This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pasqua Rosée article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1 |
![]() | Pasqua Rosée is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 10, 2023. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the construction at the very beginning "Pasqua Rosée (fl. 1651–1658)..." is wrong? It should be "fl. 17th century"'
fl. is not usually used with specific dates I think? If you think a person was born in or close to 1632 but aren't certain of the precise date, and died in or close to 1667, you would have "c. 1632 - c. 1667", not "fl. 1632 - 1667".
I believe that we are trying to say "He was definitely alive (and an adult) in 1651, and died no earlier than 1658". But there isn't really a way to say that using the standard constructions I don't think. But I think that "fl. 17th century" is closest and works. It is possible that his life overlapped a bit into the 16th or 18th century, but that wouldn't matter as he was clearly a 17th century person generally. Alternatively, we could just not include any vital dates, since we don't know what they are within several decades of accuracy (he could have become a servant of Daniel Edwards at age 16 or 76 for all we know), we could just omit the vital info altogether: "Pasqua Rosée was a 17th-century servant..." Herostratus ( talk) 03:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Broadly, the term is employed in reference to the peak of activity for a person or movement. More specifically, it often is used in genealogy and historical writing when a person's birth or death dates are unknown, but some other evidence exists that indicates when they were alive. For example, if there are wills attested by John Jones in 1204, and 1229, and a record of his marriage in 1197, a record concerning him might be written as "John Jones (fl. 1197–1229)", even though Jones was born before 1197 and died possibly after 1229.
This article is very poorly written and needs to be edited to improve the terrible use of punctuation. It's painfully clear that someone who helped write some of this article loved to use semicolons and dashes but it makes the entire thing far more difficult to read. Rather than using punctuation to more clearly communicate the subject matter, it seems that the person responsible was only trying to show off how they're so smart that they use semicolons and dashes! Wow! Unfortunately, it just makes it all a jumbled mess that makes the article harder to read through. Since the article is currently closed to editing, can someone with access please help clean this up?
Also, just a PSA, if you're having trouble writing a sentence or paragraph without using a bunch of punctuation then maybe you just need to rewrite the paragraph! English is an amazing language with endless combinations so, instead of forcing something to happen with the sentence you have, just make a new one! Jonnyrecluse ( talk) 04:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Conversation degraded rapidly. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Oh Lord! Another drive-by editor who thinks s/he knows better than the main author and all the reviewers at PR and FAC. The sheer blind arrogance of a few editors never ceases to surprise and disappoint me. A nasty personal slur thrown in doesn't help! Tim riley talk 11:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
|
Let's not do this. Hatted, and I've blocked JR from this page for a week. But please don't remove this thread. If no one agrees, it can be left to rot on the vine. If someone agrees, then they should be able to discuss this here civilly. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@ SchroCat: What exactly is your concern? As I already tried to explain, in the light of MOS:ORDER, the footer should not be cluttered with excess subsections. Hildeoc ( talk) 15:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pasqua Rosée article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1 |
![]() | Pasqua Rosée is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 10, 2023. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the construction at the very beginning "Pasqua Rosée (fl. 1651–1658)..." is wrong? It should be "fl. 17th century"'
fl. is not usually used with specific dates I think? If you think a person was born in or close to 1632 but aren't certain of the precise date, and died in or close to 1667, you would have "c. 1632 - c. 1667", not "fl. 1632 - 1667".
I believe that we are trying to say "He was definitely alive (and an adult) in 1651, and died no earlier than 1658". But there isn't really a way to say that using the standard constructions I don't think. But I think that "fl. 17th century" is closest and works. It is possible that his life overlapped a bit into the 16th or 18th century, but that wouldn't matter as he was clearly a 17th century person generally. Alternatively, we could just not include any vital dates, since we don't know what they are within several decades of accuracy (he could have become a servant of Daniel Edwards at age 16 or 76 for all we know), we could just omit the vital info altogether: "Pasqua Rosée was a 17th-century servant..." Herostratus ( talk) 03:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Broadly, the term is employed in reference to the peak of activity for a person or movement. More specifically, it often is used in genealogy and historical writing when a person's birth or death dates are unknown, but some other evidence exists that indicates when they were alive. For example, if there are wills attested by John Jones in 1204, and 1229, and a record of his marriage in 1197, a record concerning him might be written as "John Jones (fl. 1197–1229)", even though Jones was born before 1197 and died possibly after 1229.
This article is very poorly written and needs to be edited to improve the terrible use of punctuation. It's painfully clear that someone who helped write some of this article loved to use semicolons and dashes but it makes the entire thing far more difficult to read. Rather than using punctuation to more clearly communicate the subject matter, it seems that the person responsible was only trying to show off how they're so smart that they use semicolons and dashes! Wow! Unfortunately, it just makes it all a jumbled mess that makes the article harder to read through. Since the article is currently closed to editing, can someone with access please help clean this up?
Also, just a PSA, if you're having trouble writing a sentence or paragraph without using a bunch of punctuation then maybe you just need to rewrite the paragraph! English is an amazing language with endless combinations so, instead of forcing something to happen with the sentence you have, just make a new one! Jonnyrecluse ( talk) 04:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Conversation degraded rapidly. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Oh Lord! Another drive-by editor who thinks s/he knows better than the main author and all the reviewers at PR and FAC. The sheer blind arrogance of a few editors never ceases to surprise and disappoint me. A nasty personal slur thrown in doesn't help! Tim riley talk 11:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
|
Let's not do this. Hatted, and I've blocked JR from this page for a week. But please don't remove this thread. If no one agrees, it can be left to rot on the vine. If someone agrees, then they should be able to discuss this here civilly. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@ SchroCat: What exactly is your concern? As I already tried to explain, in the light of MOS:ORDER, the footer should not be cluttered with excess subsections. Hildeoc ( talk) 15:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)