User talk:PRiis/Archive 1

Urquhart

Hi, your update on Thomas Urquhart looks great. I also went ahead and added a public domain graphic. -- User:ILVI 8.8.2004

Thanks, that's wonderful! PRiis 00:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the sanity check

Thank you for the sanity check on the meetup notes. Regards, Ancheta Wis 01:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint

Hi Peter, thanks for the clue about checking the wiki community reaction to my People with Bipolar Disorder category. I'm a newbie Wikipedia editor, and I appreciate your advice. Warm regards, Dalinian

No problem at all. I suspect that in a lot of cases you're going to end up being asked to cite a source for the assertion. P. RIIS 17:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re Dee

Salve, PRiis!
Looked through your John Dee article. By no means am I an expert, but I did read the most recent of the biographies you cite and it looks good. Thorough, wikified article complete with bibliography--the last being something we need a lot more of. Good work. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 15:18, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, you're very kind. I was lucky to have hit on a fascinating topic. PRIIS 21:42, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Dee

Hi, PRiis, thanks very much for supporting John Vanbrugh for FA. I think your John Dee is excellent. I'm ashamed to say I'd never heard of Dee before, but after reading your interesting account I feel better informed. The article's very well-written and seems complete in every way. Why don't you self-nominate it for FA? Or has it already been featured? Don't suppose so, as it's pretty new. My first thought was to suggest I nominate it, but I guess that would look like back-scratching, just after you voted for my article (though indeed one thing would have nothing to do with the other!). Best regards, Bishonen 17:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, the Vanbrugh article really should be featured. As a matter of fact, I was trying to get a handle on the whole FA thing when I saw it listed. I was toying with the idea of self-nominating Dee, but the whole thing gives me the willies! I'll try to screw up my courage and do it. PRIIS 18:52, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please note: I have nominated this article just now. Filiocht 08:37, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I notice some late 17th/early 18th c. articles in your count. Good to see another person in the field. If you haven't read the very funny/scary/Wiki-prescient Foucault's Pendulum, you should. Dee gets a hit there. The only thing I thought that could be punched up a bit in the Dee article is that, while you mention the math/theosophy/alchemy nexus, you don't really give much in the way of citation of it. Newton, we must remember, was heavily involved in alchemy. Paracelsus, the master alchemist, was also a mathematician. Pythagoras saw numbers as a way to understand the divine, and Plato agreed. In fact, one of the great tricks played by Bacon was the suggestion that numbers just are in some way. Pure mathematics is extremely Platonic, extremely idealist, which is why pure mathematicians will say that they hope that nothing they have ever done has altered human life for good or ill in any way (G. K. Hardy said that in his autobiography): they deal in a world that is not empirical, that is purely idealistic. The 17th century mathematicians were much more aware of that, but they also saw the "real" world as being idealist, so they thought that discovering the idealistic world of math would reflect in the maleable and sublunary world of the real. Dee was just skipping over the empirical to the philosophical world, which is the world of numbers. It seems perfectly natural to a 17th c. mind. Geogre 05:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I agree about the math/theosophy/alchemy nexus needing more work--to me, that's still the murkiest area, but it's the very heart of Dee's thinking: the explanation of how all his activities were part of a consistent picture. The whole mentality is far more alien than I ever imagined before I started looking into this. I can see how easy it would be to become a crank! I'll read Foucault's Pendulum. By the way, your articles are fabulous. They're the kind of standard I was trying to reach with this Dee article. PRIIS 14:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. Now I'm going to get a big(ger) head. It's probably the most important thing we don't do when we approach the past: see how our disparate sciences were made disparate and imagine how people thought before we developed -ism's. For example, we automatically think of "church" and "state" and "religion vs. science." These were all one, once. The head of the nation was the head of the church. The head of the church was the head of the supranational Nation. God was understood to be rational, and therefore reason was one of God's instruments; or God was mysterious, and reason was pride. When people did break into -ism's, they tended to break out into big groups of them, rather than just one. A "natural philosopher" would do geology, botany, zoology, and astronomy as late as 1840. Anyway, it's a fascinating mindset to try on, and I've always learned most when I've remembered that they didn't know, for example, that they were part of the rising bourgeoise, or that they were going to be mathematicians, or that they were going to be playwrights, or that the Industrial Revolution was beginning. Thanks for the kind words again.

