User talk:Qp10qp/Archive 7

This is an archive of inactive discussions.

A request

Would you mind giving my guide (or rather, draft) a quick look-over? Despite your modesty, you are the person best suited to the task, and I should be grateful if you indulge my request. RedRabbit (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm in no hurry to have it checked. RedRabbit (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

File:Light and Colour by Turner.JPG

May the light of your knowledge shine throughout Wikipedia and beyond this coming year. You are as a god. :) Awadewit | talk 08:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• BTW, when you have a moment could you take a look at Fanny Imlay? Lquilter and I devised a system for how to refer to everyone in the drama. See what you think. Also, see the discussion on the talk page regarding Fanny's name - should it be Fanny Godwin, Fanny Wollstonecraft, or Fanny Imlay? Thanks! Awadewit | talk 22:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think you want the biographers to be better historians than they are. :) Awadewit | talk 21:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

John Day (printer)

Hey there...great work picking up where I left off! Quick question; I noticed you added this sentence: "Through Cecil, Day was awarded the valuable monopoly on printing ABCs". Do you know if this is referring to The ABC with Little Catechism mentioned later in the next paragraph? If so, we should probably merge the two sentences. BuddingJournalist 17:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I found the patent issue quite confusing too when I was reading the various sources I had access to. I guess we can just leave it as is if we're unsure whether they are the same or not. And I certainly don't mind you working on the article...in fact I'm quite glad you did! I was hoping to finish it off before the main page date too, but alas, real life work got in the way. Keep up the good work! BuddingJournalist 18:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Peake

Thanks very much for your comments! Actually I love that school of paintng, but I'm not very knowledgable about it. But I'm prepared to organise and analyse anything. When in London, The National Portrait Gallery is one of the places I take my son.

The double portrait was on tour in Australia and I saw it in the Art Gallery of New South Wales in the 1970s, hence my ref to the catalogue. While we were looking at it a little boy came along and proceeded to touch the surface of the painting. My mother said to him "We mustn't touch the paintings, especially that one, because it belongs to the Queen and it's very kind of her to show it to us. We wouldn't want to send it back dirty!" The little boy stood quite stunned, and then he bellowed so that everyone in the gallery could hear him "Hey, I'm looking at the Queen's picture! The Queen looks at this picture and so do I!" So the picture became the one point of separation between him and the Queen.

My gut feeling about the beautiful woman is no. What I'd rather like to see is another pic in which he does one of those ruffs with large loose folds. It requires a skill at achieving transparency that the stiffer ruffs don't need. Johnbod is very good on costume and is familiar with a lot of images.

Amandajm (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at your edits. I think that the article is looking good. Somewhere, in a book on restoration, I have an article on the equestrian portrait, but I haven't located it.

Another matter. The second boy in the portrait is identified as Harington. I have two sources, including Kitson, who identify him as Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex. Kitson mentions the fact that two shields identify the figures. Questions: Is it the Harington arms or the Essex arms? Are the shields contemporary with the painting, or later additions based on a presumed identification?

Amandajm (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

They arms are those of the Earls of Essex. I found this. Arms: Argent a fess gules in chief three torteaux. [1] Moreover, his appearance is consistent with that of both the early pic that I have put on the page, and with pics of his father. Do we know what the Haringtons looked like? Amandajm (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

HA! There are two versions, then! One with Harington and one with Essex. The quality of the pic is terrible, but it appears that Harington has a thinner face, and curlier, probably lighter, hair. [2] If you look down the list, you will find that the Peake pic immediately above this one is a B&W version of the Essex pic.

I would presume that the Essex pic was done for the Royal family, or the prince himself, and Harington had it copied. Amandajm (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just found a bbetter one of the Met version that you were referring to. It's plainly a different boy, and when enlarged, the whole painting is not quite as good as the one in the Royal collection. [3]. What a lovely pic of Lucy!

Differences include the coat of arms, the features of the boy, the trees and the fact that the stag has already had its neck cut. That part of the other pic is very dark, but I am sure that it has not, which accounts for two descriptions, one of the Prince drawing his sword, annd the other of him sheathing it. More Later. Muust go now. Amandajm (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee whizz mate! I'm orfully sorry about yer gognative whatsit.... you reely orta read the stuff they've written about the poor earl of Exeter...bits missing, by all accounts.... Amandajm (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC) No not Hexeter, I mean Hessex of course.

I think I've fixed the problem. The article now mentions both versions. Amandajm (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Purchases

I am going to purchase one Mary Shelley biography (I always like to have one on hand). Do you know yet which one would be the best to have or the second-best? We should each have one we can easily check. I have St Clair, but he is not just Shelley. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 07:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Recording Shakespeare

I am thinking of making a recording of the Shakespeare article, with myself as reader. What do you think? I made a test recording of the first paragraph. I might post a better one tomorrow.

