Talk:Elizabeth Chambers (pilot)

Dispute - On reference formatting

As I understand it, I've been asked to explain my edits to the citations. as for instance in this revert by me.

This is my thinking. In so far as I can see in the source, there is no space in the tagline to 'The Avenger' "H ive". The Avenger doesn't give a publisher on any page (though I suspect it was the WASP) but the WASP newsletter does near the back. my reading is that so far as Wikipedia is concerned, the archive hosting the scans is not the publisher of those documents whether it is a prestigious university like TWU or a personal website and it would be misleading to give TWU, or more specifically the WASP archive as the publisher. Hence I subsequently made it a 'via'GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @GraemeLeggett: I will accede to the |via= thing though I find it a bit nit-picky. :-) As far as the "Mother-H ive" thing, I have to think that there may have been some specific reasoning to the masthead of The Avenger. The newspaper is pretty flawlessly produced so it seems like it should be preserved because it is so specifically done, and across multiple issues. So I would fight for the original exact words to be used, based on the archival principle that the reference should reflect the original, even if it might seem like a mistake or an oddity. I appreciate you talking with me on the Talk page here. I thank you for this. Best, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I've found cause of discrepancy between our viewpoints. Nov 19 1943 issue has "News from the "Mother-H ive" of the Army WASP'S" but May 19 1944 has "News from the "Mother-Hive" of the 'Army WASP'S" which explains why we saw different things. (Perhaps it's a typesetting thing and varied between who laid it up for each issue). That tagline could be left out from the references. Looking again at those pdfs, I see on page 2, a disclaimer "The Avenger is published by the Sweetwater Daily Reporter..." which means that the publisher element of the cite could be filled out. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @GraemeLeggett: I guess I am growing more and more frustrated -- and concerned -- with the amount of focus and unnecessary what seems to be over-research of these already good citations. If there were missing dates or authors and that information was readily available and just omitted, that would be one thing. But to spend this much time focusing -- and discussing! --- on something that is highly discoverable from the citation data originally generated -- which I believe is the point of citations -- seems counter-productive at this point.

If this was about adding content I would wholeheartedly embrace a discussion about that -- although if anyone has good info to add I would not be debating that for sure! :-) But this whole discussion and so many of the edits you've made to the page have not been adding any substantive content, which the page dearly needs.

Also, all of this super-scrutiny is really sucking the life out of any enjoyment of this editing experience. I'm not sure what is going on here, and why so much focus on details here. I am becoming super bummed about the page now and had been previously okay. I think we need to work together as editors but I'm just exhausted from this. I mean no offense, just providing feedback.

For what it's worth, someone on the AfD thread suggested I reach out to another potential repository of information in Michigan. I emailed them. I am still waffling about asking my family to donate funds to request Chambers' 70-100 page personnel file that is at NARA in St. Louis, which I've been told would be a very rich treasure-trove for the Wikipedia article. But I also think the page is in okay shape given the exhaustive search I did within my resources to date to get this stub up to my own personal level of satisfaction to be a passable stub. Just wanted to let you know. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There are some editors who go around and apply little tweaks and some who write up whole sections of prose, and with some editors it's a mixture of both. Now, I am not in a position to add any meaningful amount of content, but I can apply polishing to small elements (such as formatting and wikilinks). I realize this may seem a bit like painting the front door on your house while there are roof tiles missing from the back and rain is coming in the kitchen - it's not really focusing on the important work, and there are other things that one could do. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @GraemeLeggett: I appreciate that, I really do.

Shoot, heard back from the place in Michigan and they don't have any information, only to say that they had the Fly Girls exhibit that was on display at Arlington National Cemetery during the National Gold Medal Ceremony in 2010, and no specific information that would be about Chambers. The one bit of helpful info was that it was VERY rare that WASPs would be a widow with child. I'm thinking about ordering that NARA file even more. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)