User talk:Pegship/OctNov2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives 2005 Jan-Apr 2006 May-Jun 2006 Jul-Aug 2006 (1) Jul-Aug 2006 (2) Sep-Oct 2006 Oct 2006 Oct-Nov 2006 Dec 2006 Jan 2007 Feb 2007 Apr 2007 May/June 2007 July 2007 Aug-Sep 2007
Archives
2005
Jan-Apr 2006
May-Jun 2006
Jul-Aug 2006 (1)
Jul-Aug 2006 (2)
Sep-Oct 2006
Oct 2006
Oct-Nov 2006
Dec 2006
Jan 2007
Feb 2007
Apr 2007
May/June 2007
July 2007
Aug-Sep 2007


Contents

[edit] My word, what're all these different dates!

Yikes! re: Template:Cite book (edit talk links history)

{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |editor= |others= |title= |origdate= |origyear= |origmonth= |url= |format= |accessdate= |accessyear= |accessmonth= |edition= |series= |date= |year= |month= |publisher= |location= |language= |isbn= |oclc= |doi= |id= |pages= |chapter= |chapterurl= |quote= }}

  • This strikes me as getting awfully difficult to know what is supposed to be what. What kind of field is 'accessdate' for example given a printed medium!?? Some other cite templates have fields (parameters) that seemingly make no sense (i.e. {{cite visual}}) in their context as well (same one for example).
  • Is there anyone tracking and comparing these (citation templates) and keeping them utiliarian and slender? (See also this). Can't be a full moon--it's been going on too long! Argghhhh! // FrankB 16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You may want to look in on {{Ttl}} and kibbitz! <BSEG>... in the meantime, is there a way or (if instead, "ever any reason") to cite both a hc and pb isbn in any single instance of {{Cite book}} ([pending] soon in {{cite 1633}} etc.--I've only the pb on that one, but usually cite one of my hc's on others when available.) I'd guess one would cite only one edition, even if can fill in both origdate and date fields (and etc.!). Hi anyway, give me and Huntster feedback on Ttl. // FrankB 20:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter

The September 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 23:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protocols of the wise men of Zion

There are many titles/imprints under the above LOC designation. None of them deserve the status of being classified as political books. Good work otherwise. Thank you. --Ludvikus 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your good question very much. We need a new Category for Antisemitica. And under that we should have a Subcategory for Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Are you able and willing to do that? I would do it myself. But I do not how. Aslo, please look up what I've done at the Singerman list. --Ludvikus 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Ludvikus 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You've recently classified various imprints of the above as "religious book stubs"; that's a mistake; this stuff consists of various imprints, under different titles, which is/are in fact instances of plagiarism, forgery, and a hoax.

  • I think you should go back to
Main article: Protocols of the Elders of Zion
and re-classify all those articles you've turned into "religious books" into at least "controversial literature." Ludvikus 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for you "gentle message." However, you should classify texts which scholars have identified as plagiarisms, frauds, and hoaxes. No one in their right mind (except victims of antisemitism) take any imprint of "The Protocols", under whatever title, as either a political, or a religious, book. Ludvikus 01:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And here are the Categorious under which these Protocols are listed (look on the bottom of the Main article):

"Categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements | 1905 books | 1920 books | Antisemitism | Antisemitic canards | Antisemitic publications | Historical revisionism (political) | Jewish Russian and Soviet history | Controversial literature | Conspiracy theories | Literary hoaxes | Political forgery | Propaganda examples | Protocols of the Elders of Zion | Religious persecution"
Yours truly, Ludvikus 01:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I was not writing about you, and it's unfortunate that you take the observation personally. The subject of discourse is/are the so-called Protocols of Zion. If you deduce that you are not in your right mind because it is you who thinks these Protocols are religious texts - than that is your own problem, not mine. --Ludvikus 04:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Controversial literature

== [Categories:Controversial literature]] ==
  • I've started the stub for it. Can you help me out, Category expert that you are? --Ludvikus 01:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As you can see I had the plural instead of the singular above. Please not carefully the correction. Ludvikus 23:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Saul