I don't know how I will record the whole article; I couldn't possibly read everything in one sitting. However I'll come to that point later. RedRabbit (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert Peake the Elder

On 15 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Peake the Elder, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski

Could you look at the most recent comments by Novickas? I don't think I am getting through to him; he seems pretty immovable in his comments and opinions.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Tragedy

When you have a moment (!), would you mind taking a look at the new and improved Fanny Imlay article? It is hardly perfect, but see what you think. The "Death" section is now awash in theories. I basically need to figure out how to present them coherently. Thoughts? Awadewit | talk 07:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, what kind of plan do you want to set up for Mary Shelley? I've started reading, as you can tell, so I wondered if we wanted to be a bit more organized. Do we want to try and fill out our reading lists? I kind of like to have an idea of how much I need to read (realizing a few things will always be added later). Awadewit | talk 08:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request

Since you've been so helpful in past Balzac endeavors, I wonder if you'd care to review the FA-bound article for Le Père Goriot? I'd greatly appreciate your thoughts in a peer review. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 21:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No sweat on the time. I appreciate your assistance. – Scartol • Tok 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

William Larkin

I have started the expansion of William Larkin; please chime in! - PKM (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Offa

Just a note to say thank you for the outstanding review you did on Offa. I can tell from the detailed comments and from your contributions list that you put more time and effort into that review than some people might put into writing a featured article in the first place. Your reviews always dramatically improve the articles I work on; I really appreciate your time, effort, and insights. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm flattered to get the two reviews. Yes, it absorbed a lot of my weekend, but I learned a lot more about Offa as a result.

I am hoping to do Coenwulf and Æthelred next, and then I'll have most of the important pre-Alfred ones done. I'd like to try for the complete set! Mike Christie (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in all of them but I feel I still have a lot to learn about pre-Viking England. I was figuring I'd fill in as much of that as I could, then move on. I'm doing this for fun, so I might just switch to the later ones out of interest. I think I've got a few more to do till that happens, though. Mike Christie (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I did that bit by pasting in the text of your comment into the edit window so I could see it as I worked; I forgot to clean up. Thanks for noticing that.

Yes, Bede's a possibility, though I think there's a lot of scholarship on him I don't currently have, so I'd have to do a bit of gearing up (both reading and buying). It's a likely target though. Mike Christie (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice

What do you think should be done at Talk:Introduction to evolution? I thought I would try my hand at mediation, but I'm a novice. I don't think I did so well. Is an WP:RFC appropriate there? What, exactly? There is basically one disruptive editor. S/he has good points, but it is difficult to have a conversation with them. I tried to invite them to a revision of the lead, and this ended up on my talkpage. Any advice from my mentor in the ways of diplomacy would be much appreciated. Awadewit | talk 07:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, better than diplomacy, sometimes, is backing silently out of the door! I'd de-watchlist that article, if I were you. Plenty of people there capable of handling the matter—Dave Souza, in particular—and you've more than done your bit. Not worth answering anything silly on your talk page, either, even if it gets your goat. qp10qp (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I really want to help out with this article, since I think it is so important. However, I think you are right that I should avoid the dispute as much as possible. I'll just try to focus on improving the article itself. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 17:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

With non-pugnacious edit summaries, that would be prudent, I think. qp10qp (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've had to give up that enterprise. There were disputes about where to edit revisions of the article. With that going on, it is hard to offer assistance. Too bad. Perhaps after the current firestorm has passed, I'll be able to help out again. Awadewit | talk 03:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia dispatches

(Cross posted to User talk:Karanacs and User talk:Qp10qp)

See this. Sandy recommended you for that. Would that be something you are interested in? (Please reply there). Raul654 (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Italian War of 1542–1546

I've added some material on the background of the war and the various conflicting claims; I'd appreciate if you could look it over and let me know whether you think more detail is needed.

(On a related note: I'm going to be working on the Italian War of 1535–1538 next; might you be available to review that article once it's completed?) Kirill 20:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Two things

1. Thank you for your review of Le Père Goriot. I appreciate your meticulous attention to detail. (I've left notes on the review page which may or may not be of interest to you.)
2. The peer review system (at least for bio and novels; probably others) works on a template structure, and the review itself is in the third level (===), so individual reviews should be on the fourth (====). (Otherwise, the TOC for pages like the peer review archive looks funky.) Just FYI; I fixed the one you did for LPG. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 20:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Falls over with surprise!

Goodness me! How did you turn this into this!! I'm going to be in state of shock for days! I think the effect was doubled after I'd read Paul's walk (which is, if anything, even more fascinating). I'm so glad you got the comet reference in there. You must put the gossip-mongering in the decaying cathedral up on Wikipedia:Did you know. Here's a link. Thanks so much for those! I was actually about to pop over and proudly show off my latest idea for an article, but it feels like a bit of an anticlimax now. Have a look here. I'm slowly (agonisingly slowly) putting together the bare bones and filling out the flesh. Lots of juicy sources on the talk page. Should be good once I've finished. Unlike Astronomische Nachrichten, which was based mostly on one source and will be difficult to expand, I should really be able to get going on this one. A nice range of dates as well, and a couple of great stories behind it. The Einstein quotes are always good news, and the newspaper headlines from 1919 are classic, and there is even a story of Eddington (a devout Quaker) praying for the clouds to clear before the eclipse took place. When do you think would be the right moment for me to transfer the article into the main namespace? Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to second that - a very nice article. I hope you don't mind, but I've taken the liberty to nominate Paul's walk for DYK - the text can be found here if you'd like to revise it. Thanks. Bob talk 11:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally responded

