User talk:Red Sunset

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 filmographies 3 fixy fixy tweaky tweaky 4 Yak 5 Marguerite Harrison 6 Period 7 reviews 8 June Mathis 9 Anna May Wong 10 thanks again 11 re: Anna May Wong 12 F-104 13 thx again 14 Your user page 15 Philip Larkin 16 Sorry! 17 Anna May Wong 18 List of poems 19 "featured article candidate" 20 Readability 21 WikiSpeak: Tenditious

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Red Sunset, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Guinnog 17:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] filmographies

Things you find when looking for other things: Category:Filmographies who knew? A cursory glance shows that almost none of them are more than a list of links, but at least I have examples now. EraserGirl (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fixy fixy tweaky tweaky

re:( diff) (hist) . . m Anita Loos‎; 21:59 . . (-42) . . Red Sunset (Talk | contribs) (consistency of ref position: immediately after punctuation (no space) per Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles)

• By now you don't have to justify your corrections to me, I trust you know what you are doing.;) EraserGirl (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For sure; I'm happy to say I don't think either of us need to explain to the other what we've done, but it's recommended practise to let any editor visiting the article know what changes have been made. If I just alter words around a bit or something minor I will just put "tweaks" or similar which does get criticised occasionally, and for formatting or MoS-related changes I'll be more specific, but in this instance I thought I'd indicate the GA guide which contains some good tips for your perusal.

Your adjustments to AL's lead were good, and I wondered if my British-English spelling would be noticed – it's taking a while but I am learning to recognise (or should that be recognize?) American-English without feeling the need to change it, and try to contribute accordingly. There have been countless arguments as to which spelling convention should be adhered to within an article, but the accepted practise is to use that most closely related to the nationality of the topic, i.e. in AL's case American-English; but where the topic is neither American nor English, the etiquette is to conform to that used by its originator. Sorry EG; am I sounding a bit pompous with my bits of advice and observations? --Red Sunset 18:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am letting my computer tell me what to fix, I have a Firefox plugin which highlights misspelled words, but apparently only likes SOME UK spellings. I think a good rule of thumb is to go with the nationality of the subject. Pompous? you? nahh.... besides you'd have to get in line behind me. EraserGirl (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yak

Looks very nice, I cruised through a few of the other 149 tagged filmographies, and yes the ones with headers like Mary Pickford and Tyrone Power look better than the one that don't have them, which is the majority. Thanks a lot. Now if I could bribe you to do lead ins for all my other dead folks I'd die happy. EraserGirl (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like it; tweak it around if you want. I'll check others out in due course – bribery works every time Lol! --Red Sunset 23:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marguerite Harrison

new experiment, I am poking along at Marguerite Harrison instead of writing it all at once. I am working my way through it, so if you happen to glance you can virtually see my stopping point in the middle. So, don't worry about most of it, as it is "in progress". Figured you may be tired of cinema people. Thanks. EraserGirl (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll occasionally drop by and look in "on the quiet" until it's settled down. Not tired, but sometimes I have to limit my time in Wikiland in the interests of domestic harmony! --Red Sunset 20:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Period

I am making an effort to go back over my articles and fix the period outside the citation errors. I can see them if I am LOOKING for them, if I am just typing, I hit the key and rely on faith that its there. 8) EraserGirl (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably not many left now anyway. --Red Sunset 18:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen Clara Beranger; I'm afraid it was already in the recommended format EG...sorry! --Red Sunset 18:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

k- now i am confused and can't keep track. i don't even know what you want me to change anymore. so, i'm done. i am going back to working on content. change what you want. EraserGirl (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC) fercrissakes you aren't interfering, i think by now you know i don't think you are. you just confused me a bit. i will try to be less sloppy. EraserGirl (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reviews

No one wants to review my articles. sniff. Fay and Dorothy have been sitting on the assessment queue for days. sniff. EraserGirl (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Too early to start worrying EG; it can take a while before anyone gets around to it. Only the other day I found myself on the assessment page of one project or other where they were calling for more volunteers to work on the 2-week backlog! Trouble is, the higher-profile or better-known subjects attract the most interest and are likely to get assessed sooner. --Red Sunset 20:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't I know it. 8) EraserGirl (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June Mathis