Pegship, I noted your minor change to the 'musician stub' part of the Mark Saul page. I have respectfully un-done your contribution for a number of reasons. For starters, Mark Saul plays various instruments which may not all be classified as woodwinds. Mark Saul does not only play Highland bagpipes, so it makes more sense to use the stub as reflecting him as opposed to him in conjunction with one of his numerous instruments of expertise. And unless I am mistaken -- which does happen -- bagpipes (meaning the many different kinds of pipes, not just one of the 1/2-dozen or so Scottish kind which is highly recognized but is specifically named Highland bagpipe) are not a woodwind instrument but an aerophone (as indicated on Wikipedia itself) -- which is why I myself originally removed the woodwind aspect of the stub. If you can provided me with beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt information as to otherwise, please let me know and give your sources -- until such time as yourself or someone else giving good argument otherwise, I will change the stub. ManOnPipes —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:2000s drama film stubs

My bot's done what it can with these for the time being, at least until there's a new db dump, but they're still over 800. Do you reckon there's any percentage in hand-re-sorting these? BTW, shouldn't the thriller and romance types be subs of this one? Alai 03:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and actually I was misremembering the permcat structure: neither is a subcat of Cat:drama films, so there's not reason the stub-types should be. Given that there's already a rom-com type, and a Cat:romantic drama films permcat, perhaps that would have been a better idea (but this'll suffice). No hurry about the re-sorting, just thought I'd mention being "done" with them. Alai 03:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVII - October 2007

The October 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 09:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:The End of the Affair

Please note debate here - I have changed my view on this since the split. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seems crazy

re: Template:Cite book (edit talk links history)

1) I've noticed some publication info pages using 'id=' parameter instead of 'isbn=', when using this template for publication information. (Not sure that's a good use of the template, but at least it standardizes display of publication data within the same article. Is there any advantage or disadvantage to one or the other. Both seem to need ISBN to be added as a prefix as well.


snippet: (rearranged to shorten)
...
 {{#if: {{{editor|}}}|  in {{{editor}}}:}} <i>{{#if: {{{url|}}} | [{{{url}}} {{{title}}}] | {{{title}}} }}</i>
...

2) Why pray tell, does 'editor', when defined, have the prefix "in " before what should be the editor's name? The help clearly suggests this is deliberate. I can understand "editor: " as a prefix, but "in"?????? (I can even see something like 'Editor: {{{editor}}} in {{{title}}}, but as written, in applies only to {{{editor}}}, which has no punctuation between it and the url following.) Seems like a everlasting hanging prepositional phrase sans sensible syntax.

3) Not sure why someone would have the title as a pipetrick in a url, that title can be added when giving the url merely by inserting a space, and leaves title for the book name itself, unburdened by a link.

Ed-ju-ma-kate me! Thanks //FrankB

Not ignoring you...

...just stumped...I can do lots of song & dance with categories & minor code cleanup, but template coding is so far beyond me I would have to send it a postcard to see how it's doing. So how's life otherwise?! Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

ref: help:parameter

The thought never crossed me mind. Roger the postcard. I saw on check back you've been in RL vice here.
  • Leave the template coding to me then, but what I was asking about was why the displayed output of the template would ever inserts the word "in" before displaying the "editor" parameter (name).
Bear in mind, we're building a string of displayable characters and links within the template, all of which goes into reference notes. This snippet is mid-template somewhere. Just know for 'this' point, ignore your crossed eyes and know that tripleted curly braces signify a named parameter (as opposed to a numbered parameter such as {{{1}}} seen in many templates—all really just a 'place defaulted name' eliminating the need to explicitly give a name. (dUHHHH, OH! FIRST, second, third... obviously advanced concepts here Peg! <G>) )

Double curlies signify either some parser function (an if-then-else branching code in this case) or a template/sub-template call.
  • Hence the logic above reads: "IF 'editor' defined, then display what I've bolded" ... next, process some url stuff.
       (I've bolded the section now above— note also the trailing colon, so the string built would read
       "in Editorname:" .)... then url stuff if present.
  • So why would "in" precede the editors name?
Thanks by-the-way on [now] {{1632-sectstub}} discussion. Things would be sooooooo much simplier if people were patient enough to make an inquiry before going off all official on others. ttfn (like a bad penny--I'll be back!--Gonna do a full court press on 1632 series! // FrankB 00:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Take a look here and see if this addresses your issue. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well it clearly addresses the same issue... but has been left unresolved. From that looks like we needs an editor2 field perhaps. I hadn't seen the /doc talk page was populated. That's a new curveball from the way we were morphing template documentation last winter, so this is a good 'burned hands' lesson. I'll watch for those. this goodness came out of that too, so thanks, as usual! // FrankB 14:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edjumakate II

