Talk:H.D.

message: Just one question: In 1921, Bryher contracted a marriage of convenience with Robert McAlmon which enabled him to fund his publishing ventures in Paris.  What does this mean?  How? Markalexander100 02:03, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage of convenience 

message: I thought there was a policy at Wikipedia to never list articles under acronyms, and I would think that this would apply especially to an actual person with a real name (others, like NASA etc are more understandable)... surely most people would look her up with her real name, not H. D. (and obviously she would be linked from the disambiguation page as well)...
Houshuang 21:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: She's almost universally referred to as "H.D." rather than by her full name. I think the policy is that we title articles by the name most commonly used, which would override the no-acronym thing. --Tothebarricades.tk 01:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we then make an edit to the HD disambiguation page to clarify that "Hilda Doolittle" referenced there is H.D.? ~E$ (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Acronyms

message: This sentence is unclear in meaning:
" Around this time, Doolittle entered into a relationship with a young art student named Frances Josepha Gregg. After spending part of 1910 living in New York City's Greenwich Village, she sailed to Europe with Gregg and her mother in 1911."
Was H.D. travelling with her own mother or with Gregg's?
If the former, the sentence would read better as
" Around this time, Doolittle entered into a relationship with a young art student named Frances Josepha Gregg. After spending part of 1910 living in New York City's Greenwich Village, she sailed to Europe with her mother and with Gregg."
If the latter, consider,
" Around this time, Doolittle entered into a relationship with a young art student named Frances Josepha Gregg. After spending part of 1910 living in New York City's Greenwich Village, she sailed to Europe with Gregg and with Gregg's mother, [Gregg's mother's name] in 1911.
I'll look for a bio with a clearer reference, but if anyone knows the answer feel free to change it.
:It was Gregg's mother: .   Mark1 08:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous sentence 

message: A recent addition to this article identified Frances Gregg as a man and stated that both H.D. and Ezra Pound were romantically involved with Frances. I found this puzzling as while H.D.'s bisexuality is well documented I had never heard of Pound ever becoming sexually involved with a man.  A google search and a look at "The Life of Ezra Pound" by Noel Stock soon made it clear that Frances Scott was a woman.  I know the male version of Frances is usually spelled FrancIs, but I assumed Gregg was merely going by an unconventional spelling.  
This same mistake appeared in the article about Pound and has been corrected.
Devil Doll 20:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Frances Gregg's Gender

message: I removed a reference to three way sexual encounters between H.D., Bryher and MacPherson as I cannot find any reliable verification.  (The same poster who included this material also wrote about Ezra Pound's threeway encounters with women in the Pound article, material that was quickly removed by another contributor). If someone can come up with some verification about these alleged encounters, I'll consider myself corrected.  
Devil Doll 20:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Reference to Three Way Sex

message: I am trying to update high school affiliations for Lehigh Valley people.  Does anyone know where she went to high school?  PAWiki 19:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: High school

message: In my openion, this article is about Hilda Doolittle the person, not H.D. the pseudonym. I'd like to page move; thoughts? Ceoil 16:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally believe that the exchange in the Acronyms section explains how searching for "Hilda Doolittle" or "H.D." will bring you to this article with no disambiguation. I can understand the argument that "H.D." in ways refers to a different person given her different approach to poetry during the birth of that pseudonym, but ultimately H.D. and Hilda Doolittle are the same entity. Enderandpeter (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, she is known as H.D. books of poetry were published under this "name".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: Kudos to whoever wrote the intro paragraph to this article, for noting her breakaway from both the Imagist movement and Pound's influence. The first hit in searching for "hilda doolittle" on Google brings up a page on the site imagists.org, and I fear that could be misleading. Again, superb work. Enderandpeter (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rockin' Intro 

message: I've changed "the recently rediscovered works of Sappho" to just "Sappho."   So far as I know, the Sappho H.D. would have read would have been the standard works that had long been in all the commonly available Greek texts; I can't see any way in which they were "rediscovered" in H.D.'s time (additional verses from papyri I think came mostly after H.D.)  If anyone wants to keep the "rediscovered," please explain it in the text -- for instance, it could be argued that the existing works were "newly influential," though this would need references  Strawberryjampot (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sappho 

message: I've changed the first reference to Ezra Pound from "the leading British Modernist poet Ezra Pound" to just "Ezra Pound," because 1) he's American and 2) surely he's too well known to need description (like Freud, later in the same paragraph, who is not described as "the prominent Viennese psychoanalyst.")  Strawberryjampot (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats fine, and better. I added the superative to emphasise the importance of Pound's role only. Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ezra Pound 

message: is this still under copyright protection? she died in 1961, so arent all her works copyrighted for, i think, 80 years after her death? or am i totally off base on this?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: American copyright laws are different and have changed over time. Anything first published in the U.S. before 1923 is in the public domain. Yworo (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright vio on poem Oread? 

