User talk:MarnetteD/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm just starting here so I hope that I'm setting this up correctly. Those of you who are Wikipedia veterans feel free to leave messages telling me what I need to do to make this better.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 23:08, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the "Talk" link in your signature--go to "Preferences", where you'll see a line saying "Your nickname (for signatures)". Enter ]] [[User talk:MarnetteD|(talk)]]. HTH. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 20:56, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Hm. That worked for me. It's certainly possible to get that link to go straight to your talk page--my best advice is to fiddle with it until the link goes there. Sorry I can't be more help, and let me know if you get it worked out, or if there's anything else I can do. Best, Meelar (talk) 02:20, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Mifune

Hi Marnette! I replied at my TALK page. Quill 21:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


As Did I

I also responded on Quill's page, as well as the Mifune article discussion. Cheers! --Venerable Bede 02:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marnette

Marnette, I responded to you on my talk page. Cheers! --Venerable Bede 23:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cemetery

I have the misfortune/talent of being able to look at a full page of print and seeing typos and spelling errors instantly. So no criticism is implied, though I insist on "cemetery" and the appropriate use of "stationary" and "stationery"<g>. It's nice you're looking after Oscar. - Nunh-huh 17:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


The Snowman

No, that's fine. Yes, we did see both versions. The first version in 1982 (Channel 4's first Christmas, for which the movie was commissioned), and the Bowie version probably came along the next year or the one after that. I thought they were probably sexing it up a bit for the overseas market, by adding a well known Brit (Bowie was a huge star in those days, so he was probably a good choice). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I', sure I've only ever seen the Bowie version on C4... Robsteadman 10:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde

Do you know how many times Oscar came to the US? Was it just the once when he was supposed to have told the customs, "I have nothing to declare but my genius", a wonderful story, I just wish it was true. Dabbler 18:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome...

...regarding the Doctor Who updates - though I found Khaosworks beat me to updating the table for the US/Canada release date! --JohnDBuell 00:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

TARDIS key

Thanks for the kind words. Well, as I qualified in my edit summary, "if I recall correctly", i.e. I wasn't quite sure. I'd swear I saw Davison having it in his pockets once. I'll revert it and do some checking, and if I come up with an example I'll swap it back. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who and Laurie Anderson

Thanks for the comments. I'm glad you're enjoying the new series. Being in Canada I was able to see it last spring and let's just say it gets better with every episode. The first few episodes up to tonight's "World War III" fall under the "getting the groove back" category -- good episodes all, but the show is still looking for its new voice. It finds it next week in "Dalek". Re: Laurie Anderson, yeah I've been a fan of her's for going on 20 years now. I was able to see her perform "End of the Moon" last year and she was terrific. 23skidoo 22:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

South Park City

In your edit today of the Smug Alert! article, thanks for clarifying that South Park City is only the name of the museum, not the town from which the museum's buildings were taken. I had added the South Park City, Fairplay, and South Park basin info to refine a vague statement that someone had added to say that the episode reminds viewers that South Park is SW of Denver…I just wanted to make sure it was clear that the town was fictional but is named for real-life locations.—mjb 18:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

M. Hulot

No worries, no harm done. Just discovered that I dont have the NFT DVD that has great notes for M. Hulots Holiday, only for Mon Oncle (which has great notes, like the fact that someone liked the modern house so much they had it built). Will have to get it... Justinc 11:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Recent edits

There have recently been a whole series of edits to the plot section - most by Robekyr - which are adding info from the book and not the movie (Floyd's having an hour layover for example). I do not wish to start an edit war because I know that he or she is working hard and that these probably mean a lot to him or her. Perhaps if any wikiadministrators encounter this they can start the process to reach a consensus about what to do about this. I feel that they are detracting from this article but that is just me and others may feel differently.User:MarnetteD | Talk 00:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Wrong

Dialouge in the movie. Miller tells Floyd that his flight "leaves in about an hour" and "as a matter of fact I've reserved a table for you in the Earthlight Room." The entrance to the Earthlight Room with the adjoining picturephone booths are clearly visible in the scene in the film. The Earthlight Room sign shows it is a Howard Johnson's restaurant. I AM NOT REFERENCING CLARKE'S NOVELIZATION.

The quotes from the book pertain to the 2 main climaxes of the movie the acension of Moon-Watcher and Bowman in the end. I felt that these 2 quotes -- both intentionally alike -- wold be appropriate.

