User talk:Kevinalewis/2007archiveQ4
Welcome - to my October 2007 – December 2007 talk archive
 | This page 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 read through WP:NAME and agree, it should stay under the English name, I just thought the movie was more known by the original name. But still I think it should go under The Ice Palace and not The Ice Castle. Compare this with this. We can move what's already at Ice Palace to Ice Palace (short story) and put the movie at Ice Palace (film). What do you think? Ospinad 14:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I hadn't spotted the inconsistency - so I have moved the article (again) to "The Ice Palace (novel)". The fitzgerald short story is still the "senior" and probably best known by that title. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I can't find an article for the film - so that discussion maybe moot. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, comparing this and this, the short story should stay at The Ice Palace but I think I'll add an "other use" tag at the top of the page... I forgot that the article about Is-Slottet includes both the novel and the movie, that is what I was referring to. Sorry for making a mess, thanks for your help. Ospinad 14:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain why the article on 'The Fall of Doctor Onslow' was rated 'stub-class'?The Relativist 14:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have raised the class to Start. The original rating may have been an oversight, I have also added a few infobox elements and rehead a few things. If you want to take the article further try for more on it's ==Major themes== ==Literary significance and reception== ==Awards and nominations== ==Publication history== and any referencing you can find. Regards 14:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Tiptree Award
Hi Kevinalewis -- Can you explain why you took the Category:James Tiptree, Jr. Award category off the James Tiptree, Jr. Award page? I've put it back for now since there was no explanation other than the descriptive "recat". --lquilter 16:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- The article is included as the "catmore" element already so would appear twice. Also the category gives a very good listing of the awrds winners and is ideal for that purpose to include the article as part of the category itself is a mite a blend of two things. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for the explanation. However, WP:CAT states that Articles should be placed in categories with the same name. However, the article and the category do not have to be categorized the same way. The article can also be placed in categories populated with similar articles. The category can be put into categories populated with similar subcategories. For an example of this see George W. Bush and Category:George W. Bush. (#5 under "some general guidelines"). ... Also, even though the category description said "for winners of ..." (which I have changed to a "catmore") the category should actually include any article relevant to the award -- for instance, any future articles about juries, recognition of the award, etc. If it were just "winners of" then the category name should reflect that. Thanks for working on it, though. --lquilter 17:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite the same thing though, there is no George Bush award "list" that I am aware of or even any other type of list related. In this case the "only" other article is the "award" article which is already referred to. I know what you are saying but is make an awards listing a little hard to achieve here. Perhaps as some stage a subcat of the true "winners" would be in order. You might notice I have added a few more titles to the cat. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for the explanation. However, WP:CAT states that Articles should be placed in categories with the same name. However, the article and the category do not have to be categorized the same way. The article can also be placed in categories populated with similar articles. The category can be put into categories populated with similar subcategories. For an example of this see George W. Bush and Category:George W. Bush. (#5 under "some general guidelines"). ... Also, even though the category description said "for winners of ..." (which I have changed to a "catmore") the category should actually include any article relevant to the award -- for instance, any future articles about juries, recognition of the award, etc. If it were just "winners of" then the category name should reflect that. Thanks for working on it, though. --lquilter 17:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Glad you're adding titles to the cat. ... No, cats are not the same as lists, and that's intentional (see WP:CLS which explains the differences and how each work). The Tiptree Award article itself already does include a list, until and unless the list gets too long and then it should be broken out as a separate article. A category is not intended to substitute for a list, but to provide some other structuring and organizational functions. If you want the actual list to be more apparent, one way to handle it is to include a link from the category page directly to the list of winners in the article page, [[James_Tiptree%2C_Jr._Award#Winners]] -- for instance,