Can you give a quick eyeball to June Mathis? another editor says there is a problem with the references but I don't see it. If i knew what they were referring to, I would fix it. Thanks. EraserGirl (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just taken a quick peek and think what Pinkadelica is referring to is essentially the same as 86.44.28.245's comments on Anita Loos talk page. You have cited the sources and placed them behind the content they reference, but ideally a page number (or range of pages to cover several points) is better and simplifies verification. What you have done isn't wrong, but see how they could be improved by looking at how they have been done on Anna May Wong. Got to go now; my son's 18th birthday party! --Red Sunset 17:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will skip it for now. I had nothing to do with the article as yet. I will work on it, when I get to her. Good for you! EraserGirl (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out this image I found for June Mathis. It is ON set w/Valentino. I rarely find images of my ladies ON Set, and few of Mathis at all. I did some pretty high Photoshop stepping to get it to look that good. It's hard to get the Moiré pattern out of a lo res scanned print. EraserGirl (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Great pic EG! --Red Sunset 19:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anna May Wong

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC).

Excellent timing: just in time for supper! Cheers! --Red Sunset 23:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks again

I probably should take time off too, but I find comfort here. Thanks for giving Dorothy and Judith a once over. Dotty coming along, i wonder if she is up to B status yet? EraserGirl (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

argh...someone needs to stop me, I can't stop working on Dorothy Hale. I need to move on.EraserGirl (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're on a roll keep going, especially if it's worthwhile material that you're adding or making other improvements. "Impecuniousness" eh, that'll get a few dictionaries dusted off! --Red Sunset 20:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Anna May Wong

Does the Christmas card come with cookies? :) You're quite welcome for the review and congrats to you and the others. I very much enjoyed reading the article and I do think it has a chance at FAC once things have been ironed out. I meant to mention this while making my last comment, but you guys may want to consider opening up a peer review and inviting people from various affiliated WikiProjects to take part. It's been very helpful for me in the past and that's the typical step between GAN and FAC. Best of luck in future work on the article! Oh, and I hope you or one of your fellow contributors will let me know when Wong appears at FAC. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 22:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, the peer review will help. --Red Sunset 22:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (Cookies with cream for you Maria!)

Aw, thanks for the treat. :) María (habla conmigo) 18:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F-104

Interesting, all good edits. I have backed off from this and WP in general after several 'run-ins' with a particular editor. The two phrases that have been citation tagged should be removed, someone made them up no doubt. P6 last weekend, we are getting there! Cheers Nimbus (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still watching. Yes ;-) Nimbus (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thx again

I am always saying thank you. It looks just as I wanted it too. Thanks. EraserGirl (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

The "New messages" link at the top of your user page seems out of place, It is a bit like having an exhaust pipe emerging from the pavement. Snowman (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Larkin

This is currently a WPCov page. Some people (or one person) are/is working on it, but they need to be get started on in-line citations. How would you organise the notes, references, and bibliography? Snowman (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just had a quick look.

• The entries in "Bibliography" need tweaking for format and consistency.
• All those external links in "Legacy" would be better linked to footnotes and then jump to the sites from there.
• The whole article is woefully unreferenced; either inline or by paragraph! On checking the edit history it's virtually impossible to determine who added each bit of information, and consequently their source. It would mean obtaining copies of the reference sources yourself to add the necessary inline cites; or alternatively contact Almost-instinct who seems to be the current main active editor (and perhaps some of the earlier significant editors), and leave a note to see if he/she has copies and would be prepared to help. --Red Sunset 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is there anything that you would like to add to the talk page? Snowman (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Still trying to find time to give FW more attention; perhaps later. --Red Sunset 18:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Could we get some opinions on the current state of the page List of poems by Philip Larkin? On the talk page you'll see Snowmanradio and I are in disagreement over a problem that's cropped up. Thank you almost-instinct 19:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry!

It appears I stepped on your edit in Frank Whittle. Would you mind a re-do? Maury (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all Maury, these things happen! --Red Sunset 21:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anna May Wong