I have returned and finally responded to your points about Fanny Imlay on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 05:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

An unusual request

I have recently translated a short excerpt of a novel by my favorite Polish writer, Jacek Dukaj (with his permission). I am now looking for a native English speaker who would go over that excerpt and copyedit it. Perhaps in a spare time you could look over it? It is quite short, and I find it very interesting.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates

Thanks for your input so far on this. It's good to get different perspectives on the issues.

I appreciate the sentiment behind your concern about the citation template policy wording seeming overly restrictive and discouraging for those wanting to do some common sense tidying up here and there. However, I think there could be some argument as to what the tidiest method actually was, and what actually constitutes 'common sense'. I think nine times out of ten you could probably make the change you wanted and there'd be no problem, which would be ideal. My concern would be only when there's a difference of opinion.

Earlier in the Citation templates talk thread some 'horrendous' examples of template usage were posted with the aim showing just what a bad idea it was using citations templates inline. Those examples were initially presented without including freehand versions for comparison however, and when freehand comparisons are included I think it's then a matter of opinion as to which is best - particularly if you take into account the versions of citation template usage with the parameters more neatly aligned. Check this one out Citation templates example and let us know what you think.

--SallyScot (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 1 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul's walk, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert Peake the Elder

No hard feelings, I hope, on the gallery issue. Overall, I think the article is excellently written. I am shocked that there wasn't an article about Peake before (I have actually heard of him and seen his work before), and I'm grateful that you took the time to create it and get it ready for FA. We were getting a little spirited, and I wanted to make it clear that I do think it's a good article. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Indeed we have a very effective "task force" going (with Doc Glasgow as the special forces arm out in a hole in the desert perhaps) without any procedural brou-ha-ha. You've seen the new toy no doubt - I find even the most obscure articles still have several viewers a day: WP article view counter: [4]. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. I very much enjoy this sort of collaboration, and look forward to more of it. Peake may be obscure by mainstream standards, but then there are lots of people who might want to write about Joshua Reynolds. We happy few will do our Jacobeans and our Tudors and so find like-minded souls, and maybe inspire some teenager to study art history. We're the Encyclopedia Galactica and we have room for everything. - PKM (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

I don't think there is anything technically wrong with the curly/angled quotes (though they do disappear to nothingness more quickly at small text sizes than the "normal" quote marks). I just saw that the two types were mixed so fixed them to one style. I expect it is Word that adds them - I've always found it terribly eager to be helpful, which is why I don't use it. There's probably an option to turn them off hidden away in the bowels of one of the menus. Good luck with Peake. Yomangani^talk 10:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Aldfrith of Northumbria

Qp, what's the status here? There is a lot of important dialogue on the FAC, yet no opposes; are these issues resolved satisfactorily, or is more time needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That was my impression, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't off track. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Boydell Shakespeare Gallery

Qp, I need an "outside reader" to give an opinion at Boydell Shakespeare Gallery. A peer reviewer has suggested that we drastically cut the "Shakespeare in the 18th century" section and I was curious to know your opinion. As you are a "less is more" person, I was curious as to your opinion on the matter. The article is in the final stages of polishing for FAC, so it would be painful to cut now, but if it would really make it a better article, of course I would do that. Let me know here. If you are deep in the world of Mary Shelley and don't have time, I understand. Awadewit | talk 18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the Aldfrith comments

Thanks for once again being patient and thorough at the Aldfrith FAC. I really appreciate it. I suspect it will promote shortly, with a couple of unaddressed points; I will be moving those to the talk page for further work. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I should be getting back to the Aldfrith edits shortly. One thing I just did was move some images around and get rid of the ImageQuote template; does that fix the weird formatting you were seeing on the quote? Mike Christie (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Great saves (from Marskell)

• WP:SIGNPOST and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-11/Dispatches. For more kindness in the world :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Shelley

I just wanted to say I'm very pleased to see the well-sourced, rigorous work you've been doing at Mary Shelley. The article was badly neglected for a long time. Chick Bowen 19:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I just dropped by Robert Peake and was delighted to find it had a star! Amandajm (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Congratualations from me as well. I see from the nomination that it was one of the articles that you rustled up while filling out redlinks at Anne of Denmark! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Recommended to review Milton Friedman FAC

Hi, I nominated Milton Friedman for a FAC and you were recommended as a notable article reviewer. If you have a chance, could you take a look at the article and make any comments at the FAC page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Milton Friedman? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth I of England

Thank you for fixing the wording of the "Later Life" section, which had been chopped and changed by an anon. I couldn't work out what had been the original text and whether the additional material was a paraphrasiing of Loades or just someone's arbitrary rewriting. Euryalus (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Interview of sorts

