User talk:Dsp13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to my talk page. If you want to send me a message, please add it at the bottom of the page. Since I find conversations easier to follow when they appear on one page, I will reply on this page to any message left here, and I will watch your page for a reply if I have left a message on it. However, as of 7 July 2007 I am taking a wikibreak, so will not be checking the page regularly. Dsp13 23:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:Dsp13/Archive1 for earlier material (July 06 -April 07) archived from this page
[edit] Multiple personality controversy
As you have contributed to the article Multiple personality controversy, you may wish to know that it has been suggested that the article be merged into Dissociative identity disorder. I have not checked to see what your personal contribution to the article was because I prefer to notify interested parties regardless of whichever position, if any, they might take. See discussion at Talk:Multiple_personality_controversy#Request_for_comment:_suggested_merge_between_Multiple_personality_controversy_and_Dissociative_identity_disorder Doczilla 21:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Number of biographical articles in English Wikipedia
Based on your graph here: User:Dsp13/Archive1#Biographical_coverage_in_WIkipedia, I figure there are roughly 35,000 born before 1900. (Maybe you have an exact number for this?) And there are 192,000 Living people Special:Mostlinkedcategories. If we assume very little overlap for Living People and pre 1900 births, that gives about 227,000 bios in the English Wikipedia. Kinda interesting. --Rajah 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- My best guess is that's an underestimate, and the number is more like 300,000.
- My graph was based on figures which are getting on for a year old: since then there has been both growth in the number of articles and possibly a greater proportion categorized by birth/death categories.
- In March 2007 Thom Hickey at WorldCat Identities counted the number of biographical articles on Wikipedia by aggregating all individuals in subcategories of Category:Births by year and Category:Deaths by year, and reached the total 283,655.
- The Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography page has (as of today) 374,697 biographies, but included in this are collective biographies such as those of musical groups.
- Dsp13 20:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, having counted them for myself yesterday (counting all pages in the May 2007 dump categorized with subcats of either Category:Births by year or Category:Deaths by year) I find 338,000 bios. Dsp13 09:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to MacDiarmid
I've replied to your point about the MacDiarmid article at it's talk page. --Jim (Talk) 11:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.
Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!
This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless Type words!.
[edit] hndis tag for surnames
Please do not add the hndis tag (or disambig, for that matter) to surname articles, such as McCawley and Haack. These are not disambiguation pages, but articles about the surnames and people bearing those surnames. Jim McCawley and Leon McCawley do not have the same name, and therefore the natural names of their articles are different, so no disambiguation is needed. There has been a good deal of discussion at the talk page for MoS:DP, if you are interested. You may enjoy using the {{surname}} template instead. Happy editing! 19:52, 8 June 2007 User:Chris the speller
- thanks very much (I've added your sig): I'll use {{surname}} in future! Dsp13 09:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notability of Giorgi Shengelia
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Giorgi Shengelia, by Nobunaga24, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Giorgi Shengelia seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Giorgi Shengelia, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Giorgi Shengelia itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 08:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] May Ziyadah
A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article May Ziyadah, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.145.1.19 14:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- thanks! I've expanded it. Dsp13 02:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DNB
I saw your note at Talk:Dictionary of National Biography. Thanks for taking the time to produce the ODNB and WorldCat lists.
I suspect the best place from which to link to your lists will be Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles ... I've added them there.
I note that the Internet Archive has scanned copies (including .txt) of most volumes of the 1885-1900 DNB, and I live in hope that Distributed Proofreaders will add the DNB to Project Gutenberg, sooner or later [1].
I'm hoping that we'll continue to see users working though your list. Meanwhile, WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles is probably a good venue - if you fancy the preparation task - of listing all 55k ODNB entries as wikilinks, so that we can start checking out false positives, and produce a canonical alpha-ordered missing list.
And then we can all have a good old notability debate as to whether Arthur Muggins, Divine, is or is not notable enough for a contemporary encyclopedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- And now, as you see, I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNB and moved your DNB stuff on to it. --Tagishsimon (talk)
[edit] John Closterman conflation?