- {{catmore}} See also [[James_Tiptree%2C_Jr._Award#Winners|List of winners]]
- Glad you're adding titles to the cat. ... No, cats are not the same as lists, and that's intentional (see WP:CLS which explains the differences and how each work). The Tiptree Award article itself already does include a list, until and unless the list gets too long and then it should be broken out as a separate article. A category is not intended to substitute for a list, but to provide some other structuring and organizational functions. If you want the actual list to be more apparent, one way to handle it is to include a link from the category page directly to the list of winners in the article page, [[James_Tiptree%2C_Jr._Award#Winners]] -- for instance,
- Cheers, lquilter 17:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am aware of the difference - thanks for including this, though. A number of other award categories have such a distinction and when you are trying to tidy the Category:Books by award and Category:Novels by award categories it does help if the cat below "plays ball" Anyway must go now. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- All of these should be playing with the same ball, for sure. Maybe a CFD for "discussion" is warranted. ... Isn't it the case that some award-winners are the works themselves, and some are the writers for the works? Plus, a lot of awards give out "special awards" to people, works, etc. The Tiptree Award motherboard, for instance, also awards the "Fairy Godmother" award which is not a literary award, per se, but is a cash award given to a writer, creator, or someone else likely to help the subject of the award in some way. (very vague). This is closely related to the Tiptree Award. Other awards give out usually to the book but may make a lifetime award to the writer. Maybe the novels committee has already parsed these issues? But if not, a CFD may be helpful. --lquilter 17:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed the three groups fall into the type you mention (works, writers and others) at the moment I am more concerned with gaining some consistency to the awards for the works. It appears the Booker Man and Pulitzer have gone some way to resolving this. Thanks for your input. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers, lquilter 17:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The Pea Pickers
You are right ... it needs a cover and I have been looking for one ... not with much success though I'm afraid. Cheers Sterry2607 10:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:SharpeSeries
You seem to be involved with the templates re. the Sharpe series, so I'm wondering what your take is on Template:SharpeSeries and whether it can still be useful even though it's only being used on 1 article (Richard Sharpe) or is redundant primarily due to Template:SharpeSeries2. I've raised this issue on the talk page for SharpeSeries. BrokenSphereMsg me 15:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no "military manuals" category, so I put it in "Military training books" instead. Remember, with categories, use the most specific category and only that one; so since "military training books" is a daughter category of "military books", we do not put the parent category in there as well. --Orange Mike 20:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Novels COTM
You supported The Handmaid's Tale, which has been selected as the Novels WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article towards featured article standard. EncycloPetey 12:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Resolved tag
Hi Kevin. Do you prefer to have a third party such as yourself add the Resolved checkmark -- as you've done with the AFD/IFD warning page -- or do you prefer that we add it ourselves once we see something has been resolved, such as that Lady Amber one? If so, it might not hurt to include the coding in the instructions at the top of the page so editors just have to cut-and-paste. 23skidoo 14:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVII - October 2007
 Issue XVII - October 2007 | |||||||
|
| ||||||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |||||||
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:CarolineBCooney WhateverHappenedToJanie.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:CarolineBCooney WhateverHappenedToJanie.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 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
"Plot" vs. "Plot Summary" and "Notes" vs. "Footnotes"
I've seen you make these changes a couple of times, and I have to argue against them.
- The definition of 'plot' necessarily includes the concept of 'summary' (see dictionary.com or wiktionary.com), so "plot summary" is redundant. Every statement of a plot is a summary, though some can be more summarised than others.