How about massaging a pair of cites for me into acceptable (minimum ambiguous information that can't be mistaken?) standard. Notes 1&2 (both named the same) in Eric Flint. (Inside the Infobox alas, though that seems to not matter, praise the Lord! [jes followin' WP:BB!], in me own humble way!) The problem is one of focus, natch! Not having had to do more than a handful of "papers" in my science and engineering track, thirty years is too long to remember what the heck expectations and "sufficient" are. I'd expected these two with the same name to combine as (I think now is note #5 did—showing a, b, c— but suspect that didn't happen as the quotes are different. [I did try just a naked ref name="PPno7" for the second with the quote in the ref/end-ref block, but then it had no heading information at all, and was just the quote all by it's lonesome self. There's got to be a happy middle ground... the key parts of {{cite web}} and the second quote at a guess. So what are those minimums? (Jes edit them into shape so I can see the diff, though be my guest to proffer advice and instruction! Thanks // FrankB 03:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

III

It occurs to me that the three "parts" of note 5 may or may not be copacetic—I used ibid inside the ref block, sans citation, as I recollect. That okay. (Thought I saw something somewhere saying not to use ibid, but that may have been a specific application. The effect, in that all three carry the same note number certainly worked. Cheers! // FrankB 03:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender/location cat

Care to add Category:Iranian women to your nomination. Suffers the same issue as Category:Colombian men. Carlossuarez46 22:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category talk:Fantasy novels by series

There is some debate about the name and/or content of this. I believe you were involved early on. It might need some input. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to look at this? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect of Radha nilia

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Radha nilia, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Radha nilia is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Radha nilia, 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. CSDWarnBot 13:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sports-venue-stubs

In a recent proposal of mine on WSS/P regarding splitting sports venues there was a bit of discussion regarding the name of the template and category for "China". As I believe you were the person who closed the discussion (as create) i would like your opinion as to what the template and category should be called. Incase you need to refresh your mind on the discussion. Waacstats 23:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films October 2007 Newsletter

The October 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 21:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preity Zinta FA

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need your help to apply the naming convention for film series

Hi! I know that I haven't been around much in the last year, but I am sort of back now and trying to catch up on things that I left undone when I went on a long unannounced sabbatical from Wikipedia. One of the things that I would like to do it get the film series articles under control. To do that, a few that I have found misnamed need to be renamed according to the naming convention we agreed upon. However, there are those who defend a single word in an article title as if it were sacred, such is the case with a few of the discussions below and the word "trilogy." The detractor(s) for the convention cling to the word trilogy as if for dear life. Could you take a look at the articles in question and give me your opinion on the matter? I would really appreciate your take on this.

Also, the convention we came up with for film series is being discussed further. If you want to jump back into this, please do so.

Thank you for your time. - LA @ 09:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closing stub template request

I am sorry to again concede poor communication, but I did not withdraw the request for the Euro stub. I found no support for a Franco-Belgian one, and withdrew it from the wishlist, but the need and request for an Euro one still stands. There appeared to be support for it but received little attention, all things considering. Would you mind terribly changing it back? MURGH disc. 00:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably better to start from scratch with this proposal, to avoid confusion with the Franco-belgian one. I'll re-list it. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. Nothing personal...Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Gruntness saved the day. :-) MURGH disc. 10:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preemptive 2008 work

