunday Times had a good synopsis but of course I didn't capture the details and can't find it again. Re structure, I've just made some edits because after this morning's discussion it started to bug me. Plus it looks as though there's still some copyediting to be done. Victoria (tk) 21:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you interested in tackling copyediting during this lull? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Best to wait until the dust settles. Victoria (tk) 21:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you see Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have and looked at them. Found this NYT piece linked from a WaPo piece and wondered if it's of any value? Also wondering if we need more sources from across the pond? Victoria (tk) 23:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting NYT piece, from this side of the pond. But I think we need to get them to gel it down to a few mainstream sources, avoiding overt opinion, and there are already a lot of basic news sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly what I thought. But I found the context helpful. Anyway, I need to take a break now. From a copyediting point of view it doesn't need much. It's looking good. Victoria (tk) 00:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I still plan on making minor additions and somewhat more substantive revisions when I am well again. I will work on those regardless of the status of the FAC. My most serious concern at the outset was the lack of literary analysis; AP and OD, assisted by Victoria and, I'd like to think, myself, have addressed this sufficiently that I'm no longer in the "delist" camp, though I would like to complete what I've planned before I !vote "keep". Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde, with respect to AP wanting to move forward on the lead, my concern is that we establish SIZE (relative to word count) parameters for each section, which will help demonstrate which parts of the article are now out of whack re balance and due. That's why I'm having a hard time working around and moving forward with missing pieces and a lack of clarity about structure/organization; I'd like to see a table of word count by section (Victoria alludes to this as well, re some sections outtabalance).  That's why I consider we are in a lull, and encourage that we not yet work on the lead; I've been wrong before :) What goes in the lead relates to balance of what is in the article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A table w/ word count is a good idea. But the existing text can be tightened and improved, so not too worried about anything wants to add. She's the master/mistress of children's fantasy literature in my view. Vanamonde, be well and thanks for stopping by. Victoria (tk) 21:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll hold off on word counts to give you and Va this week to work on copyediting etc. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No it's best to carry on. It hard to keep up and trying to is upsetting, tbh.  Victoria (tk) 21:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you, Victoriaearle, much appreciated; as is your invaluable assistance with prose and synthesis in the literary analysis section. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Vanamonde93 If it would help, I'd be interested in filling any gap in content in the meantime. I've added some material on race to the social division subsection. Was what you were planning to work on more about class? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

, not to be rude, but do you mind taking this query to FAR talk? It looks like it would fit somewhere beneath this comment. I'll be archiving this page soon. Thanks, and thanks for your work. Victoria (tk) 16:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There have been plenty of conversations here on this page and elsewhere about page size and structure in regards to writer/artist bios. For Rowling, the version that passed FAC looks like this. Over the years everything has basically grown out from that, factoids accreting, new sections added, etc. A quick dipstick survey of other such articles shows a different structure that I'm more accustomed to, i.e the newish FA F. Scott Fitzgerald, Iri's William Etty, Yllosubmarine/Maria's Emily Dickinson, Samuel Johnson, (which I believe you worked on), and Karanac's Georgette Heyer.  Moni's Ann Bannon is interesting and closer to what we have than the others. It's a judgement call as to how to get it right, how much weaving needs to be done throughout, how to get a good narrative structure vs a collection of factoids and choppy prose (the mistake I made a decade ago w/ the first run at Ezra), and of course page size. We pulled our hair out and went gray going around in circles discussing how to structure Vincent van Gogh and how to keep it from blowing out of control size wise (and it took about a decade to get it to FA). It's a bit longer than I like, but with such a prolific artist, and such a heavily edited page, it seems to have been the right decision. It's always good to remember that keeping a star or gaining one is simply an indication of a good or best stable version, and I always try to think forwards in terms of how much tending will be needed, does the structure lend itself to bloating, is there enough detail to prevent future bloating while still staying within a reasonable size. I'm with you in believing that eight to nine thousand words - not size, but words - is about right, but in a very few rare instances have gone beyond, i.e. van Gogh. As Rowling's article is now, sections 7-9.3 seem to be in an odd position, but time will tell. As far as working on the article, I hope I've not come across as denigrating anyone's contributions - if so I apologize profusely. I'm having isssues in terms of facing my own overwhelming limitations and as I've said before it makes me grouchy. Which is why I've quit and editing reviewing for so many years. Anyway, sorry for going on so long and brainstorming. Victoria (tk) 16:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Post edit conflict - like Vanamonde I plan to make run through when I'm able. But I'm not able at the moment. Victoria (tk) 16:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Victoria, not denigrating at all; I just wanted to make sure people know that in spite of my activity on the article, I consider myself more of a bookkeeper. I won't get into detail on WP:FASA because I'm a Red Sox fan, but the work is credited to to AP, O-D, Ve and Va. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Re FASA, not on this one - I've done very little, and of what I've done, most if not all, wasn't good and is now gone. Re moving forward, agree that we're in a lull. I tried replying up page to AP re lead/TG but got edit conflicts again. Some people write leads first, some write them at the end. Teachers and professors usually are usually in the "intro comes first camp" but I was always in the "write the intro when you're ready" camp, (which made my students very happy - what a concept!). Re TG, the problem I'm seeing is where to put it. Folding it into the "Life and career" section makes sense to me because it's that important and has affected her reputation quite a lot. But if we do that, then the "Politics" and "Press" section should be nixed or folded into bio. But AP makes the point that consensus hasn't been achieved, so it's kinda moot discussing. Victoria (tk) 17:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All things considered, probably safer to leave it where it is; less to tackle. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I moved things around a bit. Victoria (tk) 21:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Earlier tonight I made a table of sections, word count, and which sections contain literary analyis. I'm putting here and please feel free to copy to over to wherever you want it. I very much want to bow out of this endeavor. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 04:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure makes me want to trim Secondary school and university, and Marriage, divorce and single parenthood. But this is her bio, and that is the stuff of her life. What can I cut? And get all literary analysis out of bio sections. Would sure be nice to add some of the content generated here on Literary analysis and Reception to the sub-articles, and more tightly summarize that content here. Thanks, Victoria; I was aiming to do similar when work was closer to finished. I have never understood all of the literary analysis in a bio; I have always recognized my view on that is not shared by others. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  10:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Trimmed what I could, but only reduced 100 words. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Know you want to bow out, so won't bother you further; added a chart to my sandbox after getting lit analysis out of bio sections.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I really appreciate it. Will be archiving here shortly. Victoria (tk) 14:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)