Two JCs. Then the JC article probably conflates the two of them. DNB gave the dates of its JC as 1656-1713 ... I amended them per the national Gallery page on JC. But if there are two ... do you have access to the ODNB text? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I have access: I'll try to add some points made there some time this next week. Dsp13 13:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've now looked at the JC article on ODNB and made some minor adjustments to John Closterman. I'm still pursuing the question of whether The Marlborough family is by JC or JBC. You can cross JC research of your todo list, unless you have a sudden compulsion to port a great deal more detail across from ODNB. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright status of List of deaths reported in Who's Who 1914
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to List of deaths reported in Who's Who 1914. For legal reasons, we will delete copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites (http://ulib.org/ in this case) or from printed material.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
-
- If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article's talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:List of deaths reported in Who's Who 1914 with a link to where we can find that note;
- If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article's talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:List of deaths reported in Who's Who 1914 with a link to the details.
Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own original words to avoid any copyright infringement. Thank you. Billy 19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of List of deaths reported in Who's Who 1914
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of deaths reported in Who's Who 1914, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths reported in Who's Who 1914. Thank you. Carlossuarez46 00:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have closed the debate as Userfy and delete. A copy of the article has been moved to User:Dsp13/List of deaths reported in Who's Who 1914 for you use. Eluchil404 19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
|
Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007 |
|
Congratulations to our 225 new members |
The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below) We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future. This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page
Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network: Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up.
|
|
Complete To Do List
Assessment Progress
|
|
|
|
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .
[edit] Apology for serious error.
I just made a series of edits to you home page. I apologize. I lost track of where I was and mistook the list of worldcat authors for a wikiproject page. Please feel free to revert the edits. I would do so myself except that I think they are in the spirit of what you were trying to accomplish, so you may prefer to retain them. -Arch dude 03:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- No problem: as you suggest it might be a good idea to move these names to a wikiproject page, but meanwhile do feel free. Unfortunately WorldCat Identities seems to have changed the urls of its author pages, so I'll need to make those links work. Dsp13 11:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Three things:
- You are supposed to be on wikibreak! :-)
- As you know, Worldcat as ID numbers. Do you think they are stable? If so, I think we should shift over to using the numbers.
- I think a template for use in article would be a good idea, e.g.
-
- {{worldcat id|id=lccn-n80-126289|name=Isaac Asimov}}
- produces:
- Works by or about Isaac Asimov in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
-
Is this reasonable? If so I will create the template. Ideally, we would then apply it to each of the 1500 minus 40 Wikipedia articles in your lists.-Arch dude 20:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Re wikibreaks, they're relative ;) Re the ID numbers used, they're mostly the Library of Congress number (if the person has an entry in the name authority file), sometimes another sort of ID (e.g. an id associated with the VIAF, Virtual Name Authority File, project) and in other cases a version of the name (beginning 'np-'). You can see all of these possibilities in the links on my user page. The question of the stability of these ids is a good question: I'll email Thom Hickey at WorldCat to check about this. On the other hand, using a template would help if at some point in the future the links were to be discontinued: Library of Congress name authority numbers pre-exist WorldCat, and are likely to be at least as stable as anything WorldCat does. Re your template idea, I'd definitely welcome it (and incidentally I have far more than 1,500 matches). But (as I know from experience a year or so ago) some pages for famous people are rather zealously maintained, and regard adding links like this to every page as external link spam. Dsp13 21:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
(outdent)
I added a "worldcat subject" template and a "worldcat" template. I see that you are already using the "worldcat id" template. Pleae test-drive these two new templates if you wish. We still have almost no comments on this entire worldcat-linkage effort, so I have not yet added links except as experiments. It now seems to me that Wikipedia would benefit from a worldcat link from almost every notable article: not pokemon, not current sports figures, not high schools, but anyh article that has or should have one or more book references. I am making steady but slow progress on my Firefox add-on to semi-automate adding the links: look at User:Arch dude/worldcat to check progress. Should we set up a sub-project of some sort to get help? -Arch dude 00:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. Yes I've used your id template: mostly correcting an earlier form of linking to worldcat id which doesn't now work, & I've tried to stop myself using the template too cavalierly. But it's such a nice template! Re the other templates, I've added a comment on a talk page to your "worldcat" template (and the "worldcat subject" template has a bit of confusion between Jesus Christ and Australia at some point I think). But here are a couple of general thoughts.