Graduate student life marches forward! I am planning on writing a paper for Wikimania 2008 on "online collaborative writing" and I was wondering if I could "interview" you over email about your experiences writing on Wikipedia. I'm trying to collect as many perspectives as possible. I would really appreciate it! Awadewit | talk 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. qp10qp (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

William Shakespeare

Hi, I am mywood from zh wiki, now focus on translating English Features article to Chinese. I have a small question about William Shakespeare. In the References, many refer to 'Schoenbaum, Compact', but I can not find the book in the whole page. Does it means Schoenbaum, Samuel ,William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life? If yes, which edition does this article refer to? Thanks a lot.--Mywood2004 (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rokeby Venus

Would really appreciate your usual caustic look and maybe even a hatchet chop for this FAC. Don't be shy. Ceoil (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We have been slaving away, and would appreciate more comments on the article as it stands. I apologise for bringing you in so early, but I needed some energy and pressure, I suppose. I need a kick or nothing happens. Ceoil (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Qp10qp. I was delighted to see your note, considering I lean on you (and Awadewit) so much. As you mentioned Whatt, I'd really like to build up She Dwelt among the Untrodden Ways; have dedicated text and a bunch of bios, and a article outline helpfully left by Wetman on the pages's talk, but need a collaborator. Do you know of a similarly doomly romantic editor I could work with on this...there has to be someone! Anyway best, and thanks once again. Ceoil (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Æthelred of Mercia

If you have a minute, could I get your opinion on something? I'm working on Æthelred of Mercia at the moment; I'm hoping to get it to FAC shortly. Currently I have it basically right, I think; I'm at the stage of going through all my sources one last time for odds and ends of information not included so far, prior to creating a lead and doing a copyedit and MOS check. The question I have relates to the first two sections, which I took from Wulfhere of Mercia and edited to suit Æthelred. I've done this before, e.g. with Eadbald of Kent and his father, Æthelberht of Kent, but there's quite a lot of overlapping text here, and I'd be interested in your opinion of whether I need to edit it further. The overlap comes from the similarity in their historical situations, of course. I've asked this question before (at WT:FAC, I think it was) and was told it's OK, but this is a larger chunk so I was hoping for a second opinion. I think I'll mention the situation at FAC, when I get there, just to let reviewers know. If you don't have time, no problem. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Good advice; I'll take it. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review idea

Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.

There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).

If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Catherine de' Medici's court festivals

Splendid job on Catherine de' Medici's court festivals, worthy of its topic. You set a high standard. --Wetman (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Horse ballet seems inevitable now - know anything about those? Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We once had a horse jump into the garden, and a certain amount of ballet was involved in getting it back out again—but that's about it. qp10qp (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

With that edit summary, I just had to look :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that and synchronised dressage be a redirect to Carrousel? Jean-Baptiste Lully wrote music for a Carrousel du Roy. Isn't that what they're up to in The carrousel in the Cortile del Belvedere, 1565 in Étienne du Perac's engraving?--Wetman (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to the present carrousel certainly. I can't raise the source link but the picture looks more like a staged tournament, or "tournoi à thème", which this [truncated article tends to confirm. Strong in "Art and Power" pl. 44 says he shows the earliest print of a "figure" in a horse ballet, from 1608. All the ones he shows are rather neater and geometrical, and use more space (Boboli gardens etc). But I don't know much about these. Strong & those he quotes use the word, probably not wholly consistently, apparently meaning riding round in circles, whereas the ballet has more complicated figures, that pause when they are achieved. All clearly very closely related anyway. Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit more like it [5] - a very different story re the Place du Carrousel from the en article. Johnbod (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Dieter Speidel's "horse musicals". The dressage of the Hapsburg Spanish Riding School, ending in the "quadrille" has seventeenth-century roots and within human memory was performed to live music to a white-tie audience. --Wetman (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. The Spanish are still at it, with a more relaxed dress code, I imagine, Berkeley are getting in on the act too. I'll need to work Buffalo Bill's "tournoi à thème" in too. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm copying this out of Qp's back-garden to my own talk; better carry on there if there's anything to add, or the neighbours will complain. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Same ol'

In other word, a soon-to-be FAC of mine needs copyediting. If you are interested in reading about the largest (or second largest, sources vary) resistance movement of WWII, see Armia Krajowa :) It's also on MILHIST A-class review, and any comments about the quality are much appreciated! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Automatically numbered footnotes

Hey Qp!

Awadewit asked me to develop an automatically numbered footnote scheme for you all, one that would be distinct from the present <ref> system? Well, I tried to do so, but by coincidence, another editor, guru programmer Steve Sanbeg, came up with a much better system at the same time! :) It's just been adopted here on the English Wikipedia; check out user:sanbeg/ref test. I daresay more improvements will follow; please try it out and give him any ideas, suggestions, criticisms (and thank you's) that you feel inspired to give. :) Spread the word, too! :) Willow (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! qp10qp (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 22 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Catherine de' Medici's court festivals , which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Catherine de' Medici

Okay, I'll give it a look.

