User talk:Joe Roe/Archives/2010

Hi there

Greetings, Joey Roe. I have noticed you have made some very nice edits in some of my pet pages, and I welcome any contributions you may provide to the work. I just wanted to extend the hand of mutual respect and fellowship, and hope that if you do continue to make improvements on the articles about the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, that you could feel free to correspond with me about anything that may be controversial or of a significant impact on the articles in question, since I would be very happy to help out. Having the chief contributors of a particular article be able to see eye-to-eye on any major changes before they are done is always a good way to avoid edit wars and conflicts. I've spent thousands of hours working on these articles, and although I do not own them, I have a huge amount of invested interest in how they turn out - I hope you understand. However, I also would very deeply appreciate any help anyone can give - since the ground they cover is so tremendously huge, we need all the help we can get on this vital and important subject. Thanks, and well met! --Saukkomies ^talk 03:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I really admire the work you've done on the Cucuteni-Tripolye articles - it actually inspired me to go and improve other prehistory-related articles by showing me that it is possible to have really well done and comprehensive articles that are not rendered completely useless by jargon. I can't say I have anything significant to add to them now (like I said, comprehensive!), but if I do in the future I look forward to collaborating with you on it. I'm doing my UG dissertation on a Cucuteni-Tripolye site, Nebelivka, so maybe that will turn up something useful. While you're here though, maybe there's something we can work together on now: I've recently tried to inject some life into Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology, which I see you're a member of, perhaps you'd be interested in helping me with that? It would be great to have a more experience editor on board, as I'm still relatively new to proper editing. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 07:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont' really know what to say - I'm very flattered to say the least that my work had a positive impact on anyone. Thanks. However, I do have to say that I really like what you did to the Boian culture article - you greatly improved its structural outline, and I like the changes you made to it.

After I got the Cucuteni-Trypillian thing separated out into subarticles, I was sort of exhausted from all the work it had taken, and so to give myself a break from it, I decided to undertake a massive effort to try to create an article for every single one of the major Cucuteni-Trypillian archaeological sites in SE Europe. In my opinion, this should be a very important task - it would provide a groundwork for a lot of use. So, for instance, in such applications as Google Earth or Augmented reality devices... Having the basic information about a particular geographical location in place seems to me to be a very important project to work on - one that would bear out good fruit both academic and lay.

So, I started to create a series of articles (or to build upon existing ones) to do just that. I created about a dozen of these when I began to get fed up with the lack of a good reference map to indicate where precisely each of the Cucuteni-Trypillian archaeological sites was. This is when I began to teach myself how to work with InkScape and I launched into what has become another monumental task in creating an .SVG map of SE Europe that I can then use for this. Then, all this came to a grinding hault this Spring when we bought a new house, and I've been very busy renovating it since. However, with the weather turning and cool temps and snow on the way, I will once again resume my efforts, hoping to complete this map, and to then return my attention to creating a series of articles for every major C-T archaeological site... That's what my basic plan of attack is. Along the way, I also hope to continue to clean up the C-T family of articles, and if someone actually does think they'd be candidates for cleaning up into FA status, I'd probably work on them full-time.

So, if you have any specific things you'd like me to help with (for instance the proto-writing articles merge), I'd love to help out. :) Let's definitely keep in touch. --Saukkomies ^talk 13:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A map like that would be very useful for a great deal of SE European archaeology articles, I think. Looking forward to it. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 16:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm actually getting it out and looking at it again, and I'm quite pleased with how it looks so far. --Saukkomies ^talk 21:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Cucuteni-Trypillian article fails GA review

Wow! I don't know if you saw this, but someone (Nergaal) nominated the C-T article for Good Article review. It was reviewed and failed, but the reviewer left some very constructive criticisms and comments to help improve the article. I had no idea that it was up for official review, so it sort of took me by surprise (I would have said it wasn't ready by a long shot), but that's all okay. --Saukkomies ^talk 00:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's mostly the prose he seemed to have a problem with, not the information itself, and that's relatively easier to fix. I will see what I can do to copy edit it myself this evening. The NPOV section I think has missed the mark: none of the things he highlighted are actually POV, although I can see how the wording might suggest that to someone who doesn't know the subject matter. Again, easily fixed. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 06:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Bravo, Joey! Your words are like balm to my soul. I discussed this last night with my wife, and I was saying that perhaps it might be time for me to let go of the C-T article, that perhaps what I was good at doing was how I found it lying in the gutter, and I picked it up, breathed life into it, and got it back on its feet - but that maybe I wouldn't be the person who would take it through Finishing School to become a very good article. It was a rather soul-searching evening last night - I was wondering if that that sort of thing really is where my strength lies, and whether I should just stick to what I'm good at, and let others do the finessing. So, enough of that blubbery stuff, but your words above made me feel lots better about the possibility that I could still contribute a lot to the C-T article: I've still got a lot of work I can do on it.