- All your templates are to worldcat identities rather than to worldcat on which worldcat identities is based. This might make your the name of your "worldcat" template a bit confusing. (For another template, which links to worldcat rather than worldcat identities, see Template:OCLC).
- I'm happiest linking to worldcat identities where the link is to a page with a lccn number (or an identity from some form of controlled vocabulary). Partly because this is likely to provide more consistent results at the present time: items matched to a controlled vocabulary by librarians at worldcat's contributing member libraries are likely to have been better cataloged, and otherwise worldcat uses fallible automagic to identify when one John Smith is the same as another. I also think partly that such links are likely to remain much more stable in the future. (As well as being a useful practical research resource, linking between wikipedia pages and identities within a controlled vocabulary is in effect matching two widely used controlled vocabularies, which is useful in its own right). Worldcat identities is evolving. I get the impression that there at the moment a more developed use of controlled vocabularies for personal rather than controlled vocabularies. E.g. searching worldcat identities for Australia yields a load of corporate identities, but none of them are matched to Australia in some controlled vocabulary.
- Dsp13 12:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- In mid-2006 I think I made about 20,000 matches between Wikipedia and lccn numbers: see User:Dsp13/Archive1#Wikipedia_.2F_LC_name_authority_record_linkage_by_year_of_birth. These will now be out of date at the wikipedia end (pages may have become disambig pages, and doing the same again would find more) but I think every lccn number translates straightforwardly into a worldcat id page.Dsp13 12:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm glad someone is watching my progress! your earlier note inspired me to re-start the effort.I hope to finish the research over the Thanksgiving holiday. After I'm done, I intend to look into starting up a Wikiproject to actually get tyhe linking started. I think a project will give us a venue to get consensus with the spam project that the links are not spam, and perhaps get a consensus as to how to proceed. But I wanted to have the tool first.
-
- One interesting change in the design: it now auto-loads the Firefox searchbar with the (cleaned) article title whenever you browse to a mainspace wikipedia page. For Worldcat, you then click on a Worldcat search addon, but you can also use any other installed search tool (e.g., Google) to do a non-worldcat search. I have found this trick to be extremely useful independent of the Worldcat effort. Now that I think of it, the "back" button will be generally useful also. -Arch dude (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redlinks cat
Hello again. I'm to arouse interest in using Category:Red list as a very informal place to keep track of redlink lists around the site. Please consider adding lists to it. Charles Matthews 10:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DNB copyright problem?
See Wikipedia_talk:Copyright problems#Re-examining whether EB1911 really is PD --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] birthdates
Hi. You added 1940 as a birth year for Helen Bonny a while back. I appreciate your edit, but there seems to be an error here, since she states in her book that she was in her early 40's when she entered the field of music therapy in the early 1960's, and that she had already raised a family by then. I have also heard it mentioned that she is getting on in years and is now in her late 80's. I will try to follow your lead and include a birthdate, but in the meantime, I removed the '1940' from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyCH (talk • contribs) 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction:I'll remove the Category:1940 births from her page too. I was following her entry in the Library of Congress Name Authority File. Dsp13 (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notability of Humanities-Ebooks
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Humanities-Ebooks, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Humanities-Ebooks seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Humanities-Ebooks, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Denis Taaffe
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Denis Taaffe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Denis Taaffe. Pumpmeup 01:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I can't find a source that indicates he is notable or exceptional. There are thousands of political writers, certainly not all worthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Could you tell me what makes the subject notable or exceptional? Cheers, Pumpmeup 05:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is the place you'd prefer me to reply to you (as your talk page seems to have undergone archival!). My reasons I assumed notability: he's in the Dictionary of National Biography, which only includes about 5 Irish people per year in the C18th (at a time when the Irish population was about 3 million). And he had over ten publications, one of which was a four-volume history of Ireland. Cheers, Dsp13 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Have i screwed up your LC name-authority work?
I don't undrstand User:Dsp13/exactmatcheswithdates/1835-1835 clearly enuf to know what to do about Adlai E. Stevenson I being the new title for the bio formerly at Adlai E. Stevenson, which now Rdr's to Adlai Stevenson (disambiguation).
