Talk: John Vanbrugh

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

Contents

1 Rewrite 2 Subtitles 3 See also/Related topics 4 Dealing with edit conflicts 5 Refactoring page 6 FAC now? 7 "Sources"? 8 Ibsen

Rewrite

I'm planning a pretty complete re-write about Vanbrugh's plays, which will focus on his original comedies The Relapse and The Provoked Wife and more or less ignore all those redlinked other plays, which are mere adaptations and translations anyway. Also a big-ass cleanup of the EB prose on Vanbrugh's life and architecture, but without so much new input from me, since the comedies are my main interest. Any objections or thoughts out there? I would love to have somebody to discuss Vanbrugh with. --Bishonen 19:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'.....as Voltaire said, if the rooms had only been as wide as the walls were thick, the chateau would have been convenient enough.': Was Voltaire referring to Blenheim when he made this quote, because if he was, he had obviosly never been there; and if he wasn't then it needs to be taken out. Vanbrugh was not the world's greatest architect, but he wasn't as bad as this page makes him! Giano 17:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tried to present a more balanced picture of Vanbrugh (at least as architect of Blenheim) and provide a clearer account of his friction with the Duchess of Marlborough. Removed Voltaire quote as it is less than helpful! Giano 19:52, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ha! If Voltaire was commenting on Blenheim, he was just being a jerk, because Blenheim was recognized in its own day as a marvel. While Vanbrugh's other buildings were loved, Blenheim Palance was regarded by contemporaries as a true showpiece of the realm. It was one of those places they took foreigners to impress them. The commission alone tells you what people thought of Vanbrugh as an architect: the commemoration of that battle was a huge deal, for Blenheim was the most famous battle of the day, next to perhaps Agincourt. Bad architect? Hardly. As a gentleman, Vanbrugh's about the last guy who upheld the old cavalier dream of an intelligent man being able to do any art with "application." Geogre 13:42, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, criticism of Blenheim was divided along party lines, Geogre. Giano has a crapload of sour Tory comments, and I have some too, we may make a quote section with stuff like the minnows fancying themselves whales when they approached the famous bridge (Pope). "It looks like a great college with a church in the middle". I just got a very complicated edit conflict, that I had to give up on, from getting held up forever by the server, trying to edit the article. :-( --Bishonen 16:05, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't know Vanbrugh was such a Whig. I would have thought that being hated by Sarah Churchill would have endeared him somewhat. Also, Howard was a friend to Pope. These things seemed to change year by year. Phillips was a friend/enemy; Cibber was a friend/enemy; Rich was a villain/producer of Gay's. All those comments have to be read politically (and many of Johnson's, too, but that's an aside). Geogre 21:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, wait. That's not such an aside. Voltaire visited England with whom? Ah, yes. Samuel Johnson, the Whig hater (and the generally previous generation not liker and the rake hater). Well, not conclusive, but a thing. Geogre 22:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Voltaire:"A witty saying proves nothing." In this case so very true! Giano 12:33, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Subtitles

The subtitles for the separate plays introduced by User:ALoan were problematic in that they pulled the paragraph about Jeremy Collier and the change in audience taste in under the heading of The Provoked Wife, where it doesn't belong. I have now padded the paragraph slightly and given it its own subtitle, but I'm not sure it's the best thing to do. Having all these short sections with individual titles looks choppy and breaks flow. At the same time, the more easily the reader can find stuff from looking at the TOC, the better, of course. --Bishonen 13:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonably elegant solution, but I'd suggest changing the Plays section title to Theatre and inserting a short intro paragraph (JV wrote two plays.... type of thing) before the first subheading. The article as a whole is looking really good now. Filiocht 13:14, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Playwright is much better that theatre. Filiocht 13:40, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the thumbs-up, Filiocht. Since User:ALoan hasn't so far discussed any of his changes on this page, I don't think I'll be quite as conscientious as above in the future about possible changes of mine to his edits, either. But of course I won't do anything drastic without taking it to this page first, as I'm sure ALoan won't either.--Bishonen 23:27, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See also/Related topics

Good morning Bishonen, I've left you an email about the finale for your thoughts. The 'see also' section seems to have an external link to Kimbolton Castle, I haven't mentioned this in the text as to list every house with a desription would be tedious for the reader, but if Kimbolton is to remain then there must be mention of the others, these are all in a mish mash of styles depending on the whim of the owner and patron, so little to do with V's architectural concepts and ideals. I think you had some plays etc. on 'see also' - Why have you removed them? If you don't want them there we might as well remove the whole section. I will put a explanation on talk page as to why I haven't banged on for pages about other designs. Giano 09:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Giano, I've moved your question from my own Talk page to here. No, I didn't remove my links to The Relapse and a few other theatrical topics under See also, I think ALoan did. Presumably because they weren't technically "also", I mean, they had already been linked in the article text. The problem, though, is that so much is linked in the article text altogether that it's hard — impossible, really — for readers to know which links are actually recommended and useful, in amongst all the blue. That's why I put links to articles that are both related to our topic and also decent and informative and up to date (wrote 'em myself :-)), as opposed to for instance being 1911 EB dumps (which really for Restoration comedy is worse than nothing), in a special place. I thought people might complain, actually, but I was going for reader convenience over Manual of style.

