User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2012/December

Basilica

In reorganizing the "basilica" article, you added the word "christian" to the description of the first-century NeoPythagorean basilica found at Porto Maggiore in 1915. I think you'll find you misread your sources. That's much too early, and the two philosophies are incompatible.

I've removed the word from the article.

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a disability edit-a-thon Saturday week (10 November) in Sydney. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online before, during and after the meetup. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/November 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 15:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to users listed on Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/Invite)

Greasy hair

You might find more on this!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and a question re Parable of the sunfish

Thanks for your edits earlier at Parable of the sunfish. I've moved the images back to the right hand side as the blockquotes weren't taking the images into account. I agree with you that having pictures of people staring into the margins is a Bad Thing, but removing the visual cue for the blockquote is worse. Do you know I can force the blockquote to indent from the picture instead of the margin?

Thanks much,

GaramondLethe 08:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that's good to know. This sounds like a google chrome problem then. GaramondLethe 09:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Louis Riel

I can see that your recent edits to Louis Riel (comics) are totally in good faith, but there are some issues.

First, as I wrote in the edit summary after I reverted your change last, noun adjuncts are a widespread, common, standard feature of English. Nouns modify nouns all the time: "bus stop", "school superintendant", "chicken soup", "hockey game", etc etc etc. This includes dates. Check out 2011 Election Committee Subsector Elections as an example that's not only in an article, bu in the article title. It is entirely natural, correct English, and in an entirely "encyclopedic form".

The other issue is your change from "2003" to "1999–2003". This is incorrect, because:

1. The serialization was against Brown's intention;
2. The serialization was a commericial flop;
3. The serialization does not reflect the finished work, as the finished was was extensively modified;
4. The serialization is thoroughly out of print, and is not to be reprinted (Brown has long since intentionally moved out of the whole floppy serial world);
5. The finished collection is what the public overwhelmingly will be exposed to (as was intended).

Putting the "1999–2003" date right in the opening sentence of the article would put undue weight on an incidental detail of the book's publication (its serialization). The serialization details are given later in the lead, anyways, making it absolutely unnecessary to mention it in the opening line. Take a look at Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man. Portions were published as early as 1947, but it is still considered a book from 1952, as that was the date of its publication as a finished work–thus "Invisible Man is a 1952 novel written by Ralph Ellison."

I raised these issues during the article's FAN as well. I hope you'll understand. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

San Gimignano edits

Hi, thanks for your comments. I can see how my edit may have annoyed you if you spent a long time picking those exact photos. I just cringe when I see photos that look like they were quickly taken out of a bus window or something, and I really tried to make an improvement. It's fine that you disagree, and I will not challenge you in any way about this.

Regarding the lead photo, I think it makes sense to choose the photo I picked, but I'll see if I can find an even better similar one with less foreground. Given that the parameter for the infobox image is "image_skyline", it's okay to choose a photo that shows as much as possible of the town, rather than just the highlights of the town centre. Adding a bit of the surrounding geography also adds to the understanding of what a place looks like.

Regarding the superlatives, I just think it's a bit too much for one introduction to include both "an unforgettable skyline" and "the Town of Fine Towers". Having walked hundreds of kilometres on the Via Francigena through Italy last summer, I do appreciate San Gimignano's architecture, but there certainly are lots of partial lookalikes to be found here and there, IMHO. Its uniqueness is debatable, I'd say, even with its UNESCO World Heritage status.

Anyway, I'm glad you consider my edits and keep some and reject some. That's just the way things should be. Happy editing!

uspn (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up

Although I doubt you would want to share every step of the walk I did, I do appreciate it more and more as time passes and only the good memories remain with me. It was indeed a pilgrimage. I walked from Fidenza, south of Milan, to Rome, and let me tell you that there are lots of hills along that route, both with and without towns on them... If you'd like to see some bits of it, I put some photos and captions at http://www.pvv.org/~bct/via/ . Thanks again! uspn (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)