Talk:Adam Ramage

New article

New sources and added content welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: here’s another source that doesn’t seem to be in the article yet: http://www.woodenpress.info/census/adam-ramage-presses/

How reliable is it? And if it’s reliable enough, is there any data we could add from it? Btzl (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Btzl: — Thanks for taking an interest. It's difficult to say if the source in question is reliable, as it only makes sort of a generic reference to " Proudly powered by WordPress ", however, the images seem usable, but I'm not sure if they're copyrighted. This source makes some interesting references to "The common press", "The "Ramage two-pull Press", "The ‘Ramage proof Press" and the "The ‘Philadelphia press’", and I've come across some of these terms in the sources. The article is still in the 'constructive' phase, so I'll better cover these things in the immediate and near future. Any other insights you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Once again, many thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Gwillhickers:, thanks for responding and for the input, will throw in some batches of edits on this page as able (came across another possibly good source, which I’ll show here in a sec). If you disagree with any changes, feel free to revert and discuss here, or tweak as needed.

Wanna eventually get a DYK from this page too? (You seem to have a good streak of successful DYKs among your page creations, nice work!)

Best, Btzl (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

p.s. it’s nice to run into a fellow Californian, hope you like it here, I certainly do.

Btzl (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still undecided about a hook for a DYK nomination -- I got until tomorrow to come up with an interesting one. Hopefully by this evening. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: turns out most of the sources I found are already in the article. The images in question are probably copyrighted (I would assume?). Anyways, went in and did a couple minor fixes (spelling, capitalization) and will see if I can do more. Btzl (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Btzl: The image of the Ramage press is taken from a public domain book: Ringwalt, 1871, page 382. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: nice image, thanks for sharing; do you know how to get it into Commons so we can use it on this page? Btzl (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Btzl: The image in question is already at Commons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: oh nevermind then, I thought you were referring to a different image in the pg. 382 link.

By the way, just a heads-up if it's of any interest, I just added entries on relevant WP pages for Adam and Ramage, please feel free to review and tweak/improve as desired. Btzl (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Adam Ramage was one of the most important early American printing press builders in his day, having produced 1,250 presses during his lifetime? — Sources: International Printing Museum; American Printing History Association
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/First Catilinarian conspiracy
  • Comment: Statement and sources supporting hook can be found at the beginning of the 'Career' section

Created by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 20:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC).

• Approved. Some fascinating facts in this article, which is more than long enough (3644 characters), new enough (submitted within 6 days), with adequate sourcing, and written in a balanced and neutral tone. Earwig says no copyvio and AGF on offline sources. (Have also quickly scanned the James Moran book and haven't noticed any close paraphrasing; if anything, am now tempted to add more facts into the article. But I respectfully won't!) QPQ is done. Fact cited in hook is in article and reference checks out. So technically we are done, except I just wanted to say Gwillhickers, the point that jumps out to me is the fact that the wooden Ramage printing presses were more lightweight and portable than the iron ones were at first (and thus made it all the way out to New Mexico and California, as well as Utah, Washington, and possibly Colorado)! So if you wanted to propose an ALT hook, that is the direction I would suggest. But it's also OK not to, as the original hook did get my attention. Nice addition to Wikipedia. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
• @Gwillhickers and Cielquiparle: Per WP:VOICE, I don't think Wikipedia can make value judgements in wikivoice about the overall importance of various historical figures. Maybe we want to try Cielquiparle's route? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron and Gwillhickers: How about saying "one of the most prominent" instead...? (Agree that "importance" sounds subjective.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

* @Cielquiparle: — Ramage produced 1,250 presses in his time and introduced many improvements along the way, and subsequently they were commonplace in the printing trade and were often modified or lead to the invention of different types of designs. The printing press, esp in newly/partially developed America, remained virtually unchanged during the 1700s, until Ramage came along. The idea of 'importance' is used as Ramage's presses indeed played a significant role in the development of the printing press in the very early 1800s. The term "prominent" really doesn't convey that idea near as well, esp since the idea of 'prominent' doesn't necessarily mean 'important', imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: OK. How are these?