message: Let's gauge current consensus of who supports or opposes inclusion of an Infobox. Yworo (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We all get our kicks in differnt ways. Some are born with the desire to reduce difficult, complex people to one or two word 'sound bites'. Go Yworo, stalker and reductivist. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from personal attacks. Yworo (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Try and earn that right rather than gaming it. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I left this message for Modernist, and yeah, I admitted I wanted to take down the infobox. Now Yworo has hit each of the articles I've mentioned in my post. Yworo, please explain your reasoning, backed by a strong argument, and include exactly what should be done about subjective data in infoboxes for poets. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There shouldn't be subjective data. Anything in the infobox should already be somewhere in the article and cited, so not subjective. I'm not a big fan of the influenced and influenced by items myself, but if they are limited to what's supported in the article they are not too bad. Yworo (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Try tending one of these articles for six months, a year, four years, and then repeat what you've written above. It's subjective when people add indiscriminately to fields available in the infobox. Somebody has to tend those fields, which is a pain. Writing about poets, poetry, and literature in general is a bit different than other disciplines. Add in the modernist aspect - and really it's just best to avoid the infobox. You're mad because I posted on Modernist's page. What you don't understand is that I've been slogging through the world of modernism for most the summer, have a lot of these pages watched, and yesterday, really thought we needed a nav template. That was the gist of my post to Modernist - in addition, of course, that I don't think they should have infoboxes. You've taken that and run with it. Unfortunately this is one one of the few hours a day when I have the opportunity to actually work on an encyclopedia article, and tonight that time is being used for this unnecessary discussion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The same problems happen, with or without an infobox. Yworo (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the argument? I'm going to try to get some work done.  Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia changes. Infoboxes are now the style. If you'd stop opposing inevitable progress, you could go right on editing rather than arguing. Yworo (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Infoboxes are not a style, nor are they mandatory. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus for their inclusion is increasing. It's only a matter of time. If not now, next year. Yworo (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is circular; the concencus you mention is only increasing becasue of your noise. Your matter of time argument just shows how you are evangelical, not thinking. Ceoil (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Still can't spell consensus, eh? Yworo (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Spelling mistakes are understandable - considering that all that he's saying is exactly right on...Modernist (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, you and he are both welcome to assume what you will. Doesn't make it right. Yawn. Yworo (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs to stop. It's unnecessarily disruptive. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I think it has stopped. Yworo's arguments are not very sophisticated, and only go as far as ILIKEIT. After that its insults. So here we are. Ceoil (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Maybe because of a comment I made to Modernist about infoboxes on his talkpage yesterday  without realizing it would cause such disruption. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't you - he chose to do these things all on his own...Modernist (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have happened anyway, sooner or later. Better it was a high profile blast and ended quickly. Ceoil (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'd better assume that you all actually responded Oppose to the poll? Or is the opposition actually weaker on this article? Yworo (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose to an infobox on this article as to the others that I listed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: @Yworo, sorry guy, the answer is the same tonight as it was last night; No. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll re inclusion of Infobox 

message: *Support - Infoboxes are useful and are encouraged on all biographies. Yworo (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll responses 