As a 'regular' at Stub sorting proposals, I'd like to run this one by you... The 'norm' for "future films" is about 2 years (though there are a few 2010 films already listed). That means that beginning in a couple of months we'll have the 2010s stubs & categories popping up for: {{2010s comedy film stubs}}, {{2010s horror film stubs}} and {{2010s drama film stubs}}. Too soon? They're going to need to be done sooner or later! SkierRMH 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the population of the category is likely to be slim for a while, I'd hold off on that. Once you get around 30+ stub articles for such films, you might propose the templates at WSS, to be upmerged until categories are needed. My 2¢. Cheers! Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Muchas Gracias - Hope to meet you Saturday, November 10, 2007 at the SF meetup, if just for a while! I have to be in Palo Alto at 6PM, so I'll have to bow out early... SkierRMH 01:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Posts getting flagged

I believe you flagged my post titled "Veritas Prep". I researched various GMAT prep courses and think that it is incredibly valuable to know all of the options before committing to one course or another. I eventually took the Veritas course, but do not necessarily recommend their services over other companies. Regardless, I noted that Kaplan had a page as did Princeton Review, so I went ahead and made a basic page for Veritas that just described the company. My original post was the following:

"Veritas Prep is a Connecticut LLC that specializes in GMAT test preparation and MBA admissions consulting. Founded by Chad Troutwine and Markus Moberg while at the Yale School of Management, the company moved its headquarters to Malibu, California in 2003. Currently, Veritas Prep offers GMAT courses in 60 cities across 14 countries."

Just recently, another user from the following IP address 70.6.137.181 posted what seemed like an advertisement. I contacted Veritas and informed them that they should not advertise on Wikipedia to which they responded that they were not aware of an article existing. They claim that rival companies publish false posts in order to have articles flagged and removed. I've removed the advertising and would like the flag to be removed. I will report this to Wikipedia, including the IP address and the flagging.

Regardless, I am now posting more information regarding the GMAT and test prep in general and do not want any of my posts to get flagged or removed. I hope to contribute my knowledge regarding the MBA application process in order to better help others who are interested in business school. Also,this sort of "espionage" should not exist within the wiki paradigm!

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbadude (talk • contribs) 17:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for removing the flag. I told the company about the fact that it is a stub and they said they might fill it with info some time in the near future.

I'm completely enthralled with the idea of corporate espionage that uses fake wiki postings to sabotage competitors. I guess, I should check my posts more often (new to this whole wiki thing - love the community) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbadude (talk • contribs) 21:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blackhawk

Thanks for correcting my atrocious spelling I must be really out of it today also thanks for the stub sorting --Shimonnyman 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your help with Category:Somerset building and structure stubs.— Rod talk 16:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abstract+ Access

Hi!

re: historical research of sources, for Dacian Wars, Decebalus, etc. and trying to resolve confusion on what is one of the several battles of Tapae...

&& http://www.ear.ro/3brevist/rv3/art03.pdf ... which seems to be a single page (abstract) per google search. Any idea how I can see the whole thing? // FrankB 21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


If you have access to JSTOR you can get it...or you could email the author at oprean@personal.ro. I will check my other resources when I'm back at work tomorrow. What exactly are you looking for?? Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
See this post and follow some links! I'll see if I can figure out what JSTOR is! <G> (one preview and reading later) OK, I might be able to get there via the local Library. Now onto accessing text snippets for quotes in those damnable pdf files! <G> (I like the Bean Free Library approach far better!) Thanks! Cheers! // FrankB 22:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the whats

re: Stop the presses! (G) I just found in my little high school library The Provinces of the Roman Empire: The European Provinces, by Theodor Mommsen, c1968, University of Chicago Press, LCCN 68-16708. In it he says: "How much the real moving-spring lay in [Decebalus'] personality is shown by the story that the Dacian king Duras, in order to bring the right man into the right place, retired from his office in favour of Decebalus." (p. 232) Still looking for Diurpaneus. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well aren't you a great little asset! Tell the hubby I be jealous! Haven't peered in the talk, as I'd missed your first post (And Kiril's answer too! Ooops!) and am in the middle of disemboweling and reconfiguring a cite template, so there is no big hurry on my end. I'd located another couple of sources too, [this all started with the poor appearance in First Battle of Tapae, by the way--I'm up to my ass in alligators elsewhere! Last night based on the one reference I established Tapae is a mountain pass which makes a lot of sense. I may have lost that link, and my saved notes don't have it, but had a glitch saving as .... well Notepad sucks! <g>]

Okay, in your honor, I reconstructed... so far as I'd gotten (Skim reading mainly)... upgrades to Trajan, move of old to Trajan's Dacian Wars, and tentative title [[Domitian's Dacian War], disambig at Dacian Wars... likely a change or tweak in Decebalus and perhaps first Tapae...