--Jerzy•t 07:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it: I'm not trying to keep these up to date. Thanks for the heads-up, though! Dsp13 (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edmonton Bulletin
Hey, thanks for your category additions to Edmonton Bulletin. Just so you're aware, the current manual of style on dates frowns on linking to dates unless doing so deepens a reader's understanding of the topic. Accordingly, I've deleted those links from the Bulletin article (while leaving in the categories, of course). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edward George Hulton
I guess you're not aware of Google seaching. For an exact search type: "Edward George Hulton" and you will find these:
If you do "Edward G. Hulton", you will likely find more. It's important to segregate him from Edward F. Hulton. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You mentioned "divergence between written & online sources". I come across them all the time and are often from what most people would accept as "reliable sources." Same thing applies between books where the person's mame or other such information is merely made in passing and it appears the "due diligence" of the author on a particular subject is directly related to its significance within their book. Hate to say it, but I believe the internet, and even a great deal of content currently existing in Wikipedia, is little more than disinformation. Good luck sorting out the Hulton facts. Handicapper (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of Cheap Magazine
A tag has been placed on Cheap Magazine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jdchamp31 (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wolkonsky
Many thanks for your corrections! --Mart071 (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Stats query
I don't know where to find a relevant stat, unfortunately. Places to ask: WP:VP(T), WP:HD, wiki-research-l. Do let me know if you find such a stat, and update WP:RW with it if, please :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Philip Parker bio?
Hi, I was wondering where you found the biographical information (dyslexic; undergraduate degrees) about Philip M. Parker. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Only on the websites linked to, as I've now made a bit clearer on his page. Cheers, Dsp13 (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fred Wright
1947 as a birth date for Wright seems about right - where did you find it? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Whoops, I was mistaken - not from the Library of Congress name authority file (where he doesn't have an entry), but the British Library library catalogue gives his birth date as 1947. Dsp13 (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Happy First Day of Spring!
[edit] A note about "Date"/"Place" Categories (re: article page/discussion page)
Since you have such a praiseworthy record of repairing maladjusted categories over thousands of edits, I need to communicate with you regarding the placement of maintenance categories (which, as we know, denote the absence of years, dates and places of birth and death). Nearly a year ago, in late April 2007, following complaints by a few editors that those categories were creating visual clutter at the bottom of biographical article pages, two CfDs dealing with a number of the maintenance categories arrived at a consensus. The ten "Date/Place of birth/death missing/unknown" categories were repurposed to the discussion pages, where a small group of specialized editors, with a penchant for research, such as ourselves, could continue to complete the missing information (dates and places were described as containing needed, but non-essential, or "defining", data). Only the absence of the years of birth and death (five "Year categories"—Category:Year of birth missing, etc.) was noted as "defining", thus entitling those "Year categories" to remain on article pages. The wholesale transfer of the ten "non-defining" (Date/Place) categories was completed by COBot on June 13, 2007 (as an example: the final entry COBot transferred on June 13, Talk:Zoran Vraneš, can be seen in that page's revision history). A number of recent Date/Place categories can, of course, be spotted on article pages and some editors still continue to place all maintenance categories there, but, in the eleven months that it has been observed, the primary intent of the consensus on the article page/discussion page category dichotomy has not been challenged at CfD. It is a subject I have been discussing numerous times over the past couple of years, so please feel free to contact me regarding any additional details.—Roman Spinner (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Whoops! I had somehow completely missed those CfDs & the discussion around date / place of birth / death - thanks very much for bringing me back up to speed! Dsp13 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to be of help and thank you for all your efforts.—Roman Spinner (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jessie Boucherett
What a short-lived redlink! Xn4 21:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- As you say, now a shortlived page (if not as short a page as when I last left it!) Dsp13 (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hulton
What happened to the Edward G. Hulton article? Handicapper (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I moved it to Edward Hulton, and amended links to the page in article pages.. I think the remaining links to Edward G. Hulton are links to Edward Hulton's son, for whom a page is still needed. Hope that's ok. Dsp13 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Annie Nightingale
Thanks for adding the category to this article, but Annie emailed me to ask that her DOB be kept out of the article for professional reasons, and per WP:BLP, we should comply with that request. Most sourceable DOBs for her are wrong anyway. No criticism of you, just a heads up. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. At the moment WP:BLP generally seems to recommend leaving out DOB while supplying year of birth, though it ight be good to have a general solution to the problem of living people who have a further preference for their year of birth not to be included on their page. (I'll leave this page alone from now on but if bios like this are just left untagged, there may be recurrent efforts to supply the information). Two possible solutions:
- Categorise them merely as Category:20th century births, with some comment <-- Please do not specify in more detail, as etc. -->>
- Have a new category like Category:Year of birth private (living people)
- What do you think? Dsp13 (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Leonard C. Bruno
I have nominated Leonard C. Bruno, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard C. Bruno. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Ecoleetage (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Have a cookie
Me what do u want? Your Hancock Please has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Me what do u want? Your Hancock Please 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Birth year
Thanks a lot for adding the birth year to Bracha L. Ettinger.