Foucault's Pendulum is about some guys with too much education who work at a vanity press and decide to write the mother of all conspiracy theories. It's very funny, but it's kind of sadly true, too. Geogre 03:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just got your note on my talk page. It was a pleasure to nominate such a good article and absolutely no thanks are due to me for doing it. The credit is to the author and to Bishonen for drawing my attention to the article. Now we just sit and wait. As there are no objections, there is really no need to do any more than you have so far. If no objections are raised, I'd expect thath the article will be featured by the middle of next week (added to WP:FA and the {{featured}} tag placed on the John Dee talk page). Filiocht 08:32, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think the article is going to make it. It has universal support, and deservedly so. I must say again how much I liked that new paragraph on the combined world view that you inserted. It made the case very concisely. The foil hat folks will never read it, but perhaps the novice occultists will trip over it and be dissuaded from adopting this one particular man as their saint of secret wisdom. Geogre 18:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess it's one of those bitter ironies of history that he keeps being tarred over and over again with same slanders that they made when he was alive--maybe we can give the poor guy some vindication. And then we must proceed to the rehabilitation of Madame Blavatsky! PRIIS 22:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now that is going to be a tall order. Madame Sosostris has a wicked pack of cards. :-) Geogre 15:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I thought Emsworth's request for "Commonwealth English" (i.e. British English) to be used in orthography on the article to be a bit ill-humored. The Wikipedia manual only asks us to be consistent, not to adopt one or the other system. Furthermore, claiming that it's appropriate for that article (and not, presumably, for American topics) is a bit off the beam as well. If we wanted the language appropriate for the man himself, we'd be using Jacobean English. After he made that comment, I read his Pitt article a bit more critically, looking for any POV shifts about nasty Americans, and, sure enough, there was that bit about the "rebellion in America." Hmmm. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't bother with changing the spelling system. First, you might miss some and then actually violate the style book by being inconsistent, and, second, it's not a request that is backed up by consensus on the project. (I can rant about "American English" for days at a time, without taking a breath, so it's a peeve of mine.) Geogre 15:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. It did strike me as kind of strange--especially after I looked hard and could only find four words that would differ. To me, changing the spelling feels phony, but if someone else feels strongly enough to do it, I'll leave it. I thought the same thing about both versions of English being branches equally distant from the same Tudor stem. Tho: methinks yt mite bee funne to rite th: artical in the Codde-Elizabethan, mayhaps. PRIIS 16:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd change them, on the quiet life' principle. Filiocht 16:30, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, Filiocht. Such tiny changes, anyway--not worth creating any heartache. My slatternly way of checking was to change the spell-checking on Word to U.K. English and see what got underlined, though. Maybe somebody who really knows should double-check. PRIIS 19:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations: well deserving of FA status. I was pleased to see Lady Gregory making it, too. Thanks for your vote there. Filiocht 08:42, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Billy's rep

Hi, Peter, thanks a lot for your great new Bill paragraph, excellent! I have carried it off in triumph to Shakespeare's reputation and pasted it in at the head (lead section still missing), don't know if you want to add more detail in that context. Were the sonnets publicly known at all?--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 17:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I just saw that Shakespeare's reputation has shrugged off my new edit. I'm not surprised, the server's been f*cking with me all day. I'm trying right now to insert your paragraph, and getting error messages. (Oddly, talk pages are usually not as resistant as articles.)--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 17:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I'm sure there's more to be said, but I just can't put my finger on it. I've never had the server lose an edit... that I know of! Kind of frightening, since I spent way too much of today redoing my own messed-up computer. PRIIS 02:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About the sonnets--I think they circulated in MS for several years before they were printed in 1609, and they got some contemporary buzz even while they were still in manuscript. PRiis 06:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More Billy

Hi, I've written a new section about Bill on the stage vs. Bill the poet at Shakespeare's reputation, and experimentally moved sections about, and maybe preempted your paragraph in doing so. Please check it out and fix any nonsense I've made, if you have the time. --[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 21:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks great--I couldn't find any nonsense! PRiis 22:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Renaissance Billy

