User talk:Charles Matthews

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

prod state of affairs

BCWs copyright issues

Thanks for the improvement to Isaac Ewer. I did not like to have to delete the information already in the article but, as there has been no movement for over six months on the articles I decided it was time to act. I am working my way through this list. I am not doing it quickly, and when I delete a page I try to see if there is a quick fix from other public domain sources. Thanks for the link to the Wikisource:Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900 I did not know it existed. --PBS (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DNB (the old one) is being imported by Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNB, which is a project just getting going. As for your list, I'd expect many of the biographies to be within the scope of the project, which is something that can be checked from the Epitome listings. As it says on the project page, requests can be filed at Wikisource for the creation of DNB articles. So, all in all, there is a way forward here, though I'd add a caveat that the WS side of article depends on scans and in the worst cases it can be really painful to impossible to use what is currently available. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have OCRed the page on wikisource Wiki source|OCR Main entry lvi 33 and then compared my scan with that of this one Wiki source|OCR Main entry lvi 33 with this version Dictionary of national biography (1885)

I am not really interested in keeping the original text, because I want it for the foundation of a Wikipedia article, and I could work out how to add it to the DNB Wikisource (it seems complicated). So I have copied it to wikisource:user:Philip Baird Shearer/Sand Box. Please let me know if you are interested in doing anything with it, and if you do so I can clear that Sandbox. --PBS (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it has now been copied into s:Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/39 and the next page. (There is actually nothing particularly bizarre about adding text to the djvu's there.) Charles Matthews (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --PBS (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Hakewill

Hope you are the right person to ask, but you have also worked on the page I have a problem with.

I've been adding some references to the biography of George Hakewill, mostly attributing some statements I made about him to their source, a DNB article. In support of the statement he remained a royalist and Anglican till death however I quote phrases from his will. As far as I know this has not been printed anywhere, but an image of it is available online from the National Archives - at a price (£3.50). Can I do this? Should this be excluded as 'original research', even though it's verifiable online (but at a price)? And if it's allowable to quote the will, how should I cite the reference to make it possible for others to locate it? Always supposing they're willing to spend £3.50 that is.

I thought I might simply enter the link to the National Archives website as the reference source, but to make things tricky the will is only findable there if you spell his surname 'Hackwill'. Enter 'George Hakewill' and you get a Victorian.

RLamb (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always start from the idea that verifiability is in principle: the possibility of verifying what is said. I don't particularly have a problem with your citing the will, since if a will is preserved, verifying what it says is clear enough in principle. I would wait until someone challenges what you said before being concerned about that. But I would probably have written that material slightly differently. My style would be to put the citation of the primarty source into a footnote, and to omit the "nevertheless". I don't think a concessive feel is called for; the attitudes of people at the time are clearly more complicated than black-and-white. So I would just shorten that sentence slightly, putting less weight on both parts (in other words simply noting those facts). Charles Matthews (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've tried to follow your suggestions.RLamb (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Eedes

Thanks for the information about Eedes. After rereading Schmitt's footnote, I see that Schmitt did not refer to Eedes and Ravens as actual translators, merely as invited translators. I deleted the reference to Eedes entirely. -- Chironomia (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I have been doing some checking. The Hampton Court Conference took place in January 1604. Eedes did not die until November of that year. A letter written by Lancelot Andrews indicates that the first Westminster company started working on its portion of the translation before November 1604. The letter is quoted in David Daniell, The Bible in English, p. 438. Is there any evidence that the Second Oxford Company started much later? Chironomia (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verbatim from s:Edes, Richard (DNB00): ...he was one of those divines who assembled at Oxford and took for their share of the work the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Book of Revelation. He did not live to witness the commencement of the undertaking, dying at Worcester 19 Nov. 1604. You raise an interesting point about the timeline, and the DNB is not infallible. Adam Nicolson's book about the translation just follows the DNB; he also is more specific, that they gathered in Sir Henry Savile's rooms. It seems that the surviving historical evidence is rather slight (well, Nicolson gives that impression). There is something I have just found in A textual history of the King James Bible' by David Norton, p. 12, saying that Thomas Bodley implies that Oxford did start later, though they were going by January 1605. It would seem necessary to write some detailed history to answer this query more definitively? Charles Matthews (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some dates for 1604, from G. B. Harrison, A Jacobean Journal. July 22 for the scheme of 54 translators (referenced to Strype's Whitgift), and November 10 for the circulation of Bancroft's Rules, and the nominations to the Companies. So, it looks like a tight schedule with London, Oxford, Worcester several days travel apart. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good information. -- Chironomia (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your DNB vs Magnus Manske's