message: ::We all get our kicks in differnt ways. Some are born with the desire to reduce difficult, complex people to one or two word 'sound bites'. Go Yworo, stalker and reductivist. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from personal attacks. Yworo (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Try and earn that right rather than gaming it. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I left this message for Modernist, and yeah, I admitted I wanted to take down the infobox. Now Yworo has hit each of the articles I've mentioned in my post. Yworo, please explain your reasoning, backed by a strong argument, and include exactly what should be done about subjective data in infoboxes for poets. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There shouldn't be subjective data. Anything in the infobox should already be somewhere in the article and cited, so not subjective. I'm not a big fan of the influenced and influenced by items myself, but if they are limited to what's supported in the article they are not too bad. Yworo (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Try tending one of these articles for six months, a year, four years, and then repeat what you've written above. It's subjective when people add indiscriminately to fields available in the infobox. Somebody has to tend those fields, which is a pain. Writing about poets, poetry, and literature in general is a bit different than other disciplines. Add in the modernist aspect - and really it's just best to avoid the infobox. You're mad because I posted on Modernist's page. What you don't understand is that I've been slogging through the world of modernism for most the summer, have a lot of these pages watched, and yesterday, really thought we needed a nav template. That was the gist of my post to Modernist - in addition, of course, that I don't think they should have infoboxes. You've taken that and run with it. Unfortunately this is one one of the few hours a day when I have the opportunity to actually work on an encyclopedia article, and tonight that time is being used for this unnecessary discussion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The same problems happen, with or without an infobox. Yworo (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the argument? I'm going to try to get some work done.  Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia changes. Infoboxes are now the style. If you'd stop opposing inevitable progress, you could go right on editing rather than arguing. Yworo (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Infoboxes are not a style, nor are they mandatory. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus for their inclusion is increasing. It's only a matter of time. If not now, next year. Yworo (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is circular; the concencus you mention is only increasing becasue of your noise. Your matter of time argument just shows how you are evangelical, not thinking. Ceoil (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Still can't spell consensus, eh? Yworo (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Spelling mistakes are understandable - considering that all that he's saying is exactly right on...Modernist (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, you and he are both welcome to assume what you will. Doesn't make it right. Yawn. Yworo (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs to stop. It's unnecessarily disruptive. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I think it has stopped. Yworo's arguments are not very sophisticated, and only go as far as ILIKEIT. After that its insults. So here we are. Ceoil (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Maybe because of a comment I made to Modernist about infoboxes on his talkpage yesterday  without realizing it would cause such disruption. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't you - he chose to do these things all on his own...Modernist (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have happened anyway, sooner or later. Better it was a high profile blast and ended quickly. Ceoil (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'd better assume that you all actually responded Oppose to the poll? Or is the opposition actually weaker on this article? Yworo (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose to an infobox on this article as to the others that I listed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: @Yworo, sorry guy, the answer is the same tonight as it was last night; No. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll discussion

message: It's more than a little problematic that the article begins by stating that HD is best known for her association with two male poets. This dismisses the importance of her work on its own terms. I propose changing it from "best known for her association with" to "associated with". Taking out "best" would also make for a more objective statement.Qassandra (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm not entirely sure I agree. HD indeed is well-known for her role in the imagist movement - the other two poets happened to be male. Without Pound, she might well never have been published, at all. In fact Ezra Pound's article also states that he is known for developing imagism - certainly am open to rewording along those lines, but I don't think much can done about the fact that Pound and Aldington were men. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the word "best" and think it makes sense.  That way the association with Imagism is still there, but we're not qualifying it with a questionable term.  Arguably, nowadays, she is as well known for Trilogy as she is her Imagist work.--Oreadic (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It really depends on what the sources say. I had a look at some current bios and scholarship yesterday and everything mentions her association with Aldington/Pound/Imagism. Everything. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction - Best Known for?

message: After reading a rather short bio on her here and a longer one here I guess there is quite some info missing in the article and together with the fact that there is a lot of uncited text (also on personal life and psychoanalysis), its FA status might need a review.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  I'd encourage you to bring this to FAR: we could always use more help with the backlog of deficient featured articles that should be defeatured. (t · c) buidhe 06:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article? 

message: I'd like to change citation styles to use "Cite" templates and Template:Sfn for the shortened footnotes. It would mean readers could more easily see which source is being referenced. As I understand it, adding the cite templates would add to the load time of the page, so there's a trade-off. Any thoughts or objections? Pinging  who are active in improving the page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good with meCeoil (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ceoil, you reverted a couple reference style changes needed to implement the above. Can you help me understand why? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok my bad; I was standardising the sources section and didnt realise you has stared work. Sorry about that. One thing, as I am older and find templates difficult would you mind doing the overhaul (I hope you are still interest) after the content additions), ie at the end of next weekend. Thanks so much for taking this on. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries! I'm happy to hold off for a few days. One thing I could use your thoughts on is how to cite Trilogy. It's a book by H.D. with notes by Aliki Barnstone, and we're (I'm guessing here) only using Barnstone's notes as references. Do you have a good idea on the best way to make it clear what's being cited? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Happy days. Will be much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Re anothologies, lets cite the edition editors (eg Aliki Barnstone) only. Best. Ceoil (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, but let's postpone the detail discussion until later. You're working on the important stuff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't see it like that. Anyways, thanks so much for the help. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

text: We're citing Barnstone so she needs to in the ref but not necessarily split into chapters (which is messy). WorldCat's citation has both H. D. and Barnstone as author, which seems right to me. I've  tweaked it but am fine with having it changed. Victoria (tk) 22:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Absolutely endorse, the citations here are cumbersome, and thanks so much for taking that on. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