No, I had not noticed! Thanks a lot, Peter. I haven't merely copied it into Shakespeare's reputation, but also deleted if from William Shakespeare, basically reinstating your shorter version, since the section there is supposed to be merely a short summary of Shakespeare's reputation. In fact The Singing Badger asked me to make it a one-paragraph summary, but, well. Did you see on the talk page that Filiocht is planning a 20th-century reputation section? Should be cool. A short 20th c section from Thesteve is already in place at this moment. What a happenin' article. At the same time, various people are adding details—a little Corneille here, a little Charles Lamb there—to the William Shakespeare "summary" rather than to the "Main article". See, I thought so: people don't take naturally to the "hub" or "parent" article system, that that guy on WP:FAC tried to get Giano and me to massacre our pretty baby John Vanbrugh with. People want linearity.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 18:04, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that. It looks like a whole extra ongoing job to shepherd and merge things from the hub article to the linked article. It seems like double the work. You're right, though, it sure is a happenin' article! PRiis 18:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

RFA candidate

Salve, PRiis!
I nominated myself for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PedanticallySpeaking2 and would appreciate your vote. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 19:57, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

The opium eater

Hi, PRiis, thanks for the opium-eater and the link. I've given de Quincey a mention in the 19th-c section as well now, with a homely portrait, check it out. Best, [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 21:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks great. I was going to make a joke about de Q. being really wasted when he wrote his rhapsody, but it's just too easy. That's a great Carlyle picture, too--in fact, the whole article is really good. Think it's getting close to time for FA? PRiis 22:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ouch, no! Very kind of you, but nobody could call the thing comprehensive, it's totally missing any sort of international perspective, for one thing. I've thought of sticking in the vague notions I have of neoclassical French stand-offishness in the 18th c, and German Romantic bardolatry in the 19th c, but they're basically clichés, probably on a level with the cliché notions out there about Shakey in the mean old 18th century... shudder. I've been trying to think of who or where to ask for content on this angle, but Peer review and Requests for expansion etc, when I go look, don't seem to be right for it.
How about you, got anything? Or anything about Elizabethan/Jacobean/Caroline Shakey on the stage, by any chance? I've re-structured strictly according to century now, so it's more glaring than ever that the stage history starts in 1660. Again, I hesitate to put in my own impoverished ideas of Elizabethan groundlings and what have you. And the whole of the Internet doesn't seem to have a non-copyright image of the Globe, can that be right? (Well, I found a useless and really ugly one of the outside of the Globe.)--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 01:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wish I did--I don't know much about staging. What about using the Peacham sketch? I think it's supposed to be the only contemporary sketch of a Shakespeare production (Titus Andronicus). Here's a pretty good scan. PRiis 06:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that's extremely decorative, great! I didn't know about that sketch, I've never seen it. That definitely goes in. Mynde you, I still have a hankering for complementing it with something that shows the staging conditions, like the playhouse images for the Restoration and the 19th century do. There keeps being this implicit comparison in Shakespeare's reputation with the original conditions, e. g. playhouses got a lot more gorgeous in the Restoration. It would be nice to have a visual image of what they got more gorgeous than. I have this vision in my head of a woodcut-looking print of the Globe, showing inside and outside both, but maybe I've dreamt it. Or maybe it's a 20th-century artwork got up to look like a woodcut, I dunno. Anyway, thanks very much for Titus, it's really attractive, especially the blackamoor. Speaking of which, did you notice I caught flak for trying to put up Rhymer's notorious attack on Othello for "Did you know" on the Main page? Sigh. Not for the blackamoor quote as such, but for creating an article consisting of quotes. "Transwiki to Wikiquote". :-( --[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 00:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was afraid that might come up when I saw you break out the quotes page. I'm glad it weathered the storm though--it wouldn't work on Wikiquote. It's not just a list of quotes--you need the context too. That was very smart to make it a timeline. PRiis 01:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is it that?