Major sources:

(Google books online: The Student's Roman Empire: A History of the Roman Empire from its... author=John Bagnell Bury |pages= pp. ca. 423-428 ? |url=Very long winded! <g>

|author=Davies |url=[ http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281917%297%3C74%3ATFDW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage JSTOR doc] |title= Trajan's first Dacian war |misc=The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 7, 1917 (1917), pp. 74-97 doi:10.2307/295582 This article consists of 28 page(s).

|author=Daniel R. Blanchard |title=An Unenviable Task: The Roman Army's Punative Expeditions into Dacia, 86-88 |url=Classical studies

If you can pin down King Duras, and stub him up with a cite or two that would be big, also anything on Tapae/Tapae pass. Seems to me the name/name shift pinned and cited is lower priority to getting most of the articles straight, the sources all seem to agree that Decebalus was the Dacian needed for a clean write up... but you go girl! KUDOS!!! Many thanks and keep me briefed unless you cite with quotes... which I recommend. The articles are short, so best to put things on a firm footing. The "Punative Expeditions into Dacia" seems to have put paid to the other issue... was there two or three battles at Tapae. Apparently just two, which is backed up by a brief page in all Caps... (see this title: NEW TOPOGRAPHICAL APPROACHES TO THE DACIAN WARS OF TRAJAN)

I gotta backup before I loose stacked up edits in progress... Do you know how to cut and paste text from Adobe Reader per Lokshin's answer on my talk? // FrankB 00:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Input

I need to come to some happy medium on 1632 related cites templates and you, you bad girl never edjumakated me as I asked somewhere up above...

e.g. (related formats... information differs, natch!) this first is the old long form... before tonights trim...

has been trimmed down to (if you see this before i debug a thing... the link to "and various others" will be in this one too, AND the second ISBN will disappear: (Hey... I needed a break from all those pipes and curly braces <shudder!>)

and a briefer form for a second cite on a page:

  •   Grantville Gazette II' ', p. 15 (of 324). “How much is enough given a link to the article page on the book is readily in there, at least for the first use on the page... bear in mind what you say will affect (currently!) 15 templates...” 

an a capability of citing just one story in the anthologies (Both skipping the story, alas as I view this now... check back later! <g>):

How much is enough given a link to the article page on the book is readily in there, at least for the first use on the page... bear in mind what you say will affect (currently!) 15 templates... no pressure or anything <g>. I question whether the ISBN is needed at all, given the article has those in the publication history sections. And so forth. In short, my cites are way too verbose given the normal example around here, so I figured I better be more conformal. Where do I draw the line for the two cases:

  • Terse, second on a page
  • and the initial cite on a given page. (these are all using modes in {{cite book}}, BTW.

I can switch them in or out as needed: (another to debug, alas... but I knew that when I took this break! <g>)

(Damn! Story is missing in that one too... I either have a logic flaw or an open comment masking code! Grrrr... I'll likely not get back to this until my late morning tomarrow... I've got article edits to close out before I ZZZzzzzz)

For what I'm doing, most often only the book, the quote field and page are really pertinent... since they're all canonical, the uses tend to be to support a tendency in the series, development in the neohistory, and so forth. See links on Template:1632 (edit talk links history) and get a feel. Thanks! (In your copious spare time, Mom! <G> // FrankB 05:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey am I Talking to a wall here? You play in these matters more than I... where would you draw the line? // FrankB 04:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wall? You mean the one I'm banging my head on??

