User talk:Victoriaearle

Claude François de Malet

I've had a quick look at the article. It's currently being copyeditted, but its obviously no longer a stub. There are some superficial changes that would improve the look - for example tidying the references (you can point several references to a single line using the full < ref > syntax; the bibliography could be put in a separate section; consider the several redlinks - can they be resolved to a bluelink, or should they not be linked at all? In general we no longer link dates, though that remains a widely unimplemented policy. I will have another look ina few days and reassess if you like. welsh (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

To change the status you can place a request for an independent review at the relevent wiki project (eg WP:BIO or WP:MILHIST). It may not be fully in the spirit of independent assessment, but you could actually reassess the article yourself to Start status by editing the Talk page, since its no longer a Stub. It all depends how formal you want to be, Personally I'd be less formal and anyway someone will revert any change they don't like. It usually sorts itself out in the end. welsh (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

editing IB page

Hi Truthkeeper-I keep making suggestions in the discussion page, but I am reluctant to make any edits on the IBDP page because I am not familiar/comfortable with the protocol just yet. I noticed an error on the CAS section, where it says it needs to be completed within one year (but it should read two years). http://www.ibo.org/diploma/curriculum/core/cas/index.cfm "Students are expected to be involved in CAS activities for the equivalent of at least three hours each week during the two years of the programme." Can I go ahead and edit something like that or would you be willing to do it? Cheers La mome (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi La mome -- thanks for noting the CAS error. I'll fix it tomorrow. Also, thank you for providing the supporting reference. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome

Thanks to you too for hanging around this pungent issue! The technical stuff is easy, finding consensus amongst the various viewpoints - woah! Ewen (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No problems. I'm working on four different articles so the IB issue doesn't bother me much, though it is endless. Have you worked on the MYP article? It's disappeared and I'd like to revert to a previous version rather than starting at the beginning. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The IB Middle Years Programme? Well, I took out the bit about US and UK grades but nothing else. The history is fascinating - it must be one of the few articles that's consistently gotten shorter over time! Beats me. Ewen (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought. Looks as though somebody wiped it. I'll try to bring it back to life from a previous iteration. Working on cleaning up the citations on the IBDP and then adding missing references. It's slow going. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Slow going but very much appreciated! Many thanks. Ewen (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, congratulations on the Barnstar. You deserved it! I'm lost in salvaging a terrible article about a favorite author Sharon Kay Penman, who coincidentally writes about Wales. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that's a long-service medal. I awarded it to myself! It's basically for not going away - which (as Lemmy pointed out) you can also say about The Clap. Ewen (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well you are patient (which is the same as not going away) so you have deserved the barnstar. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Plus working on a good article for somebody who wants FA status, so the IB stuff is peripheral. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos edits

Hi Truthkeeper88! I am very happy that you are fixing my poor English. Keep up the excellent work! Just one minor comment: In the "church" section you replaced The Swiss father and composer Martin Schmid with The Swiss composer Martin Schmid. The word "father" here was supposed to refer to (Jesuit) missionary priest. Schmid, like many missionnary priests, had many "professions" (composer, architect, priest,...). To reduce him to a "composer" would go too far in my opinion. I'd rather say that he was a "father/missionary priest" since that was why he came to Chiquitania. Could you add back the proper English term ("father" or "missionary priest" or "Jesuit" or ...) as I am not sure which is best. bamse (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So sorry!! I thought you meant father as in father of children, but of course you meant priest. I'll fix that. I love your article and believe it deserves FA status!! Please don't hesitate to let me know if I hack away too much! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick question on your recent edit: Consequently the missionaries founded their settlements further and further east towards the Paraguay river, and those south of Asunción moved closer to the Paraguay river by establishing missions farther north and west, thereby avoiding the impassable Chaco region. Which motion to the west do you mean? To me it looks almost straight north up to Corumbá. Maybe the start of this sentence would be more clear as (added text in italics): "Consequently the missionarie from the Chiquitos missions founded their settlements..." bamse (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		For all the good work improving the IB articles' links, etc; while under heavy fire from all sides. Ewen (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ewen!!