As far as Cateau-Cambrésis goes, I tend to subscribe to Wetman's argument that virtually all peace treaties can be more intuitively dealt with in the article on the associated war than separately from it; so I pulled what little we have on the matter into the Italian War of 1551–1559 article. If you think there's enough to be said about the treaty in its own right to hold up a full-length article, I certainly won't object; but I doubt there's that much that can be written about the treaty itself (as opposed to mere explanation of its historical context and the preceding events). Kirill 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough; as I said, I don't have any objections to a separate article if one can be created. I shall await your efforts with bated breath—in part because they will no doubt give me some pointers for additional sources on the war itself, which is a bit closer to my own area of interest. ;-) Kirill 03:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature

Hi. I noticed you are often involved in copy editing at an advanced level. I was wondering if you have the time to copy edit my above article which is in FAC. The biggest complaint on the FAC, from reviewers who care, is the prose and polish.Thank youDineshkannambadi (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

William Shakespeare

hi, I am back again, I have a quesion about "Cymbeline". In William Shakespeare#List of works, it is said that "listed below according to their folio classification as comedies, histories and tragedies", and classify Cymbeline as comedy, but in "First Folio" it classify Cymbeline as tragedy. Could you please check it? Thanks. --Mywood2004 (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Children blooming and dying like flowers

On the Neopolitan charge. I just have no idea what happened. Although Mary seemed clearly affected by the loss of her children, PBS and Byron seemed much less so. Children seemed like part of Byron's zoo and a radical educational project for PBS. It all reminds me of Thomas Day. Except for Mary, children seemed much more transferable and disposable for this group. It's quite intriguing, really. Awadewit (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I find that episode exceptionally fascinating, so much so that I'd like to do an article on Elena one day—just as a self-indulgence. Historical mystery articles don't really work on Wikipedia, because you have to give the solution in the lead; but because this one really doesn't have a solution, and because the several possibilities are equally valid and equally unlikely, I think it would make a genuinely intriguing read. Since nothing adds up, I am forced to the conclusion that our threesome engineered an elaborate cover-up—with some success. qp10qp (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you would write an excellent article! It has all of the elements of a good story, too, so it would almost read like fiction. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting current project

This is just a note to let you know about a a project you may be interested in. The main project page is at WP:MMM; it's a class project for a Canadian university. The class is studying Latin American literature, and part of their grade is going to depend on how close they can get their articles to FA status. There are twelve articles, with two or three students working on each.

A completely separate project, the FA team, got involved early on, and we're now in the last couple of weeks of the semester. The students are trying to get the articles in shape to nominate at FAC by 10 April. There's a status section showing who's working on what at the FA team talk page. The tasks that need doing now include copyediting, GA reviews, MOS verification, and any preparation needed for FAC. The professor, jbmurray, is taking responsibility (prior to FAC, at least) of checking that the coverage is broad and that the right academic sources are consulted. If you'd like to get involved, please take a look around and jump in, or ask questions at the FA team talk page.

If you don't have time, no problem -- I'm leaving this note with four or five of the best editors I know, just in case it happens to interest you. The FA team is really enjoying it, and it's a great project that is likely to get us twelve high-quality articles as well as several new Wikipedians. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Emery Molyneux: Presentation of the globes

Hi, I've updated the article to clarify when Elizabeth I was presented with Molyneux's globes. Have a look at the article and my comments on the talk page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Augusto Roa Bastos

Glad to see you getting involved at Augusto Roa Bastos; you might consider signing up at the FA team page if you think you'd like to participate in this sort of thing again. For Bastos, can you tell me whether you think the GA review comments are addressed? I was thinking about updating the article status and was wondering if it was time to ping Cirt and ask him to take another look. Mike Christie (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Catherine de' Medici

I just wanted to say thank you for putting together an excellent article on Catherine de' Medici. I read Leonie Frieda's biography of her last year and was fascinated, and it's nice to see WP now has such a comprehensive and well-cited article on a very interesting woman. It was a joy to read :) Karanacs (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think I've missed out by not taking the time to join in at the peer review, and I won't have time for the FAC either. Maybe there will be enough soon for a featured topic on Catherine de' Medici? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you. I don't rule out a featured topic on "The Age of Catherine de' Medici", but it will take a very long time and I want to do other things. The topic should really include articles on all the late Valois kings, on Marguerite and Elisabeth de Valois, on François, Duke of Anjou, on Henry IV, on the Wars of Religion, on Catherine's reputation, and on her astrological/magical interests. The arts articles, at least, are in place. qp10qp (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for peer review

Hi! I was wondering if you'd be able to look over this peer review (article). It's got a long way to go, and any input would be greatly appreciated. :) This spam message brought to you on behalf of the current Tzatziki Squad collaboration. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 9 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Claire Clairmont, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 06:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of 19th century source

Hi Qp10qp. Could I ask you to comment on the Thomas Cranmer talk page on the reliability aspect of 19th century sources? Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Book suggestion