BTW: I am a guy. ;-)

-- User:Robeykr 01:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Talk

I may have been wrong about the specifics but, fortunately, a perusal of the discussion page at the film shows that Robeykr - who became Jason Palpatine - had gone into way too much detail about the film and it has now been reduced to a readable synopsis. This was my original concern which prompted the above reply.MarnetteD | Talk 18:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Movie title italicization

No problem. Thanks for the info. Nakadai 02:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


Christopher Lee

No problem. I wasn't the one who added that bit to begin with, but I'd read about the incident in his autobiography so I was pretty sure it would be on IMDB somewhere. Still tricky to find, with the number of films he's made; I ended up searching on the title instead. --Calair 09:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem!

It was no problem at all — we're in the process of discussing how best to organize the Doctor Who articles, and so there's bound to be some irregularities while we figure things out. Gnome away, please! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Palin

Regarding your revert of the Michael Palin article. I know I wasn't finished yet, but instead of just reverting everything, couldn't you fix some of the faults you saw, or mention them to me? Concerning trivia, it's better to incorporate trivia (or remove it all the way). See also a proposed guideline Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologise. It wasn't that bad. :) To respond to your points.
  1. I just wanted to flesh out that section. The list just seemed so minimal considering what a big part of his career it is.
  2. It's not official policy (yet) though. The downside of those sections that they react as a magnet for really pointless stuff.
  3. I will look for a credible source on that. I agree that the Sahara was a nicer example. I just happened to find the Peru link and used that.

For now I just re incorporated the trivia. Do you have any idea on how to improve the travel section? Garion96 (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Craig-Morgan

My attitude would be that since we have no way of telling whether this guy is Craig-Morgan or not, he needs to supply references for his claims. Granted the IMDB might be wrong, but if they are someone needs to find another source that contradicts them. I have seen this happen before, with people claiming they are the subject of an article and then demanding that it be changed, taken down, whatever. I would say all this to the buy claiming to be Craig-Morgan, and then if he's still playing up refer to an admin for mediation.

With regards to the Manual of Style, this is a separate issue. Have you tried simply directing the editor to the MoS? I'd try this first. Good luck! --Jim (Talk) 11:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm guessing that he is who he says he is--the changes he's making are really quite minor anyway. I suggest that you do what you've done. Accept his edits, but reshape them to conform to style issues. (He is not likely to become a contributer to other articles, so I doubt if there's much point in investing time in showing him how it'd done.) I've left him a message asking if he can point us towards some sources, but I'm guessing that what we'd really want is going to be pretty hard to come by--something that shows that IMDb has made a mess out this article, as they often do. Bucketsofg✐ 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice one on the research front. I'm not sure you've made a mountain out of a molehill here: I'm always suspicious of anyone who claims they are the object of an article and doesn't give evidence. His edits weren't exactly done in the most civil manner, anyway! Hopefully he will listen to your suggestions now. --Jim (Talk) 20:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A Brilliant Move

Hi Jmabel. Your move of the popular references for Oscar Wilde to its own page was a great idea. Having read some of the concerns expressed on the discussion page about that section I had been meaning to leave a note suggesting just what you did, but just hadn't gotten around to it. One other question, do you think that it is time to archive the discussion page? It is fairly long and I have thought about attempting it, but I have never created an archive page before and am afraid that I would botch it up. It is just a suggestion and if you don't think it is needed yet that is fine too. Once again GOOD JOB!MarnetteD | Talk 06:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm all for archiving the talk page. I suggest only archiving sections that haven't had any activity in a month or so. Less likely to get anyone's back up. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Red Rum

Sam knows, when Gene gets it in their sweepstake, that it's going to win the race (it's a very famous horse here in the UK, and the only one I think to have won the Grand National three times) and tries to swap his sweepstake draw with Gene's. Nearer the end of the episode — when they're standing outside the commercial freezer they've locked the suspect in, as I recall — Gene asks Sam how he knew the horse was going to win. Angmering 19:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's a very small reference, but even though I didn't add it myself originally I think it deserves to be kept in, because Red Rum winning the Grand National is such a well-known event in the UK. Angmering 22:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Graham Faulkner

Thanks, MarnetteD. Much appreciated. I've copied your post onto Talk:Brother Sun, Sister Moon, for general information.  :--) JackofOz 07:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your notes on Santa Fe Opera list

Thanks for your comments, which are helpful. I'll research the Strauss issue and add some clarification there.

I didn't add all the year-by-year titles myself, but I'll check on those links. Thanks for your help there.

As for the wiki links throughout, what you state seems to make sense since someone m,ay come to the list to seewhat was on in (say) 1979 and then want to follow to details of the operas performed that year.