Thanks, RS... Yes, I tend to be careful about rewriting other people's work, sometimes maybe too much. This morning I just held my breath and made some of those changes. Let's hope no nuclear-edit war breaks out! :) Yes, I do think it's ready for FA review. As you say, it's probably got more that can be done to improve it, but those points will come up, and be adressed in the FA review. I've never been through one of these, so I'm holding back and waiting for someone to lead the way, so please feel free to do so. (I'm taking notes for how to do this with other articles!) Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can take a hint :-) I'll see if I can do it within the hour... I'm offline tomorrow. Wish me luck! Dekkappai (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK-- I took a stab at it. If I made any goofs, I'll hear about it, I guess. Thanks for the nudge. Dekkappai (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi RS. Just checking in a little today, so I won't be able to help much at the article. That Silent Era biography was used as a source quite a bit, but I think I replaced all those citations with more reliable ones. The Silent Era biography is sourced to IMDb, not very reliable, but maybe useful for Bibliography, unless that section is too large, and it could be removed. Thanks for the note! Dekkappai (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I took a look at it... What can I say?... Do you know how to close the Peer Review? Apparently we have to close that somehow... Dekkappai (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Robichaux: Oops! I'll see what I can do later... Dekkappai (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, RS... I don't know, I took a quick look at another FA review, and it looked like a bit of a shooting gallery... Anyway, nothing ventured, nothing gained. We'll see and learn. Dekkappai (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Red Sunset-- a couple questions on commented-out sections: "At home she would act out her favorite scenes from films in front of a mirror..." "Wong's romantic life would be the subject of fan magazines and gossip columns throughout her career, fueled by her life-long unmarried status..."The New York Times, for example, called Wong "splendid" in her minor role in Forty Winks (1925)... and She was one of the first American performers to leave the U.S. for the more welcoming climate of Europe. Josephine Baker had notably begun performing in Paris and Berlin in 1925."

Do you know the reasons for their exclusion? Was it just to cut down on the size of the article? None of them are essential to the article, but interesting little bits, I thought. But if they have to go, I say we completely remove them... Dekkappai (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I found them subjective, most especially the emigration comment. I commented out instead of deletion, because I thought there may be arguments for them to remain and thought it was easier to merely uncomment them. If we need to clarify extended sections, we need to focus on what she accomplished. EraserGirl (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding EG. I know I commented some parts out myself rather than deleting them, but it was mainly in the Legacy section to reduce it in size re GAN comments; and similar to EG's reasoning, so that they could be used later on if necessary. However, if there are any comments made on the FAC page regarding these then we can quickly remove them. I've only just gone online to check my messages so I haven't looked at the FAC page yet – I might be back in touch sooner than expected! --Red Sunset 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fielding some of the comments, RA. I'm only online for a couple minutes today, not enough time to address the remaining ones, but I will be able to tomorrow. Dekkappai (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I took out the commented sections. Not really sure how subjective they are-- it's pretty common knowledge-- and claimed all over the place if we need a citation-- that a group of American performers (Wong, Josephine Baker, Paul Robeson, Louise Brooks among them), found Europe more welcoming for whatever reasons-- racial in the cases of most-- than the U.S. Anyway, the article is long, and these bits didn't really add much, so away they go! Dekkappai (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the work, RS. Failed for hyphens? So the rumors about FA review are true... :( Dekkappai (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You can never tell; other editors might maintain that there are too many hyphens. I've an idea that "Chinese-Americans" was changed by someone to "Chinese Americans" some time back, and at the time I thought no more of it since that is the format used in all such wiki articles. (Perhaps they are all wrong!) However, please feel free to alter anything that I've just done. --Red Sunset 21:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. At some point this sort of thing just comes down to style-preference. I'd think that after the article has gone through so many reviews, we could agree that it's a decent article at least, and that people would have perspective enough not to fail over stylistic preferences, but so it goes... Dekkappai (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of poems

List of poems by Philip Larkin; see talk page, please advance the discussion on a presentational issue. Snowman (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A list with hidden text for sorting is on The North Ship, which you might be interested to see. Snowman (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the sort of thing I was thinking about, but the method used there only works if the colour-coding of the sortkey is the same as the background, in that instance white. A method that I had in mind and works in all situations is the following:

<span style="display:none">...</span> replacing the "..." with the hidden character. --Red Sunset 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting. I have just tested it, and found that it does not need padding, because the hidden text does not take up any space. Snowman (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "featured article candidate"

:-) Dekkappai (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Readability

"Great Auk" and "Harry Woolf, Baron Woolf", I have added some text to these, and I am sure that you can improve the English. Snowman (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just looking in briefly. Busy tonight but will check them out tomorrow. --Red Sunset 17:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the first rate improvements to the articles. I made a few changes after your edits, and I guess those would not have been needed, if you had access to the source. I might have some additional facts to add to the biography. I think that the story of the auk is a sad one, but it is a notable story. Snowman (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Agreed, the auk tale is sad, and a sad indictment of human nature! My "late" change was simply to avoid repetition of "dead", but it does read more logically now. --Red Sunset 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiSpeak: Tenditious

You know someone's going to correct that... Loving the captions, BTW ;) EyeSerene^talk 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No surprises there then! I'll look forward to it. Thanks BTW. --Red Sunset 20:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)