User talk:GPHemsley
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] The Beatles and forking articles
I have a problem that I would like to impart to all you good 'Beatles project' editors, and it is this:
- Should anything directly Beatles-related be in the main Beatles' article, and only 'personal' stuff put into the Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr articles? I have the disturbing feeling that I'm repeating stuff in both Lennon and McCartney articles that should only be in the main article.
- But... if only personal stuff is included in the individual Beatles' articles, would it make them too confusing/random, to read?
Please answer (on a stamped and self-addressed postcard please) on our talk page. (This might be more interesting than talking about MBEs... :) andreasegde, Mr Hornby, and Sir Sean de Garde 15:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 9, January 2007
Per your request, here is a link to the latest issue: Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Outreach/Newsletter/Issue 009 Enjoy! ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re upcoming Beatles newsletter 010.
I had a quick look at your contrib history; you are working on Beatles related stuff outside of my watchlist so do you want to add anything to the newsletter? I keep on harping on about the usual subjects, so some other titles news might be refreshing. If you want to play around with the layout then that is fine (although I may insist in calling you Lead Ed) but I would like to keep the silly stuff in; as it does seem good for morale. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter Issue 10, February 2007
Per your request, here is a link to the latest newsletter Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Outreach/Newsletter/Issue_010 ++Lar: t/c 05:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Beatleslogo.gif
Are you confusing SVG with PNG? SVG is a vector format and so "resolution" is rather a meaningless term - you could create one at a particular pixel size, but you would still be able to scale it to any resolution without pixellation, which is exactly what the "Low-resolution" clause in the Logo template is about. Converting to PNG could be a good idea - the format allows semitransparency which could let the drop shadow work. I suppose you could go via SVG to get a PNG that did that, but the {{ConvertToSVG}} tag would still be inappropriate. Stannered 00:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't confusing the two, no, but I suppose you make a good argument. I should've learned after having the same problem with Image:ACDClogo.png, but I guess it slipped my mind. Personally, I don't think issues with fair use of solid-color logos such as these are as serious as elaborate, multicolored logos, but I guess that's just me. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