BTW: while the opera company's site doesn't do a year-by-year listing of operas performed, the 50th Anniv. book, Phillip Huscher's The Santa Fe Opera: an American Pioneer does that and the entries of the "List" which I added came from that source.

Vivaverdi 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick - Barry Lyndon - Prado

A recent modification has reverted your change. Do you have a source that we can use to put this matter to rest? Jayvdb 10:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Elsa Lanchester

Hi MarnetteD, I have seen your edits in the Elsa Lanchester page. Considering myself reasonably well read about Laughton and Lanchester, I agree with you that there is no evidence that an early abortion prior to her marriage to Charles Laughton, was the cause of her not being able to have children (thus I leave your edit as it is). This is what Maureen O'Hara reports as having been told to her as Charles, but, as you point, not necessarily what actually happened (though, of course, there is no way to disclose it). I strongly suspect that by telling O'hara so, Laughton was actually covering her wife's neglect to have children in a cavalier way. Elsa Lanchester, in her own 1983 biography, never says that she didn't have children because she was phisically unable to do so, rather, she states, that she wasn't keen on the idea of being a mother. Elsa herself reports two abortions: one, long before meeting Charles Laughton, and another while already engaged in a fully-fledged relationship with him (they were living together) BUT not yet married to each other. She explains that she had the abortion because she thought that the relationship wasn't known to the general public (so becoming a single mother could damage her public image and her career). It is not reported what Laughton thought of her decisionGloria Porta 10:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, too ;)

Hi Marnette, Thanks for your comments. You're right that one must always be cautious about memoirs. The trouble with Laughton is that he never wrote an autobiography, so stories about him are strongly based in his widow's memoirs. I am of the opinion that Elsa is rather honest about Cl and herself on the whole, but there are some points where I'd like to have an alternative point of view: some negative comments about Laughton stem from her account, if I have no alternative~but to take the bad news like a big girl, ha, ha. But often there are other accounts which help balance the image of Charles, often in a positive direction. Still, some false myths remain: I have written about them in an article I made for the Catalan Wikipedia (which you are welcome to visit :D ).

BTW, if you're interested in Laughton and Lanchester, you might like to visit this message board: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/laughtonlanchester/

I have a blog myself devoted to Laughton: http://rootingforlaughton.blogspot.com/ Gloria Porta 16:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Marnette: So glad you liked it :D Stay Tuned as I have a number of themes to sort out for future posts, which I will do as daily labours allow and some further books are read ;). You're welcome to drop in the Message Board, too. In case you are (as I) a hopeless Laughtonian (LOL), maybe you'd like to read about the whereabouts of Charles circa 1914-1919, as researched by Mr. Martyn Smith and me:http://www.huntscycles.co.uk/C%20L%201%20Home%20Page.htm (well, it's the same link added in his "early Life" part of the English wikipedia article). Thanks for the cookies: truly delicious (extra work at the Gym tomorrow, ha, ha)Gloria Porta 06:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Longest films list

Hi Marnette,

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I've been on a brief vacation for a bit, but I'll try to look into the War and Peace issue when time permits. I might actually have access to a PAL copy within the next month, so perhaps that would be worth digging up. As far as Best of Youth goes, what can I say? I have seen it three times and projected it once - and it was created as a four part miniseries of 90 minutes each part for RAI TV. (Each theatrical half has a fade out at the middle that indicates where these breaks occur.) I have no idea how it was presented in the US, but I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if it were cut for American audiences out of financial considerations. Thanks again for your message, Girolamo Savonarola 19:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde

Thanks, I too am a bit of a nonentity compared to some Wikipedians out there. I have been trying to build a case by being reasonable, citing references, putting a polite note on his talk page etc. so if it does come down to going to the Admins, I will be the "good guy". Meanwhile I see others are also taking up the cause on our behalf, so he looks out numbered. Dabbler 14:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Response

I've responded to your request at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. You did post in the right place :-) —Mets501 (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Barry Lyndon

I'm pretty sure I remember reading this in an interview in Film Score Monthly. I'll try to find it. --Scottandrewhutchins 04:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wilde / Uncyclopedia

I have nominated the template Template:Uncyclopedia template only for use on talk pages for deletion. - Jmabel | Talk 22:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ballad of Reading Gaol reversion

I'd just like to note that your edit summary was wrong; adding in the text of the poem was bad because it wasn't formatted well and was redundant with Wikisource. Copyright violations has nothing at all to do with the matter - that poem has been in the public domain for a long, long time. --Gwern (contribs) 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Nae problem. Copyright is hard to understand; as the saying goes, "If you think you understand it, you don't." --Gwern (contribs) 23:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Lovejoy (disambiguation)