I suggest that I reinstate my recommended list at the bottom and rename it Related topics (also supported in the Manual of style), which is a more logical heading for them. I hope you'll put your selected links in there also.--Bishonen 11:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen, That's a good idea, I've said all I want too on architecture, all points (I feel relevant) are covered, there is no point wasting space about every house where Vanbrugh, may or may not have, advised Hawksmoor on the placing of a broom cupboard Giano 12:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All right, now Neutrality has deleted the "Related topics" section also, I guess I give up. Neutrality, if you read this page, could you please look at the discussion above and let me know if you agree about the problem for readers of knowing which links are actually useful in amongst all the blue, and if you have any suggestion for helping with it?--Bishonen 16:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I strongly dislike the "see also" section. It artifically lenthens the artilce and repeats wikilinks that are already in the article. I think it's best to leave it out. Neutrality (hopefully!) 21:42, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

An article of this length is full of wikki-links, many of them lead to either ambiguous pages, or stubs. A few (very few) of these links lead to information which should be in the article, but is not through lack of space; these are the links listed in the 'related topics', those listed are all informative and relevant to the article, and will be invaluable to anyone genuinely interested in John Vanbrugh. An encyclopedia should be about providing information at the highest and most comprehensive level Giano 21:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Crossposted User Talk:Neutrality/Talk:John Vanbrugh:

Hi, Neutrality, please don't think I don't value the interest you take in improving John Vanbrugh! It takes me a while to answer sometimes, because I'm pretty busy (and slow). I totally share your concern about length, "scrolling length" as well as kilobyte size, and I take your point that "See also" is not intended for terms that have already been linked in the article text. I suppose renaming the section "Related topics" didn't make as much difference as I thought? It was probably altogether a mistake to try to shoehorn our "Small set of useful links culled from the big set of article wikilinks" collection into a format intended for something else, and I'm trying to think of alternatives. Meanwhile, though, I think I should also try to explain why I'm so interested in having a collection like that at all.

A lot, I mean a lot, of the 17th-18th century terms, and especially names, that are linked in the article lead to not merely weak articles, but to actually worse-than-nothing articles, especially in the field of Restoration comedy, the form that Vanbrugh wrote. This includes big, important figures like William Congreve and William Wycherley, important plays, major topics ...lots of very central stuff. Many or most of those articles are 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica text dumps. I realize it may sound very extreme to call 1911 articles "worse than nothing": isn't a little information always better than none? Well, I think not in this case, because:

1. The information is degenerated, it's actively wrong. Stories and "traditions" about 17th-18th century literary figures, none too reliable to begin with, morphed into worse in the 19th century as they passed back and forth between books that were all summarizing or rewriting each other — literary biographers couldn't even dream of having the kind of access to original sources that modern scholars have. These traditions are what we find in the 1911 EB. (With minor figures like Vanbrugh, we still find them in today's EB, as I discovered when I was writing the Early life section! If you thought I was rude there about the modern EB and DNB Vanbrugh articles, I wasn't, I was incredibly restrained.)
2. Restoration comedy is about sex. The 1911 EB is Victorian, and is indignant about sexy literature. The 1911 is a really bad place for a modern reader to seek a literary historical perspective on Restoration comedy. I honestly think he/she will be more ignorant after reading it than before.

I still think it's right to link to all existing articles in the text of John Vanbrugh. Wikipedia is dynamic, and bad articles are being improved all the time. I'm rewriting the 1911 Restoration drama articles as fast as I can myself, but I haven't been here very long, I don't have that much time, and few other Wikipedians seem to be working in late 17th and 18th century literature. There's Geogre, who writes great articles, and... well, there's Geogre, I haven't actually seen any traces of anyone else. I could have missed them, but whenever I look around at articles on the drama, thaat I take the most interest in, nobody seems to have touched those articles since they were created, as either stubs or 1911 text or a combination. Well, touched them substantively, I mean. They get categories and wikilinks, but the text stays the same.

My point is that there is some good information on Restoration comedy and related topics on Wikipedia, but at present it's terribly hard to find it from following wikilinks in the John Vanbrugh text. I hope that will change, but I'd like also to give the reader some help now. I do understand that a "See also" section is not the right way, I'm trying to think of something else. You have a lot of editing experience, if you have any ideas for alternatives I hope you'll share them. If I called the section something completely different, do you think it might be OK to put the links side by side in one line, rather than having them add scrolling length the way they do?--Bishonen 00:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC). (Sorry for the screed.)

Dealing with edit conflicts

I only popped in for a split second, thought about putting the flag on and could not be bothered, I was only editing it by section perhaps you were doing the same and that's why we were lucky. (any way why didn't you put the flag on? Giano 13:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who is David? Giano

David Remahl, a young Swedish programmer who kindly explained to me how to display images with or without frames, etc. It's all on his Talk page in case you're interested. He'd done a little programmer's edit in John Vanbrugh today, as Chmod007, coding the dashes in the reference list. My edit line was just for taunting him by pointing out I'd removed the dashes anyway. :-) (I was following the Wikipedia house style for book references — that kind of editing is more transcendently unimportant than I can even express, but by vocational accident I know to do it and it hardly takes any time, so why not.)