I also remember how you mentioned that you liked how I'd written it without jargon, which seems to be (I'm guessing) what one of the things the reviewer was displeased about. Is that your take too? At any rate, I believe we both see eye-to-eye on this: that Wikipedia articles should be written as much as possible to be jargon-free. What I did was to look into what a Good Article of a similar subject might be, and I found one: Prehistoric Orkney. If you look at that article, the prose is similar in style to how the C-T prose is written. I like that Orkney article a lot, and I think it would be a good pattern to follow (for style, layout, etc.) for the C-T article.

As you say, all of those things the reviewer used as examples are easily fixed, with the exception of rewriting the prose. But he was just pulling examples out - the article would have to be carefully scrutinized to look for similar errors throughout...

I would have been interested in hearing what the reviewer would have said had he also looked into some of the subarticles. When I worked on the main article, I tried to use as much of the original text as I could - which is one of the reasons the prose might feel klunky and awkward. However, in a couple of the subarticles, I actually wrote the whole thing from scratch, and I would say they are much better in style and prose than the main article. I'd say the one that best exemplifies this is the Decline and end of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture article, which I'm particularly proud of.

I had made the assumption that much of the "proof" of Gimbutas' disreputation would be discussed in the subarticles, and that because of that it would not be necessary to go into it in length in the main article. I still believe this, and I'd say that the reviewer would probably agree, too, so long as there were supporting reference links included for everything in the main article - as there should be.

However, there were also some things that I was quite pleased about to see the reviewer discuss, namely: 1) that there are way too many photos, and 2) the prose. I found it interesting that the examples of the prose he cited were actually bits that I had kept largely untouched from the article when I first found it. Much of the condition of the article back then was in sorry shape because it had largely been written by non-native English speakers, and it was quite obvious. Indeed, I'd go along with the reviewer's summation: it was "barely literate". However, being a newbie editor, I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings by going in with a heavy hand and rewriting the article and slashing out most of the photos. So, as a result of this review, I now feel completely confident in doing what I've wanted to do all along with it, and I can point to the reviewer's comments as justification for what I'm doing!

So, I suppose I'll keep plugging away at this. I'm in no hurry to get it polished up fast, though. It's workable as it is at present, and if someone else wanted to do work on it, I'd be happy to have the help. :) Meanwhile, I have other projects I want to finish off before I return my full attention to the C-T articles... Thanks again for your supportive comments, Joey. --Saukkomies ^talk 12:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the great things about Wikipedia, isn't it? That you don't have to do it all yourself. With the prose, it's a balancing act. If you rely too much on specialist terms to make it concise, it becomes unreadable unless you already know a lot about the subject (which defeats the purpose). If you go too far the other way with explanatory phrases &c. it can come across as condescending, like a middle school text book, or too conversational, like you're explaining it to a friend. That's my take on it, anyway. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 16:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It might not seem obvious

But Goals of a WikiProject are in fact something to test scope - specially when in some countries the hazy distinctions between archaeology and other closely related disciplines get blurred - it might not see much to you -= but hey its a weird and wonderful bunch that inhabit this strange place - SatuSuro 14:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you're talking about. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 14:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

From this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Archaeology&oldid=388893263

To this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Archaeology&direction=next&oldid=388893263

Almost every project on Wikipedia has goals so as to alert the less alert as to the scope of the project -= I believe removing it is a retrograde step SatuSuro 14:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If you havent, a good walk through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide might help understand the obvious SatuSuro 14:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I thought the specific goals were superfluous given the general goal given in the lead, i.e. "to improve archaeology related articles". But I guess I've gotten a little too bold in editing the project page over the last few weeks. I'll restore the section and maybe open a discussion on the talk page.

