Paul Drye/Talk

From Wikipedia

< Paul Drye

HomePage | Recent changes | View source | Discuss this page | Page history | Log in |

Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy

Hi, Paul, loved your History of Scotland stuff. I'll get the History of England crosslinked asap. Keep up the great work! sjc


Nice write up of The Clash, too. And Talking Heads. GWO


You have a flaw in your write-up of IKBrunel, in the section on the Thames Tunnel. "Isambard spent nearly" -- nearly what? 17 minutes to fix it? What took ya so long? :-)


That is a nice Talking Heads writeup. I can see your background in writing. Adding it to Brilliant prose. :-) --Koyaanis Qatsi


what's "too many" history books? can I have any discards?--MichaelTinkler


Just adding my words of admiration on the Scotland history article. I'd love to see more on William Wallace and Robert Bruce, and on the Picts. -- BryceHarrington


Nice spot on the Dunwich Horror, Paul. It must have been some other horror writer (maybe August Derleth?) that did the story about the Cthulhu tunnels from Walberswick to Dunwich. sjc


Paul, shouldn't the entry be under Walter Scott? --MichaelTinkler


I've been going solely on the basis of "What is he most commonly known as?" Winston Churchill is popularly "Winston Churchill", despite being a "Sir", so his entry is without a title. On the other hand no-one calls Sir Walter Scott "Walter Scott", probably since that's a relatively common name; so "Sir Walter Scott" it is.

I'm operating on the theory that I want to pander to what people are likeliest to type in some article that mentions him, oblivious of what decision I may have made in naming my article. If necessary, it's complete replacements of names: "Duke of Marlborough" instead of John Churchill, "Bonnie Prince Charlie" (when I get around to him) instead of Charles III. All on the basis of popular usage...it seems to me to be the most logical and, more importantly, effective way of filing, seeing as Wiki frees us of alphabetical ordering and the limitations of paper. --PaulDrye


that's reasonable enough. We aren't bound by page-flipping searches, after all. It takes some getting used to, though! --MichaelTinkler


I did have the Thomas More entry linked to as Sir Thomas More, on the same reasoning, but that decision was vetoed. it does, however, present something of a problem for people who are alive and are knighted; for instance I would not expect to link to [[Sir Alec Guinness]] or [[Sir Paul McCartney]] though those may be the most common references a century from now. --KQ


While I see the problem, I don't think we should be apologizing for not being able to predict the future :) We can cross that bridge when we pass water under it. What was the reasoning behind the veto? --PaulDrye


Good point in re: the future. All those calls to the Psychic Friends Network just aren't panning out. ;-) I don't know why it was moved; I don't remember any discussion of it. I'm not broken up over it; it's just something I noticed. Which reminds me to check that all of the links are now to the article rather than the redirect. --KQ


I would point out on the issue of Thomas More that a rather large body of those who actually know his name refer to him as Saint Thomas More. --MichaelTinkler


I suppose it's more a matter of culture than anything; titles are "identifiers" in British culture. To Americans, they are just information about a person and/or his accomplishments. We would never think to title an article "Dr. Albert Einstein", so why "Sir Alec Guinness"? He is, and always was, Alec Guinness. It so happens that he was later knighted, which fact should certainly be included in the article. But that's not who he was. Of course, that distinction doesn't work as well for hereditary titles that really are like identities (Lord Byron), or for simple names that can only be disambiguated by titles (Pope Gregory). --LDC


Which brings us back to "Sir Walter Scott" -- British, far more popular and talked about in the 19th century (when -- horrors! -- one DID NOT drop the title) than in the 20th, and with a moderately ambiguous name. My experience is that the "Sir" is practically part of his one-word name: "Sirwalterscott", so pronounced by my English professors. Rather like "Sirwalterraleigh", now that I think about it. Maybe it's just the Walters. All I can say is "Thank God his name isn't James". As far as I can tell, every third male in 18th century Scotland had that as a first name....PaulDrye


Good points which bring us back to the problem of whether to title or not to title, and (in this case) which one to choose if there are several. Perhaps we should hash out a voluntary policy on it. --KQ


Paul, I looove the rework of Prussia! Thank you sooo much! (oh -- didn't mean to be so soppy -- haven't had my caffeine yet.) -- J Hofmann Kemp


Thanks for the welcome and the kind words! After scanning this page I relize that I'm going to have to look in to your Lovecraft stuff...

Oh, and thanks for the help with the Hoss/Hess thing! -- Dr.scientist


Sheesh, Paul...I said I'd be back to fix it -- I just didn't realize all the links would break if I copied and pasted from a much better version. Sorry I messed it up, but it was unintiontional and could hardly have been worse than the mess I was attempting to fix. Besides, in the meantime, I've found two web sites on Prussian history (one the lecture notes from a German history course) that say the Original Prussians were Slavic peoples eliminated byt the Teutonic Knights.