- 'Footnotes' is a technical term that refers originally only to notes placed at the bottom of a physical page; I would argue it is now archaic for webpages. When in doubt, simplify: is my rule. It's the Taoist in me.--Alwpoe 01:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. The Novels WikiProject standard article format is to have a "Plot introduction" i.e. one that is "spoiler" free, leaving a "Plot summary" for a more (slightly more) comprehensive treatment of the plot which may contain spoilers. The notion behind this is to enable a causal reader to taste the flavour of the plot without spoiling the possible experience. Otherwise I would totally agree with you. On the "Notes" front, whilst I see the point, numbers of editors write "Notes" which are clearly just that and are comments unassociated directly with points in the main text of the article. As you say footnotes are a more formal notational form which forward and back-reference to points in the text, which is what they do. I personally believe they are also a more scholarly term for something like an encyclopedia. Just my two penny worth. Cheers :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I just read the guidelines ([1]), and they give ideas about what a "plot summary" should be, not that a section on a plot must be labeled "plot summary". Since this is redundant, I will not use it.--Alwpoe 10:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- A slightly pedantic comment I think. The guidelines include the sections that are "recommended" with their name and purpose. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Look at
- Notice that the Main article - regarding the various imprints of this stuff - is categorized under all the Categories below:
- "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"
- Accordingly, you should restore these Categories to all the articles from which it seems you've mistakenly removed them.
- Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
MERGER : The End of the Affair
I am asking for your input about an article merger at:
- Talk:The End of the Affair / Discussion > Article MERGE suggestion (October 2007)
- Thanks! - IP4240207xx 02:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
my novel
I believe that you wrote the previous description of my novel. I thought it seriously misrepresented the book, and have now replaced it twice with the text used on the cover itself and written by the publisher. I respect your right to disagree, and also appreciate your efforts, but with such delicate matters, I hope you will respect the text used for the book itself. Joseph Geraci —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraci (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Opporknockity tuned
Hey Kevin! Long time no chat!
Just caught this catching up with the Novels project, and had a couple of questions that occured in recent edits that bear on some of that. Specifically, whether there is a proper category of literary terms, such as Point of divergence (aka departure point, or divergence point—I love these scholarly cross-field thefts from math!) Seems to me the terms in question in that Concerns about moves and original research in quite a few literature-related articles are similar to many terms which might be classified into a category Literature term or the like. (another member/example: canon (fiction)) The questions are two, is there a category such as those two should be classified into under Literature, and if not, has there been any discussion that you know of, that there should be (Which seems to be my prejudice! <G>). Thanks // FrankB 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Kevin, I'm wondering if you would mind making more use of edit summaries, especially when reverting the edits of others. For example, you reverted this edit of mine which seemed to me uncontroversial (novels necessarily being a subcategory of books, and subcategorisation being an uncontroversial Wikipedia policy). I've noticed you have twice edited Template:Gibsonian to convert the existing template to a navbox. However, you provided no rationale for why this was a desirable change. The navbox format unnecessarily multiplies the colours used and unbalances the text, rendering it ugly and difficult for users to read; furthermore by converting an easily identifiable template to a generic version it makes it difficult to identify this particular template by passing glance and contributes to the drab, aesthetically uninspiring style which affects much of Wikipedia, making it a less attractive resource for users. I look forward to reading your opinion on the talkpages, and hope we can avoid unconstructive reversions in future. Regards, Skomorokh incite 11:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Lots of things in here. Having seen a few other editors convert to "navbox"es I thought this to be non controversial. see Wikipedia_talk:Navigational_templates#.7B.7BNavbox.7D.7D_is_the_new_standard :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- "novels necessarily being a subcategory of books", not true, they (novels) are a literary form and "books" are only the "normal" containers of those forms. They (novels) should be considered part of "works". Also the fact that someone has written a "book" tells you little about the nature of his writing, i.e. no "form" information. "unnecessarily multiplies the colours used", by default it adds one hardly excessive. "unbalances the text", all English readers know about right justification etc. and are quite comfortable with this technique, the confusing thing is when Wikipedia mixes one style to another from one article to another, very unprofessional. "rendering it ugly and difficult for users to read", entirely subjective view, one to which I disagree. "makes it difficult to identify this particular template by passing glance" and what on earth is the value of this! "drab, aesthetically uninspiring style", oh unlike the garish, any style will do approach that detracts from a serious reference resource that Wikipedia is aiming to be. "hope we can avoid unconstructive reversions in future", oh please, very POV. Having said all of that I will endeavor to leave this particular template alone if you feel strongly about it. I have no wish to fall out over any of this. We need to talk further an seek to see each other viewpoint and whether there are common grounds. Thanks for you comments by the way. regards. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Evil in the Land Without
Did you intend to complete the process of reporting Evil in the Land Without as a copyvio? -- 192.250.34.161 14:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Which is! the template is a might confusing. I thought the procedure was to bang on the template as the categories collected together the alerts. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- The template also has a parameter to fill in to tell where you think the text was copied from (a URL or a text description), and it gives instructions for adding the copyvio to a date-ordered list (not the same as the categorization which automatically happens because of adding the template.) The list is necessary because if we used categories only, the same person who committed the copyvio the first time could remove it from the category and no one would be the wiser unless they spotted the revert in the revision history, which is unlikely to happen. -- 192.250.34.161 19:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Peer review request
Hello I saw you were online so I hope you don't mind the message. I put in a peer review request on the wikiporjects page for an article I;ve been working on, The Dark Age.