text: If I were working it, I'd be opposed for various reasons that aren't germane. But I won't be working here, so ok. Victoria (tk) 18:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks and thanks for everything, Victoria. If you feel like expounding on citation styles at my user talk page, I'd be interested! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  No reason for thanks, and yes, I was too slow. Carry on all.  Not interested in discussing templates, sorry.  Victoria (tk) 19:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I've been reading Laity and will likely have at least a little to add in §Appraisal. We could add an H.D. 1979 citation after "In End to Torment she approved of Norman Holmes Pearson's labeling of Helen in Egypt as "her 'cantos'"." in §Late work so we're citing both the secondary source and the primary. I'm on the fence about it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Wagner (1983) removed. Victoria (tk) 22:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: A glance at the biblio shows that it's riddled with important errors of two types: dating and categorization.
-The list hops at random between supplying dates of first publication and dates of authorship, with no indication of so doing. (Word to the wise: 60 year old bibliographies are almost never reliable for this kind of thing.)
-It furthermore lists individual poems as though they are collections, poems from collections as though they were never collected, and lists non-fiction works as though they were novels.
These bits I can fix myself in a few days time once I get the chance, if nobody else has. 
There are, however, a few decisions which have to be made beyond mere correction of errors:
- A great many of H.D.'s works listed here were never published in her lifetime, and not just late works that never quite made it to press; many early and middle works weren't published until the '80s. This thus raises the question: should the entries be ordered by date of authorship or publication?
- [I'm now suddenly forgetting what I thought the other editorial questions I had here actually were... Maybe it will come to me later.]
On another related note, I'm currently doing work on H.D. and have a stack of a few dozen sources on H.D. in danger of falling down on top of me. I may not get a chance to comb through the whole article and sketch out what needs work, but if anyone wants to flag specific areas that really need either rewriting or better sourcing, I'd be happy to get on it once I get the chance time wise. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to self clean up intro. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: help totally needed!!! and thanks so much for this this view. I would reorder by date, regardless of publication, as it it fits better with her development. Ceoil (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a nice tune in thanks. Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Hi, just a note to all that I'm a little backlogged on getting my thesis in, but I haven't abandoned any of these bits and pieces. Fingers crossed I can help with this stuff, and other things mentioned under @Firefangledfeathers post that I noted, by next week. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

text: This is sorted for the time being. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography, and any other help needed? 

message: * "Apart from a number of visits to the United States, she spent the rest of her life in Switzerland." Source supports her living in Switzerland until death, but not remaining there all the time apart from US trips.
** Agreed. "Spending the rest of one's life" in a place does not imply that you literally never left it, only that you continue to live there. Something like "She lived in Switzerland the rest of her life." would be sufficient. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Random stuff

message: How would other editors feel about:  Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , I agree with Pseudo-Dionysius. If we don't have a level two - i.e "Career" or "Biography" or somesuch - someone will come along and add one. But I'm not attached to it and wouldn't protest a change. Re., changing sources, prefer to keep in alpha order without sectioning out to books/journals/etc. In my mind the various modernist literature articles are an interconnected suite and it would be nice to keep them as similar as possible, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 21:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both. I'd like to drop both proposals. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: (resurfacing and trying to catch up with all the work): like Dionysius' suggestion of “Life and Work” and have renamed the sect. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  would you mind pinging me when you're done so I can look through?  I am miserably behind and swamped in real life, but I'd like to get this closed up this week before I go on a much-needed semi-wilderness vacation where I will be mostly without internet access, followed by an extended period of a house full of guests.  If we can't get this sewn up this week, it may be a month before I can re-focus. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  13:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Hi Sandy, its not really my decision anymore, given the work by Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius, backed by Firefangledfeathers, in the last few days. This seems to be one of those rare events, where others take over and more than deliver. I've had a watchlist for some 16 years; usually boring af - few times has it been such a joy to refresh. Ceoil (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx, Ceoil; pinging  then about my time constraints. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk)  13:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're ready for it SG! I have time during the week next week to respond to review items, if all the others don't get to it first! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx ... busy for the rest of the day, but I can probably then make this tomorrow's venture ... bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk)  13:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be able to help over this weekend. It sounds like you have your hands full Sandy, to say the least; while the feedback will be very much appreciated,  I think we are on a good track with 3/4 editors working on it, so pls dont feel time bound. Best Ceoil (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My sense is this is just about done, so it would be a relief to get it off the "to do" list :) SandyGeorgia (Talk)  13:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear you. Unfortunately I overcommitted a few months back, here and elsewhere, adding to my, and it seems, your stress levels. Am clawing back, but leasons learnt. Ceoil (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structural changes 

message: HI, I wanted to link to Adalaide Morris a notable H.D. critic, but how do I do that on a reference? Thank you!LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi . Somewhere in the relevant citation template, add "|author-link=Adalaide Morris". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!!! LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adalaide Morris