It's not the one, there's yet another one in my head, but the Swan is excellent, great view of the platform stage, thanks!--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 02:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

quick note

You asked me not to restart the rambot (which is blocked) until the issue is resolved. Don't worry, I don't plan to restart it, and in that spirit, I've clarified exactly what I wish the bot to do. It is significantly different than the previous behavior, and hopefully it answers the concerns brought up. I'd like you to at least comment on it, one way or the other. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 21:06, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Salve, Priis!
I wanted to drop you a line to thank you for your support in my successful RFA candidacy. It was very gratifying to see the kind remarks posted in the debate. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 17:24, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I know you'll make good use of your new tools. Keep up the good work! PRiis 17:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:Map of downtown Rome during the Roman Empire large.jpg

This is PD, taken from second edition of Nordisk familjebok published 1904-1926. Den fjättrade ankan 22:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that. PRiis 00:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Mic

...hasn't contributed here since September, but it's obvious that he has produced the maps by his own (I don't know, or don't remember, if he has announced what program he's used). Unless he says differently, I'm sure it can be assumed that he has intended the maps to be covered by Wikipedia public-domain standards. /Tuomas 00:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'll take care of the images, then. PRiis 00:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Griswolds

Sorry about dropping out the bit in Rufus Wilmot Griswold! - had the two versions up side-by-side, still managed to miss it. Our search machinery (and Google's) is so unreliable that it's always worthwhile to preemptively create assorted redirs to different forms of a name, prevents the energetic from seeing a red link and assuming the article doesn't exist already. Stan 01:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No probs. It was easy to miss--I had to look for a while before I saw it, and I'm the one that added it in the first place. Next time I'll take your advice about the pre-emptive redirects. PRiis 02:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FAC articles

Very interesting little task you have for me there, Peter, I'd love to, I've just been kind of busy today. But I've been reading the articles and forming some lay views. I'll be writing them down real soon now, before I go to bed, at least. (Local time is now 19:25.) I appreciate being asked, it's a very intriguing question! 100 times more fun than the RfAr:ing and newbie-lecturing I've been doing so far today (how did wikiwork get so grim?) --Bishonen | Talk 18:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, thank you. No hurry for me. In fact, after I sent the message, I thought, maybe that was a bit out of line to offload that on you. So, don't waste too much time, and don't even feel like you have to. PRiis 20:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Urquhart

Hi, Peter.I think Thomas Urquhart is a very interesting subject that could stand a fuller article. You have all the facts in there, I'm sure (I'm not going to pretend like I know), and present them in a clear, straightforward way, but there's not a lot of background. A reader like a US high-school kid—part of the target audience?—would need a fuller perspective on the life, if the facts aren't going to remain rather inert for her. With your rhetorical skills you could sneak in answers to her questions—why were they royalists? why would they uprise? marched with Charles II in what context? — without pissing off or boring the more knowledgeable. (Even among them, anybody who wasn't a bona fide expert might like to hear the name Cromwell a little sooner.) If there were many links to helpful articles (e. g., if the Trot of Turriff had an article and was linked), it would help with such a perspective, though even then that's no substitue for more background in the "Life" section itself.

Then, if that context were fuller, "The Jewel" could be fitted into it (why did the honor of Scotland need vindicating?). (It's just so neat, publishing a book about a universal language with a vindication of the honor of Scotland! :-))

Could Style section be enriched with examples? The abstractness is frustrating (to me), since the subject sounds madly colorful. Aren't the coined words as much fun as they sound (share!)?

Have you considered putting a few bits into Wikiquote and including the Wikiquote template in the article?

External links: Gutenberg has Gargantua and Pantagruel, books 1—5.

Day

John Day (printer) by contrast seems very nice and comprehensive just as it is, I don't see any way that longer would mean better. To my sense, it already has the "flesh" that I see Urquhart as a little short of. Great image, nice supporting caption!

Camden

The same goes for William Camden, very full and interesting just as it is. Hmmm, I have a nit, though. Aren't there rather many short sentences? Occasionally it reads a little staccato.

Actually I think all three could use slightly fuller Lead sections, Urquhart much fuller. The Lead's supposed to take up all the main points contained in the article, or at least people seem to like it when they do. FAC voters often seem to complain about short Leads.

No doubt you'd get complaints on FAC about William Camden or John Day (printer) being too short, and I suppose there's always more detail that could be added. I'm against it, though, I think they're very sweetly balanced right now, in the amount of detail they give.