AD

Hey! How's Alex Deleware going?--Kojozone (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Still searching for references for five books/plot summaries, but getting there. I decided to leave as is for now, but with more references and more time may rework into a more comprehensive, less plot summary driven article. Btw -- I left some references on the Frances Hamerstrom page. We seem to keep crossing paths. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

^^ true, I'm working backwards from the oldest backlogs. There are only 5 articles left in april '07 and 26 in May. But it seems for one article you copy-edit there another article is added somewhere else. - I might try and re-write that awful article about that count from Switzerland. The German article on which it's based seems much more meaningful and more to the point. At the moment you don't have a clue what the article is about.--Kojozone (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen the Swiss count article. Sounds like what happened with the Delaware article -- some of them require an entire rewrite. I fell into Pixie/Fairie land yesterday. Who knew!! I might give that one a shot if it's still up. Gave up on the Boy Scouting in Connecticut but might get back to it, Social Networking needs an entire rewrite as does the one about the TV station. Oh, well. Happy copy-ediitng! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That bloody KOMO-TV article, I know. I didn't even touch it because it's so long. And don't talk about Scouting there are so many articles about councils and camps and lodges, it's crazy :D--Kojozone (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesuit missions map

Hi! I found and uploaded a nice map which shows the Chiquitanía in more detail including roads/trails. It is from 1789, so shortly after the expulsion of the Jesuits. However there are already three maps at the start of the article, so one should go out I guess. I'd like to keep the first (topographic) map since it is the most precise and modern of the maps. Which of the other two, the 1705 South America map or the 1732 Paraguay/Chiquitos map should be replaced? Or could we have four maps? bamse (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Very hard question. The 1705 map that shows the entire continent (and is colorful) should be kept. I can't decide between the new map and the 1732 map. The new map (1789) shows the specific region in great detail, and marks the missions/villages. The 1732 map specifically indicates the region/province to be under the control of the Society of Jesuits. Both are important. Too bad you can't us all the maps: 1705,1732 and 1789. Sorry this isn't much help, but I really can't decide. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I leave it out for the time being. In any case the new (1789) map can be found through the commons link at the end of the article. bamse (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A good decision re: the map.

I've gone through the entire article and seem to to be finished, with the exception of the "Expulsion" section. Here are a few things to consider for consistency:

• the word center/centre appears in both British and American usage. Should be made consistent.
• the abbreviation for priest in English is "Fr." and for brother is "Br." -- in German the abbreviation appears to be P. for Pater. In my view, priests such as Schmid deserve the appropriate honorific. In some cases I've inserted priests into the text, although I'm not certain whether all the Jesuits in the villages were priests, or whether some were brothers, so you may want to check those edits.

That's all I can think of for now. Will check back again in a few days. Thanks again for allowing me to change the text. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I will change to American "center" and figure out who was priest and who was not. A "brother" would be the same as a Friar? Can I assume that all the Jesuits are brothers? bamse (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Found only one "centre" so that was fast. Will need some time for the titles. bamse (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Initially I assumed (incorrectly) that all Jesuits are priests. But, apparently not all have taken orders, and therefore are brothers/friars (if living outside a monastery). Interesting that the Friar article doesn't mention the Jesuits, but it does mention the origin of the word as Frere, or brother. Anyway, my suggestion is to add Fr. (for Father) to the Jesuits you know are priests, such as Schmid, and then perhaps leave the rest as is. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I generated a list of all the Jesuits that appear in the article (quite some). I assume that Spanish "P." stands for "padre" or priest (correct?). Most are indeed priests as you can see. I am not yet sure about the last four, though I believe that Zipoli was a brother. There were a few misspelled names in the article which I corrected. bamse (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Very nice list. Hans Roth was a priest as this website indicates:

In 1972, he sent to San Rafael a Swiss architect and then-Jesuit priest, one Hans Roth. Fr. Plattner gave Roth six months to begin the restoration, along with round-trip air fare. Roth arrived and never went back.

in the section titled Their Preservation: The Genius of Hans Roth. I can't remember whether you have this site in your bibliography, but I did remember reading about Roth when when I was investigating the Swiss chalets and their similarity to the churches. Anyway, perhaps a lot of work, but I think adding the honorifics will make the article better, which is the aim. Hope you agree. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that page (it's also in the bibliography), I was just confused by "...and then-...". Does this mean, that he was later not a Jesuit priest anymore or that Roth was already a Jesuit priest when he was sent to San Rafael? I'll add "Fr."-s tomorrow. bamse (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentence means "at the time." Having taken orders Roth wouldn't cease being a priest, but his avocation changed to rebuilding the churches. At least that's my interpretation.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. So he was "at the time" a "practising" priest. bamse (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)