Hi. Regarding Lovejoy (disambiguation), in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) it says that for a disambiguation page for Title, entries for names with Title for only part of the name should not be included, but rather put into a separate article if there are more than a handful. ENeville 21:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I fear you may have misinterpreted (not in the words but in the spirit) the MoS page. There are numerous disambiguation pages that have multiple listings see [1] and [2] that don't quite follow the rule that you cite.
More importantly if you read heading #11 'Break rules' you will see that the rules are meant to be flexible. A user who has entered just the word 'Lovejoy' in the search line is first taken to the page for the show, then one more click on the disambig page link takes them to all the possible Lovejoys (well all that I know of though there may be more) and then they can choose the one they want. The page that you replaced it with requires one further click (not a big thing in the grand scheme of things but some users give up when they have to go to far in their search) to get to basically the same page. Also, your new page is list page not a disambiguation page (again not an important difference). I also want to make you aware that, although you added 'Category:surname' to your page, if you go the that category you will not yet find Lovejoy listed in the L's. You need go back and and add |Lovejoy (that is straight line Lovejoy) next to the word Surname, then it will be added to that list and can be seen by all.
I apologize if any of this seems rude because I don't mean it to be. The rules here at wikipedia are numerous and are rarely fixed in stone. I think that both of the pages that we have created are useful and can coexist. Happy Editing! MarnetteD | Talk 22:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Not rude, just a different opinion.  :-)
Thanks for the heads-up on the list positioning. And I hope, for my part, that my tone is amiable.
I still think WP:MOSDP is the way to go, elsewise every article for Title (disambiguation) grows into a list of So-and-so Title. Is there another precedent we can look to? Perhaps we should have a Request for Comment? ENeville 22:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You can ask for a comment if you wish it will probably lead to us both learning something interesting, though again I don't think that it is a big deal (referring to the Break rules section again, sorry I know I already mentioned it). I went to the surnames category and it doesn't just say Lovejoy but has the full title of your page. All of the other listings are just the surname and while I am not sure that there is anything wrong with your title you may want to also ask whether you should change the name of your page or not when you go to the comment page. Sorry I didn't give better instructions. MarnetteD | Talk 22:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, nothing works quite right the first time out, eh? :-)
There are a number of ways to handle the listing thing; not yet sure what's best. I think I'll constrain the question, myself, but feel free to add something along those lines if you want. ENeville 22:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The WP:MOSDP is a bit neurotic on the subject. In the ordering of entries, it says that articles that have the dabbed word in the title should be listed after parentheticals but before synonyms and subsections. Then later is says that they should be in a "see also" section or not included at all. Guideline probably needs some clean-up. As you noticed, I took a stab at Lovejoy, and opted for the "see also" (along with the "people with surname" subsection). If you want to see where the path of inclusion leads, check out Breaking. -- JHunterJ 23:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, MarnetteD, I was just finishing a post at the pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Names in disambiguation pages. ENeville 23:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
If there is a separate "List of people named" article, there's probably no reason to repeat that information on the dab though. (Along with the information at LOPBN, which happens to be a little scanty on Lovejoys). -- JHunterJ 23:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi again ENeville. I went offline for dinner and am just catching up. Am I reading it right that the surname template that JHunterJ added to the pagee seems to fit both our needs re the MoS. If not let me know. This has been a good learning experience nad it was nice meeting you thru this discussion. Best wishes in all your future edits and have a good Sunday. MarnetteD | Talk 00:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. I don't feel a need to fiddle further with Lovejoy (disambiguation). I think that I'd probably still generally separate lists of "John Title" if there are more than few names, per the MoS, especially if their inclusion lengthens the page enough to require page downs (a user dependent variable, admittedly). But it is nice to know about the template. And it has been nice to meet yourself, as well.  :-) ENeville 04:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

About My Spellcheck in Vandalism

Just to copy my response from my talk page:

I was doing spellchecking since I was too tired to revert vandalism (I actually warned someone by accident by doing that once). I use Live Spellcheck, so I occasionally make somewhat strange spelling corrections - wish I had read the whole thing before just fixing the spelling. I just looked at the words immediately surrounding and they looked fairly tame. My mistake.

Thanks for fixing the vandalism, and don't worry about the summary. I would have wondered about it myself!

I will make note of your book suggestions :) -- FaerieInGrey 02:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)