Can I suggest a book? Jane Tompkins's Sensational Designs - perhaps it will convince you that literary scholars cannot just advise people on what "good" books are. It outlines some of the problems with that principle. Awadewit (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if I can get a copy. But I didn't say they should just do that; I said they should not forget to do that. Actually, I'm not unfamiliar with the line you take; but remember that all literary critical movements are transient, none are definitive. Also that if literary studies are to be of use to those, like me, outside academia, they must not forget to inspire us to go and read the original works. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it would be a dereliction of duty not to inform the readers which works are most highly regarded and why. qp10qp (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would hope the excitement of reading and interpreting, using whatever method appeals to you, is conveyed by literature professors. This is what I intend to do, anyway. Of course, in Wikipedia articles, we must say which works are most studied and why. I am not sure this correlates with "most highly regarded", for example. The Austen canon provides an interesting test case that we could talk about at some length, if you wanted to. Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What ho!

Afternoon. Are you busy? If not would you mind casting your eye over The General in His Labyrinth. I've done some light copy-editing but I don't want to do anything too heavy while they are still writing so as not to dishearten them by butchering their prose. Another opinion on the content would be welcome though, as they are keen to get it to FAC (besides which he dies at the end and I know you don't feel an article is complete without at least one death...or...is that me?) Yomangani^talk 12:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked through your contributions after I wrote this (as a result you can see I am now fiddling with the black queen) and saw you were busy. If you get time to look at it that would be great but don't feel any pressure. Yomangani^talk 13:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Great work on the GGM copy-editing. Just one query about this... doesn't "melancholy" look like a citation? if so, we shouldn't really change it, no? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was a mistake, which I was about to change. It's best to give me a moment after I edit, because I tend to make cock-ups, but I keep re-reading and usually catch them. qp10qp (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to notice. Me, I tend not to catch my own mistakes. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I leave mistakes too long, please pounce. I have made a few howlers in my time, and I daresay a few remain undetected on Wikipedia.

I've removed the quote marks now. I think I must have been reading the bit below, but I did quickly realise that this was wrong. I am planning to absorb more of the quotations into the text like that (I have proposed this on the talk page). Do you think that is OK? I am conscious that the students may be too polite to speak up when edits annoy them. Please let me know should I tread on their toes too much. qp10qp (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they'll be OK. They are indeed polite, but if explain what you're doing it's also a valuable learning exercise, I think. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The General in His Labyrinth

I just wanted to thank you again, on behalf of all our editors, for all your help on our article! I am so glad you helped address the OR issue, because up to now, I am still unclear as to what the problem was. I know there's still a bit to do before we get FA but you've helped us so much, and it's very much appreciated! Thanks again! Eshiu (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks times ten for helping us get to FA! We really appreciate it, we couldn't have done it without your all your help! Eshiu (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I second what Eshiu said above ^^^^. Thank you so much!!! Carlaty (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

I wonder if you would be willing to take a look at this article that we are trying to get to FA quality. SandyGeorgia said to say she sent me here! [6] Don't worry if you don't have time though! --Slp1 (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Whenever you have time will be great, no worries. There's no rush, and we all have proper lives to lead! --Slp1 (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Noted

Your comments have been noted, my opinion has been moved to support, and the article looks great. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't that big of a problem and I knew, with all the students, that there had to be some analysis out there on characters and plot. The book is rather famous and tons of people like to jump on such things. I'm glad the page turned out so well. There shouldn't be any future objections, even if standards become tighter, which is very good. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Emery

No problem. Well done with the copy-edit! It was certainly a well-researched article; the only substantial qualms I had with it was with the similarity of the prose with the sources at points, but it was an otherwise fine article! BuddingJournalist 19:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted the main editor not to feel discouraged. qp10qp (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Mocking

Because I have been ticked off about, even mocked about, my non-capitalisation principles.... I hope what was intended as good-humoured ribbing on my part hasn't been taken amiss. If it has, I apologise. Yomangani^talk 14:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly.qp10qp (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, MoS discussions are always like that - I just dive in for a moment but never have the interest to hang around till the end - if there is one. Fortunately no one bothers too much what is in the MoS. The same problems afflict anything involving the Almanach de Gotha; the current debate is therefore the perfect Wikistorm in a teacup. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Madness!!