1632 Cites query... Thread returns from
with a query above

Sorry bout that Frank!! I truly don't know what it is you're looking for. I read & re-read your posts and get the impression you want to know how to format a second cite within the same document?? As we say in the library biz, can you be more specific? Meanwhile, kids are already conked out & DH is at a sleep clinic tonight, so I think I will go chase some zzzz's. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that one... it's a good thing to do, for sure—at least I know that when I stop I'll start to feel better! <bseg>
My interest is to draw on your experience with other fiction articles, as well as citations in general, and perhaps get you to look at some of the cites I've already put up in 1632-verse, with at least a two-fold feedback/suggestions, and bearing in mind (the new "development" in thinking on this for me, that we've got an article on the book cited "In-house" to backstop the initial citation data—signifying I can "trim" the large first "data splurge" to a mininum; my request to you is thus your judgment of what is an acceptable mininum data set A: In my "long" format and B: in a subsequent post following that. [I've also installed a second switch "complete" which trims (additionally the stuff) the "long" (switch hides) by things I consider redundant... THAT mode could be the first citation on the given article page, and is the big assed cite I devilishly "Junked" your page up with, including both ISBN-10 [and ISBN-13's when available]):
Taking "B:" first in normal Polish ass-backwards order:
   See some ways (uses) via links of Template:Cite Sm (edit talk links history)
Then sample the cites (and search for [##] to find how I'm using, Template:Cite 1632 (edit talk links history), which is the predominant book cited so far (Template:Cite 1632 (edit talk links history)).
Keep in mind this is all recent fiction, and external refs are hard to come by, hence the only things we can cite are occasional web announcements by the author, postings on http://www.1632.org ("The Canonical source site") or the books and gazettes themselves.
What that adds up to in my thinking is a quotation heavy manner of citations in general... which surveying the stuff I've put up should make plain.
Given all that, integrate the role of the anthologies... part of my recent changes has been to begin putting together both a synopses and character treatment in each, but more importantly, their role in the canon. See for example the stubs Mike Stearns & John Chandler Simpson and (alas I lost a longer edit on) "In the Navy" .
Another place to get a feel is the notes on 1632 characters... which is getting to be a pain to edit around!
In essence, I be asking how much is enough, and how much is too much.
Resulting in a concrete suggestion for:
  1. (A:) long cite data in each cite book call [i.e. base formating]
  2. (B:) Briefer second... nth occasion of same [i.e. base formating]
I think I'll ask SandyGeorgia in on this, too, as I'd like to get the FAC viewpoint. Thanks for what ever you do! (BTW- I'm not seeing time to get back to Dacia's issues until after I get back from Thanksgiving in Florida. I figure on making a formal 1632 sub-project by early December as well, and before I travel I really need to document the template support on the series talk page for other "occasional" editors who appear for a few days and fade off to other things, it would seem. I certainly don't want to be doing all this meself! But some of the side trips lead to places like Dacia and Romania and other matters historical—those keep me sane, if disposing of even more of my time!) // FrankB 16:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with 12 Angry Men (play)

[edit] 12 Angry Men (play)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 12 Angry Men (play), 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 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. If you endorse 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 the page. Fangz the Wolf 16:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Little Nemo

[edit] Flap (Little Nemo)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Flap (Little Nemo), 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 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. If you endorse 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 the page. Prom77 (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colubrid cat

hey, thanks for responding so quickly on the cat proposal board. i read the discussion you linked to, and the reasoning makes sense. so many details to keep track of! can you tell me for future reference: how many articles should there be in a particular cat before creating sub-cats? either the article for cat creation lacked sufficient detail, or i'm just a hasty reader. - Metanoid (talk, email) 20:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CPS Emblem

Hey, somebody has requested speedy deletion for the CPS Emblem here. Do you know how to deal with this? I have little experience with the image copyright stuff on WP. Mipchunk (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:ApeWhoGuardspbk.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ApeWhoGuardspbk.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page Categories

Greetings! Sorry I missed you at the SF meetup - my bad... didn't expect the weather to be so bad, and by the time I got into the city I was 15 minutes away from having to leave for my afternoon meeting (Bay Bridge, CA drivers, & rain don't mix!)

Anyway, I totally agree with your comments on the talk page categories. That was coming from the "Auto=yes" part of many of the templates, which automatically "filled in the blanks" and put the category on the talk page. As soon as I found out it was doing that I stopped using the "Auto=yes" part of all of the templates and simply did a manual cut & paste for the rest. I couldn't find a do-around for that "Auto" parameter's dumping the category on the talk page, which was inconsistent from template to template, so I stopped using it! Thought that I caught all of them - thanks for catching that batch! SkierRMH (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)