Well, I think I might be more stressed with the flag than without, you know, I don't want to use it any more. I'll just use a text editor and pop in and out as fast as I can.

Edit conflicts wouldn't even matter as long as we're not editing the same section. How about we keep each other posted on this page? I'm on "Playwright" with all its headings, I'll post here when I'd like to move on. Are there any sections below that you definitely think you're done with for today? Oh, and if I try to put years on "my" headings, will you do the same for Architecture and following? Just so we can see a) if it's possible (I mean, for instance, what years did the audience taste change?) and b) how it would look? And let me know your thoughts about it, I do agree that readers need help if they're not goinig to get lost in amongst all V's different activities. --Bishonen 13:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Refactoring page

Now that John Vanbrugh is about to get Featured article status after a great reception on WP:FAC, I'm refactoring this page, because I'm tired of seeing the misleading notice about an original "failed nomination". The earlier nomination was of an experimental draft page and was withdrawn by the authors as soon as they became aware of it, after about five hours. That's not what's normally understood by a failed nomination. (Please see previous page versions in History, e. g. 30 October 2004, if you want to read the removed section!)--Bishonen 00:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FAC now?

At least in my opinion, this article is a strong FA nomination. If the hard working authors agree, simply indicate it, and I'll nominate the article. I know that I, at least, can see nothing to add. Geogre 04:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, and congratulations to its authors. I have been through, copyedited a little, and added some wikilinks (I hope I have not stepped on any toes this time). This is an absolute tour de force and must be Featured asap. I will nominate it now. My only caveat it that it is a trifle too good at 45k, but it is difficult to know what to separate out. Could some of the information on the plays be moved to their own articles? - -- ALoan (Talk) 13:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think to reduce it would be a pity, as it is intended to be a fully comprehensive as possible, like the architecture the plays are discussed in their relationship to each other, and their relevanvce to each stage of Vanbrugh's carreer. Thanks for the copy edit, but there seems to be a large void in the Blenheim section, where I think the pictures are now too small especially the monumental gate which now appears a trifle less monumental and squat. Giano 14:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but I expect it as an objection, so it is best to be prepared. I don't see the void - the images should all line up, the same size. I suppose one could be made larger and put at the top of that section, but they may end up crashing into each other in a nasty mess, and left aligning looks ugly to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:59, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, ALoan, there's no void on my screen, either, and I understand that images can cause all sorts of nasty surprises, especially if an image novice like myself should try to mess with them. I think it's a great pity that the Blenheim images have to come out so small, though. Especially, I was wondering if you see any safe and practicable way of having the facade of Blenheim not line up with the others, so it could be a bit bigger, and still placed in a neat and not-ugly way? It's the only pic that remotely represents the whole big palace, which is stated repeatedly in the article to be Vanbrugh's most famous achievement. And with the wide, low shape the image is, lining it up with the others makes it the size of a small postage stamp. It's smaller than its own caption. If you can figure a way of allowing it to be, say, the size of the Castle Howard image (which seems to be about what the original Blenheim Palace Terrace.jpg can aspire to), it would be great.--Bishonen 16:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've had another go - is this better? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou Aloan, that is very much better. I will settle for that Giano 22:09, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the subject of the pictures, one thing I'm doing now for the Jonathan Wild article is using the image description to actually put in some notes. I'm not recommending anything, but it is one way to make things shorter: you can say, "see the enlarged image for more details" and then use the image page to make salient points. Like I said, that's not a recommendation, just a possibility. I see little to improve in the article and no seams at which anything can be cut. Geogre 03:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Sources"?

I just noticed that the heading of the "References" section has been changed to "Sources". According to Wikipedia:Guide to layout, part of the Manual of style, a section called "References", with the contents this one has, is supposed to be one of the "standardized appendices". Could the user who made the change please explain why they think "Sources" is a better heading? (It's not quite a synonym, sources are a subset of references.) Btw, it's a good idea to mention changes made, either in the edit field or on this page, especially small but significant changes like this, so others are made aware of them. It would also be preferable not to have to dig through what is by now a daunting History to find who made a change.--Bishonen 02:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ibsen

Somebody changed my "such severity was in fact rarely to be seen on the English stage before Ibsen" in the Legacy section to "before the influence of Ibsen". I can understand if the original sounded a little unexpected, with Ibsen being a Norwegian playwright, but it was actually intended and correct. It was the plays of Ibsen himself, not of English Ibsen followers, that created a great sensation on the, yes, English stage, and made English theatrical history in the nineteenth century. I have changed it back. I was thinking of Ibsen's A Doll's House — maybe I should put that title in, but it seems a little overweening — it would puff up Vanbrugh's "A Journey to London" beyond its deserts.--Bishonen 16:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)