		Barnstar of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem
		On behalf of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem, this barnstar is to thank you for your hard work and patience in motivating, mentoring, and moulding the work of student editors, and helping them to achieve excellence in research and writing. For your fantastic contributions, above all to The General in His Labyrinth, for which you really went above and beyond. Thank you so much! On behalf of the entire class of UBC's SPAN312. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My first barnstar for ages (jumps around), many thanks! Why is Lemmy on it, though? qp10qp (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. And thanks again to you! (Meanwhile, I have shamelessly stolen your observation ;)) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing

Would you mind giving Boydell Shakespeare Gallery a quick copy edit? Jbummary has suggested that its prose isn't up to snuff at FAC. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your source is wrong

You stated: "Bate also suggests that "Shakespeare rose to pre-eminence in the period 1660–1830 on the back of the British Empire, the strength of the middle class and the reaction against the French Revolution""

This is factual wrong (well, your source is). Great Britain was established by the "Act of Union" in 1707, thus, there was no "British Empire" until that date. Therefore, the scholar is anachronistic and historically inaccurate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Qp10qp. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, Awadewit (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas Ludford

Hi Qp10qp: nice work. Very fine indeed: thank you for writing the biography of this superb composer. I see I need a copy of this CD! Regarding formatting the reference for the CD liner notes, I think the way you did it is good. That's quite like how I've done it in the past (CD notes often give you nice detailed information ... especially when written by one of the major early-music practitioners). I may add a couple things to the article -- for example, according to the most recent New Grove article (David Skinner, 2007) his date of death is now known (9 August 1557) Have to wonder why he stopped composing; I have a speculation, but I'll suppress my urge to do original research ... Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Yes, one suspects that he didn't want to co-operate with the reformation; Taverner also stopped writing, it seems. Being a history graduate, though, I hesitated to add that speculation, since he might just have been ill, or whatever. qp10qp (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bosch

It would seem my brazen side has no limits, but editors of your quality are hard to come by. So: Your Cutting Tools are welcome at The Garden of Earthly Delights. The triptych might not be to everybody's taste, and if that is the case, no worries. Ceoil (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy for the moment but will have a look in the week. Don't worry about its not being to my taste: I'll have a mushroom curry before I read it. qp10qp (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant. Just as a tip, I find red bull immunes me from all unpleasentness. Two cans of that and a curry, and you'll be grand. Ceoil (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Deva Victrix

This is a lovingly researched article about the Roman fortress/colony at Chester. Content-wise, it ticks all the right boxes but it does need a close copy-edit by a competent editor, preferably someone with a history background. Perhaps you would be able to undertake it? The principal editor is a charming person and will very much appreciate any help. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope to do this today or tomorrow, all else being equal. qp10qp (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

For background, here's a link to the last FAC. I suppose the major objective is getting the copy crisper and tighter ready for the next one. I can help on this, if needs be, but I'm away for most of next week and have two or three heavy copy-editing projects on the boil. Thanks again, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done a thorough copy edit and will put some comments on the talk page today. qp10qp (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments done. qp10qp (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just spotted the thread here. Thanks for the copy edit, it definitely improves the article (I think I may have to practice my own ce skills). The comments you've made on the talk page are helpful and something to think about, I hope to begin addressing them in the next few days. Thanks for your time. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That was quick! Excellent notes too. Thank you very much :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I’m very flattered to be put on your special list! I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Long overdue

(Award moved to userpage) qp10qp (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, this makes up for being chucked out of the army cadets. Watch out for Henry IV of France's military career, coming soon. qp10qp (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. I'm a great fan of le vert gallant. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Jane Grey DOB controversy

Thank you for defending my honor, such as it is, regarding my "dubious" PhD and astrologer "Jeanne's" derision of it. I note your addition of the citation to Taylor for Jane's DOB. Rather than mention it on the LJG Talk page, I will keep it private by saying only here that Taylor is not "useful," at least not in the opinion of those academics (other than myself) who have reviewed it. You might see my own brief assessment of his book on my website, www.somegreymatter.com, under the Bibliography pages. The "Notes and Queries" article on LJG's DOB is also posted there. If you contact me via my site, I will send along the pdf proofs of the second article, due from "Notes and Queries" in the June issue. I will post that article to my site on July first. After reading my two articles, I will leave it to you to decide who is more likely to be correct: Jeanne and her "Astrotheme" website, Taylor and his epistolary novel, or myself and my archival documents. The academic biography of LJG that PatGallacher referred to is my own. It will be out in 2009 (the manuscript is currently being edited by the publisher). I'm afraid I simply do not have the patience or fortitude to undertake a full-scale re-write of the LJG article, since such a re-write would require an ongoing defense effort as people like "Jeanne" pit her sources (Astrotheme, an astrology website) against mine (archived primary source documents). Most people cherish their historical icons and are loathe to see them altered or tarnished in any way. I understand their feelings. But sometimes myths need to be exploded, especially when the evidence so strongly indicates that the myth is indeed simply a myth. But Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for myth-wrestling. PhD Historian (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't doubt you are correct. It's just a question of balancing the references. qp10qp (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand the principle of "balancing the references." But a very generic question: when does "balancing the references" give way to genuine "verifiablility" and documented fact? Does the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust include "balanced references" from Holocaust deniers? (I don't know; I haven't looked; I'm simply asking and trying to make a point.) Do the articles on Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or similar polarized subjects include "balanced references" from their supporters?