I have read that guide, several times in fact. If I recall correctly it doesn't specifically advise having a point-by-point list of goals, or lay out a specific structure for project pages at all. Even if it did, I don't believe any point of style is set in stone - the context is all important. As I said in response to your first message, I am perfectly happy to restore the section and discuss it on the talk page; the reason I haven't made a habit of discussing the changes I've been making to WikiProject Archaeology project beforehand is not because I don't like to collaborate but because, sadly, there isn't enough interest in the WikiProject at the moment for such discussions to happen. So I do sincerely welcome your input, but I don't feel that I'm missing something "obvious". —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 14:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK it might not be written in the text - but check it out - almost every project that is surviving the great quiet :( - is well placed to state the obvious in the goals and the scope area - I could perhaps be forgiven that I was sure when I have started up the few projects in my time that 'scope and goals' were critical to get acceptance in the more busy days of this damned hall of silence - keep at it - and although the usage of the term of obvious was in fact incorrect - keep up the good work and never say die (I was one of the death project starters ...:( - cheers SatuSuro 15:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the advice. I appreciate it. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 15:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Bah - just an old Australian pedant who likes tagging categories  :| - I think in the end scope is the far more important one - I can remember my days as an anthrop student here in australia that we had very clear boundaries of anthrop and archeo's - but when you get into the usa version of things - the physical anthros from the states sound like another breed again - the old atlantic divide (or in our case the pacific) - there are people who call them selves anthros - who really are neither anthros or archeos but theoretical medicos imho - so that is why i think scope or goals is important - to acknowledge and carefully define usages of what a subject is - so as to how to place what these strange grey area north americans who might claim some aspect of what anthro or archeo is - if you get my drift - SatuSuro 15:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a separation here in Britain too, though personally I like the American way of looking at it (which is why I'm doing arch+anth). But I see what you mean. I have, for instance, puzzled over where the line between archaeology and Egyptology or Classics lies when tagging articles with {{WikiProject Archaeology}}. I also noticed that WikiProject Anthropology has a list of projects rather sinisterly says might one day come under its "parentage", which is typical - some anthropologists seem to want to gobble up every other discipline whether they like it or not :D

...but say, if you're a categoriser and have a background in anth, maybe you could help with devising categories for the archaeology articles? I don't really understand the philosophy behind Wikipedia categories, but I get the feeling archaeology articles could really benefit from some attention in that area. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 15:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok but give me time - if there is an area - leave a message at my talk or if it has hairy things in it - sned it by email - life is interesting - as in the chinese curse - at the moement - my heavy rate of editing might dry up for a while - if I score the paid time so to speak SatuSuro 15:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Palmar Sur

Hi ! I see you created a Talk:Palmar Sur Archeological Excavations for my article. Thank-you ! Do you know why there is a ??? in importance ? What do these things do ? Thank-you ! Nooba booba sooba looba (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

All articles have talk pages, I just happened to be the first person to add something to that one, so I 'created' it. The box does pretty much what it says: marks the article as "within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia". Having it on pages, and the 'quality' and 'importance' ratings, help people involved with the Archaeology WikiProject keep track of how many archaeology-related articles there are on wikipedia and what state they're in. It also highlights to editors of the article a place where they might find useful resources or other editors that are interested in the subject. In this case I didn't fill in a quality assessment because it looked like you were in the middle of major edits, and it would be unfair to rate a work-in-progress, so that's why it shows ???. Hope that explains things for you. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 20:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. I will do some more work on it if I find more resources. Nooba booba sooba looba (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Zapatera and Ometepe Articles

Just so you know, I am working at uploading both books in Wikisource, it is going to take some time, but the first one is over half way through (see Nicaraguan Antiquities), now working on the pictures. As soon as it is done, will go back to Zapatera en will reduce the text, using the book as reference. Also, FYI, translated the above referenced Palmar Sur article into spanish.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking good, keep me posted. Could the pictures be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, so some of them can be used in the articles? —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 14:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael J. O'Kelly

Hi Joey -- Thank you so much for your help with my first article. I learned much about the process, and from your changes too. I do appriciate it. Timothy Hawkins-Heathco (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Please do feel free to ask me or at WikiProject Archaeology if you have questions about Wikipedia's policies etc. in the future (they're convoluted, to say the least...) —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 13:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)