Very sorry to fill your entire talk page with platitudes, it's probably time to archive it now!--Bishonen | Talk 23:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I really appreciate your taking the time to look these over. I think you're right, and I'll take your advice on expanding the Urquhart. He was quite a colorful guy, and I want to be sure I get that across--I'll get more specific. I guess I should have put all these on "peer review" but from past experience, it seems like these sorts of articles don't tend to generate lots of comments--but maybe I shouldn't pre-judge. I owe you! PRiis 03:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't mention it, would you take a look at Colley Cibber? ;-) I don't want it as a FAC, mind you. I'm hoping that that proves I've got a purer and more beautiful character than you, but I doubt it. Mainly it's because I'm not crazy about it myself—dubiously notable subject—and I'd hate to see CC, your basic piece of fast-written fluff (see me skimming across those sources like a hovercraft) get featured on the Main Page before John Vanbrugh, which has already been languishing in limbo for several months. :-( And I do get an impression of a somewhat united front of disinterest in the 18th century in this place. Nominating it would be like disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point: "I checked this against the FAC criteria checklist, it fulfills them all, how're you gonna not feature it? I don't care how boring you think it is, boring's not actionable." Moreover I'm childishly peeved by this. Stupid FACs. But it would be great to hear your frank opinion of CC, and even greater if you've got ideas for improvement. Sorry for the pouncemanship, though. Please, seriously, don't feel you have to do this.--Bishonen | Talk 23:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Afterthought: it comes to me that I may not have been absolutely clear about the Day and Camden articles: I think they'd make fine FAC nominations exactly as they are. I don't think they're too short by any means, though shortness might conceivably come up as a FAC objection. Anyway, I, for one, would certainly be proud to nominate either of them.--Bishonen | Talk 06:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe I'll try self-nominating the Camden after I do a little bit more work on the opening section. PRiis 23:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Colley

Hi, Peter, thanks very much for checking out Colley Cibber. You're very kind about it. You don't think the discrepancy between notability and length is offensive, then? I tried to blow up the notability a bit, making claims for how important it was to be the first actor-manager, but wasn't sure I'd succeded in sounding like I even believed it myself. ;-) It's very interesting what you say about the Dunce section being too detailed, and more about Pope than Cibber. It's by Geogre--basically, he wrote the Dunce part and I wrote the rest--and I guess it may still be a bit of a brain dump from his work on The Dunciad (an article which is coming along fabulously, but isn't in a very finished state). It's Pope Geogre's interested in, not Cibber, since Geogre is a reasonable person (I'm not--I do admit Pope is 100 times more significant and weighty, but my interest just doesn't follow weightiness). It's potentially the best section, I think. Geogre is the man to re-structure it, but I'm not sure he wants to, both because he's more drawn towards working on The Dunciad and because he's kind of on an indefinite wikibreak now. He's got a lot of stuff going on in RL. Maybe I should just fix it myself, after all. Do you think it would work OK to just have that section more internally narrative and chronological, or is it better to integrate it with the others and have the whole article chronological? I find it difficult to tell which is more helpful to the reader, with these difficult subjects that do 3 or 4 things throughout their lives simultaneously, in this case acting, writing, managing, being an idiot. (And I try to have a bit of a theme about being a jerk, too.) It's easier to write about one aspect at a time, but which is easier to read?
I do agree with you about self-nomination, it's what I like to do, too, not come on like a shrinking violet. You're not thinking about putting up "John Day" first, then? I like it a lot. There's something very pleasing about the prose style--"limpid"--and the image is so striking.--Bishonen | Talk 09:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, no--I have no problem with the length/notability ratio. (Actually, I don't believe too much in that ratio anyway, as long as the article is interesting--but maybe that's irresponsible. I just remember reading somewhere that in the new DNB the average article is about 1000 words, and the average for literary figures is about 3000, so it doesn't really seem disproportionate anyway.) My original thinking was to have the dunce section be its own narrative. Overall, I think having Cibber's different roles as separate sections is a good way of structuring the article. I don't think it makes things any harder for the reader--it's like getting a portrait from four slightly different perspectives. I suppose it's a matter of emphasis: whether you want to emphasize the unity or the diversity of Cibber's life.

Hmmm, maybe I will go with the John Day first. I have to take a deep breath before I start the FA process again, because I remember it involved a lot of nervous checking. PRiis 22:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Colley on FAC

Hi, Peter, check out Talk:Colley Cibber, User talk:ALoan, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Colley Cibber, if you're interested. :-( Bishonen | Talk 01:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)