Hello. It seems (from my basic understanding/observation) that both this subproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNB and this sub project User:Magnus Manske/Dictionary of National Biography are more or less the same (correct me if I am wrong in this assumption by the way). So, would you think that it would be a good recommendation that one turns into a redirect of the other or the info that was attained from one joins to the other? I would suggest Magnus joins all of his info onto your list since yours seems to be more complete but I am sure you two can work something out. Furthermore looking through the lists, it seems that the lists contain the same individuals. In preventing people having to go through the checking process twice I think this would give more reason to join these two sub projects together. This would then lead on to making things a lot neater/simpler for everyone involved. Kind regards. For a long time, I always thought that these two projects were two distinct ones (like the DNB of different editions) with a large amount of different individuals. As it turns out it is the same!

PS I will write a post for Magnus Manskes to have a look at this comment as well.Calaka (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is that the text of the 63 pages of the "Epitome" for the DNB project was created by me from Magnus Manske's pages. I corrected the 15 MM pages and then divided the text up according to the 63 DNB volumes. So, if you like, there was a point at which they contained the same information. Now that people are working on the DNB project, the pages are diverging. But, anyway, there is no "merge" to be done. The main difference is in how the information is displayed, with the summary biographies in footnotes or displayed as paragraphs below the names. I thought it was the normal way to proceed, to work on MM's pages only to correct the material, and then create my own version. If someone else wanted to create other lists from MM's pages, there seems no reason to prevent that. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to turn my DNB pages into redirects to your copy, which would then become the "master copy", by all means, go ahead :-) --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see why they need to be redirected. Perhaps just a template at the top explaining and linking to the Epitome master page. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is all fair enough! It just seemed to me at the start (and perhaps to others?) that the two projects are aiming for the same goal. Perhaps you can write on both pages (both your one and Magnus Manske's one) to explain what is the difference between the two? (Perhaps you already have explained it somewhere within those pages but I missed it!). Anyway thanks for the quick replies!Calaka (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err ... I don't think there is any obvious difference. There is just one formal project, and Magnus posted material useful for it, which I then copy-edited? I updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Progress when I saw there were two listings. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough then! :)Calaka (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of James Clerk-Maxwell

The article James Clerk-Maxwell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a good redirect, as it supports mangling the name; better it would show red and get fixed.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dicklyon (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge meetup

Hello Charles Matthew,

I would be interested in joining the next Cambridge meetup. Have you already fixed a date? Could you give me a hint on my talk page?

Many thanks, --Camtronix (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing fixed - probably several months now. I'll certainly drop you a line. You could put Template:Meetup on your watchlist, also. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Camtronix (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location map Scotland

Hi Charles. Can you edit this template and switch the map with a higher quality File:Scotland location map.svg. Then can you copy the digits in the correct positions from German wiki? It should only take a minute. Somebody unfortunately has locked the template from editing. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New coordinates to add in the template are top: 61.0, bottom: 54.5, left: -8.8, right -0.4 OK? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing now. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just take out the File: part though so you add Scotland location map.svg!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? Charles Matthews (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look fine. I've proposed some changes to make on the UK place template as at present the map is off line on the left and looks rather awkaward, e,g see Aberdeen. Map is MUCH better than the hill billy one we had before. The map maker Nordnordwest obviously couldn't add the map before because it was locked. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]