• ALT0a: ... that Adam Ramage was considered one of the most important early American printing press builders in his day, having produced 1,250 presses during his lifetime?
• ALT0b: ... that Adam Ramage was one of the most prolific early American printing press builders in his day, having produced 1,250 presses during his lifetime?
• ALT1: ... that early American printing press builder Adam Ramage invented the "one-pull" mechanism and produced 1,250 presses during his lifetime?

Cielquiparle (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• ALT0a is best as it is little different than the original hook which mentions the idea of importance. Details like the "one-pull" function won't jump out as something interesting unless presented in context with the related text. IMO, we should just stick with the original hook you approved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Striking the other suggestions. For anyone reading this, the "importance" claim is uncontroversial (Ramage printing presses were huge) and the fact that it says "one of the most important" is probably already softened enough. But I'll leave both ALT0 and ALT0a open, in case the promoter has a strong opinion about this. (The only difference between the two is the insertion of "was considered" which is arguably superfluous.) Cielquiparle (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Material closely paraphrased from PD sources needs to be properly attributed. There is also some close paraphrasing of more modern sources - for example "very rare example of the wooden common press" is a near-direct quote from the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: would you say that the close paraphrasing of PD sources amounts to more than 60% of the article? I haven't checked, but if there's that much copying, some of it will need to be rephrased to meet the length requirement. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

* @Theleekycauldron and Nikkimaria: — Earwig is only showing similarities with a few short general phrases. It would help if the actual text in question was quoted and compared to the source(s), but I'm not seeing any real issues that require anything more than some tweaking of these short general phrases, and the existing citations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Theleekycauldron: No, the bigger problem is the non-PD stuff. For example "often in the expanding parts of the nation, as they were much lighter and easier to transport than the iron presses" vs "printers in the expanding parts of the nation, as they were lighter and easier to transport than iron presses", or "Ramage was a press repairman in Philadelphia and within ten years was manufacturing his own printing presses that incorporated his own modifications, using various metal components which included an iron platen bed fitted into the design structure of the common presses" vs "He started out as a press repairman in Philadelphia and within a decade he was manufacturing presses with his own modifications. These modifications were mostly about incorporating metal elements, like an iron platen bed, into the existing design for the common press". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

My user name is not "Theleekycauldron". There is a phrase that could use rewording, but not the example below -- similarities in bold.

Ramage was a press repairman in Philadelphia and within ten years was manufacturing his own printing presses that incorporated his own modifications, using various metal components which included an iron platen bed fitted into the design structure of the common presses" vs

"He started out as a press repairman in Philadelphia and within a decade he was manufacturing presses with his own modifications.

This is a short and general simple phrase.

— This seems to be getting highly argumentative. Evidently we need another opinion here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The comment addressed to theleekycauldron was in response to that user's question above, not to you, FWIW. In response to your comment, again, close paraphrasing is not the same thing as direct copying - using slightly different wording does not make the paraphrasing adequate. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you saying that even a phrase like "press repairman in Philadelphia" can't be used? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't mean to be difficult, so I reworded that phrase anyways, but need to be certain where the line should be drawn in cases such as this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that the word-for-word copying of phrases is not the actual issue here - it's rather the paraphrasing that is too close to (though not identical to) the original source. If you had only "press repairman in Philadelphia" without the accompanying close paraphrasing that wouldn't be a problem at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: - The phrase in question has been reworded, along with a few others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• @Cielquiparle: — Would you give the article a second assessment? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers Thanks for reworking. I've further reworked by interweaving the last two paragraphs (which overlapped quite a bit and were somewhat redundant), and think that passage is sufficiently different from both sources now. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment. In case it isn't clear, please use ALT0a, as theleekycauldron flagged the wikivoice problem in ALT0 (which I've now struck). Cielquiparle (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)