And I am genuinely a little confused as to what constitutes "verifiability" for purposes of Wikipedia. Perhaps you can clarify my confusion, since you seem level-headed here. In academia, a thing is "verifiable" only if it can be reliably documented and supported via some reliable source contemporaneous to the event or thing. In the case of LJG's DOB, the claim originating with 19th century writers of agenda-driven national histories (Strickland et al) and repeated by subsequent modern writers fails the test of verifiability. Their claim of a DOB in October 1537 is simply not supported by the primary source evidence from 1536-7. Is simple repetition enough to make something "verifiable" under Wikipedia standards? Is "verifiability" through repetition in numerous modern secondary sources more important on Wikipedia than the apparent "truth" contained in a primary source document? Is an oft-repeated modern claim more "verifiable" than a document written in the 1550s by Jane's own Italian tutor, a document that was largely unknown until recently? You must forgive me ... perhaps I am applying too exacting a standard ... but it just seems to me that a man who actually knew LJG personally is likely to be somewhat more reliable than a series of persons who lived 300 years and more after LJG's death. And an article reviewed and approved by prestigious professors of history at Oxford University for publication in an academic journal seems to me more "verified" than the works of modern writers who have simply repeated the 19th century myth without themselves researching the issue in the archived primary sources and whose publications have not undergone the peer-review process prior to publication. Lastly, if Wikipedians insist on judging "verifiability" of "facts" based on how many times those "facts" have been repeated in other places, regardless of the origin or "truth" of the "facts," Wikipedia will never shed its poor reputation among experts on given topics as a inaccurate and unreliable mega-blog. PhD Historian (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I try not to go on about policies too much, because there's nothing drearier than editors quoting them at each other like petty lawyers. But I should mention that the Wikipedia: Verifiability policy opens with this extraordinary statement: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Many of us have tried to get this changed, but to no avail: it sticks, and, in my opinion, it gives the impression that Wikipedia is not interested in truth, just in received truth.

I entirely agree with what you are saying, but we have to face the fact that by "verifiabilty" Wikipedia does not mean whether a fact can be proved to be true but whether it can be proved to have been stated in reliable published sources. Of course, we do have leeway: the neutrality policy Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View has a section on weighting, which includes the principle: "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". So proportion is important, and this answers your point about subjects like Hitler and the Holocaust. The anti-Stratfordians did present us with a problem at William Shakespeare, and we felt obliged to allow them a small mention or two in the article, though their ideas are obviously bonkers. The problem in Lady Jane Grey is that however convincing your research and publications may be, they remain in small proportion to the traditional, even lazy, dating in many published books. I expect that to change over time, as new books increasingly use your research; one day, Wikipedia may be able to deprecate or even ignore the old date. Sorry though I am to admit it, Wikipedia is a mere tertiary resource that is not allowed to think for itself: the best we can do is to present contradictions, often to absurd effect.

In my opinion, we must at least try to enable the readers to think for themselves. An explanatory footnote on the key points of your research in Lady Jane Grey might help them to do that even more, and I would encourage such an addition. Here's how I addressed the "wisest fool in Christendom" quote in the lead of James I of England. I changed the bland comment that he was nicknamed that to: "Sir Anthony Weldon claimed that James had been termed 'the wisest fool in Christendom', an epithet associated with his character ever since". Then I added the footnote: "A very wise man was wont to say that he believed him the wisest fool in Christendom, meaning him wise in small things, but a fool in weighty affairs." Sir Anthony Weldon (1651), The Court and Character of King James I, quoted by Stroud, p 27; "The label 'the wisest fool in Christendom', often attributed to Henri IV of France but possibly coined by Anthony Weldon, catches James’s paradoxical qualities very neatly." Smith, p 238.

What I tried to do was show the reader that this epithet cannot be traced further than Weldon (an enemy of James). The careful reader now has the means to evaluate the famous phrase, from which Wikipedia thereby discreetly distances itself. qp10qp (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for having actually read my first article on LJG's DOB. Yes, I am aware of the variability of conventions for expressing age in the sixteenth century, in both English and Latin. And because I am aware of that variablity, I consulted with a number of leading scholars on the topic, among them Dr Alexandra Kess-Hall of the Bullinger Correspondence Project at the Institute fur Schweizerische Reformationgeschichte of the University of Zurich. All agree that Aylmer's use of "est 14 annos nata" indicates that LJG had already achieved the 14th anniversary of her birth and was thus in her fifteenth year when Aylmer wrote his letter to Bullinger. This conclusion is supported by evidence presented in my second article. Jane's Italian tutor, Michelangelo Florio, stated that she was already 17 years old when she was executed in February 1553 (and again, I did consult widely with experts on northern Italian-language idioms of age to confirm that Florio meant she had achieved the 17th anniversary of her birth and was thus in her 18th year at her death). Jane cannot have been 14 years old in May 1551 if she had been born after May 1537. Nor can she have been 17 years old in February 1553 if she had been born after February 1537. She must therefore have been born before February 1537, despite the romantic claims of modern writers that she was born in the same month, week, or day as her co-religionist and fellow national hero, Edward VI. PhD Historian (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I think Aylmer's letter pretty much clinches it. I think you've spotted a gap in the academic field with Jane. qp10qp (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)