Anyway, thanks for fixing the page -- how did you do it? J Hofmann Kemp

Thanks, Paul -- I thought it was me, because I did try to remove Helga's stuff and replace it with version 20. What is the best way to do a reversion? Go to the desired page and view source, then copy? Any advice would be welcome. Thanks! J Hofmann Kemp

Thanks again. Your sanity is very important to me, as it provides very nice articles and re-writes! J Hofmann Kemp ---

Hey Paul -- it's just that feudal in this sense is kinda meaningless -- you're really talking about noble rank, not feudal rank. King is theoretically higher than Duke (although not in practice throughout the middle ages and much of the early modern period....).There was never a feudal system per se -- just variations of normal feudal contracts that changed over time and place. In fact, there are very good historical arguments for banning the terms feudal and feudalism. I don't buy into that kind of extreme view, but am very aware of the fact that the idea of feudalism has been badly taught for decades, and think that we should do everything we can to use the term carefully and as accurately as possible. I'll try to get to editing feudalism soon.JHK


I already hit Prussia -- does it work for you? JHK


Kewl! and thanks for being nice to me! <feeling sorry for myself today> :-) JHK


Hi Paul, I just noticed the way you've been adding historical events to year entries, by searching through Wikipedia articles for mentions of years. Very cool! --LMS

Hey, Paul-I like your chronological annals style, myself. I was reading something this weekend that made me think that maybe working on chronology for a while might help me see wikipedia's place in informationdom more clearly! --MichaelTinkler

Hi Paul -- just wanted to say thank you! J Hofmann Kemp

for your lovely work on things of dubious Germanicity (it's been a long day!)

You know, I had never bothered to check Google. You're right! The only references to Old Prussi Land or Alt Prussi Land are Helga's own sites (and one link to her site). --MichaelTinkler


Thanks for pointing out the ATT article I've folded my AT and T information into it and redirected.


Paul, I am going to remove your redirect; there are (to my knowledge) at least 3 Penlee Houses in Cornwall, and there is at least 1 in Plymouth, Devon. None of them are as significant as the one in Penzance, but I am striving to keep this as unambiguous as possible. There may also be other Penlee Houses worldwide which are significant... There is no major hassle with having a disambiguated name, it is just a bit tiresome to reference. The search engine will still find it. We maybe need a set of Wikipedia standards for this like we are starting to work up in History for systems of nomenclature. sjc

(response to reply to comments in sjc/Talk): Paul, The Eden Project, Cornwall is a good example of where disambiguation is v. important; your comments about Penlee House are quite accurate, as far as I can see at the moment, but cross-referencing is only marginally more difficult if a fully qualified name is given, and has a by-product advantage in that it ensures that the correct cross reference is given; a cross reference to Henry V is different to a cross-reference to Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor. And there are bl**dy hundreds of 'em (well, quite a few...). And as for towns of Newport, it's going to be a real nightmare.


Tory - Removing corrupt from C18 politics! Patronage and nepotism were rife, rotten boroughs etc.


Why can't words like Quiver, Quintuplet and so on stay in Wikipedia?

Why can't Wikipedia also serv as dictionary?

Well, because it just isn't. See What Wikipedia is not - it's not a dictionary. I'm sure there could be a good entry for Quiver or Dionne Quintuplets or so forth, but it needs to be more than a 'definition'--MichaelTinkler
But don't dictionary-like entries provide a start for encyclopedia entries? --Seb
No, not really, or at least not often. When you've said what a Quimby is, there aren't a lot of places to go. Role of the Quimby in 20th history, perhaps? -- GWO

The Page should not be deleted only noted with a text like "need more writing" -- Peder Persson

I disagree, Peder. In the cases where an entry could conceivably become an actual encyclopedia article, I left it alone -- for example, Quail, which could contain an article one day, Ddroar's sad attempt to the contrary. The ones I deleted are, in my judgement, never going to be expandable in that manner. They are too general.
I would be happy if you proved me wrong by going ahead and writing proper articles for the ones I deleted. -- Paul Drye
Hey now, there's no need to make newcommers feel unwelcome by labeling their first contributions "sad attempts". Otherwise, we'll send people away who write articles like adhesive. --STG

Paul: you misunderstand me. I'm not criticizing your editing; I agree with your choice of removals, actually. What I was criticizing was your labeling ddroar's first contributions as "sad attempts" instead of giving him some constructive criticism. But, as I was writing that comment, you went to his page and offered such criticism. So... well, ... um, good. :-) --STG


I think the redirecting instead of deleting is so much better in so many ways. It serves the same purpose as a deletion, but contributes so much more. --TheCunctator


Paul, in case I haven't said so lately, thank you for being you (i.e., for not being, say, an irredentist Old Prussi-phile). --MichaelTinkler


Hi Paul -- I missed the latest round of Old Prussi land stuff -- what happened?? J Hofmann Kemp


Hi there - sorry I amputated the second half of your wonderful History of Scotland article --Dweir.

It did it again! Argh, Wikipedia's getting on my nerves. Sorry... Dweir

I'm confused Mr. Drye. I'm a post-grad Sociology, Ethnic Studies and Communications major. My emphasis has always been religion and diestic theory. Further, as a writer you might appreciate the fact that I too must pay the bills and work as a manager for a medium sized printing concern in Seattle. What I don't get is why you removed my addendums. If there is a policy at Wikipedia I'm unaware of, or some protocol I have violated please let me know. Thanks, H.W. Clihor.

I revived your addendums and placed them at Situational Dynamics. I'd love to hear more about that topic. --Ed Poor

Wonderful article at Behistun Inscription, Paul. --KQ

Ditto for Ibn Battuta (!) - MMGB