When Wikipedia works, it works wonderfully.
And i learned about the OCLC thing, too, which is very useful. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edmund Lenihan
Good work! I edited that one until I couldn't stand looking at it any more. Its good to see someone building on it.Trilobitealive (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Entomologist Stubs
No problem at all Robert aka Notafly (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] James Pounder Whitney
Are you sure that he became professor of ecclesiastical history at King’s College in 1906? When I wrote article about him in Russian Wikipedia, I used among others the obituary notice in The American Historical Review (Vol. 45, №2, (Jan. 1940), p. 502). According to this notice, it was in 1908. But logically the year of 1906 is better, because if it took place in 1908, we don’t know what he actually did from 1906 to 1908. May be there was a misprint. I hope you clarify me it. — Albert Krantz (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC).
- Thanks very much indeed: I think I just made a stupid mistake. According to the ODNB he returned to Cambridge as chaplain of St Edward's Church from 1906 to 1908 (also lecturing in Cambridge as Hulsean lecturer in 1906). Well spotted, & thanks again. Dsp13 (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Though the list of Hulsean lectures doesn't agree with this. Hmm. Dsp13 (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Citing data obtained from LOC Authorities records
Hi there Dsp13. Noting your long-standing activities and expertise wrt biographical sourcing on wikipedia, thought I would bring to your attention and review a template ({{cite linked authority file}}) I'd created, intended for use in providing a citation for information (such as author DOBs) that may be obtained/validated from Library of Congress Authorities records.
I was motivated to do so since there seemed to be no such facility, but I often encountered situations where either (a) the supplied date info was uncited and it was quite unclear where it came from, and (b) the date info was difficult or impossible to track down from any other readily available source in the first place. Quite often, say for living notable academics, unless they deign to cough up their DOB on their faculty page or online CV (most unusual), or they've had some substantial biographical piece written about them during their lifetime, you'd otherwise have to wait until obituaries start appearing before establishing the full date, if not the year, of birth. Other info (name variants, institutions, etc) may also be usefully sourced from these records.
In part inspired by Arch dude's {{Worldcat id}} template, it seemed more practical to use the WorldCat Identities Linked Authority File (LAF) window into this data, since that provides a tidy and logical URL (supposed to be permalinked). By contrast, the direct interface to LOC's Authorities database seems rather clunky, and generates lengthy URLs not easily accessed from template calls.
I realise the LOC Authorities records are not infallible, but in the absence of some other source I'd say using these as cites is a reasonable approach. Since I gather you know a fair bit about Worldcat and cataloging systems in general, would appreciate any insights or suggestions that may occur to you; there may FIAK be some other resource or methodology that could improve this. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- what a nice template! I agree with all you say: here are my random thoughts. I've often used LOC Authorities for birth dates etc., but not generally cited them (only mentioning the source in the edit summary) precisely because entering the citation was so fiddly. A template sorts that (though the name at present seems a bit long for convenience). A further advantage of handling citations with a template like this is that (should at some future time WorldCat links not prove so permanent, or LoC provide their own permalinks, or LoC records be merged into some larger & more international name authority system like the VIAF project) simply amending the template may be enough to update the citations as needed.
- In the case of living people, I often respected the sensitivities mentioned in WP:BLP about their full DOB being prominently displayed, so only entered their year of birth even if the full date of birth was actually there in the Authority File. Dsp13 (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. I did consider abbreviating the template name, but thought an acronym like LOC or LAF would be too obscure. In any case, I did set up a couple of shortcut template names that would work as well, such as {{cite LAF}}.