Not knowing how this system works, how long does it usually take to get feedback?
Thanks alot Disrepdog 15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The Crippled God
Oops, thanks for the page move and template fix from Novel to novel. I'm ashamed of my failure to use MOS:CAPS. WLU 20:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Room 13
Why did you delete my blurb? That wasn't a justified edit!?
-CharmediPodLover1993 A.K.A TwilightLover1993 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TwilightLover1993 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Non standard category name
The Standalone novel category is of non standard name and breaks the "By author conventions". Could you not use this please. I appreciate you are attempting to help but! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What are standard catagory names and what are the "By author conventions"? Pmcalduff 13:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Basically they are the "work type" names as used at the start of Category:Works by author and the convention in most cases thereafter is to have "by 'author name'". There are some that don't work that way or the consistency is still to be established but in the main that is how it works. Category:Single-author short story collections may look different but that is just the main category name you will notice all the contents are in the normal form. Thanks for your note. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be difficult but I don't undersand how: "Category:Standalone novels by Orson Scott Card" breaks that convention. I'm fairly new here and am still learning. Thank you for your time. Pmcalduff 13:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, let try it a different way. There are two or three elements to the format of these categories, First the work type "Novel", "Short story", "Essay", "short story collection" for instance and second the "author name". So most of the categories will have the form "'work type' by 'author name'". The only generally accepted extension to this is to add the genre to the front of this form so "Fantasy short stories by A. N. Other" is used too. There is to my knowledge no use of the a term with describes anything other than genre in this place. Particularly anything that describe an "exclusion" from a group or category, one such as "Standalone" which describe a novel "not" part of a series or some other undefined grouping. Do you see my point. I can see why you might want to have linked at the point in the template for some "consistency", however it would be a false consistency even now as the other novel series links are to series articles, not to categories. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay that makes sense. Thank you. Pmcalduff 13:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I got rid of the "Category:Standalone novels by Orson Scott Card" tags in the novel articles. How can I get the category deleted? Pmcalduff 13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would just add a {{db|I as the creator made this category by mistake}} in place of the category content and an admin will tidy it up. not the truly formal way of doing it but is cuts out the extra bureaucracy. Thanks, it is hard to maintain some consistency here without being misunderstood, so again thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:RichardMatheson WhatDreamsMayCome.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RichardMatheson WhatDreamsMayCome.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:ChrisHaslam TwelveStepFandango.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:ChrisHaslam TwelveStepFandango.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 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:JohnFox TheTrailOfTheLonesomePine.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JohnFox TheTrailOfTheLonesomePine.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Eachwiped 03:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:SSVanDine TheCanaryMurderCase.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SSVanDine TheCanaryMurderCase.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Eachwiped 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
And speaking of images
That's it. I'm no longer putting in any effort to even rescue images now. Betacommandbot flagged an image (Cyborg IV) that had perfectly reasonable rationale given, and some guy said it isn't good enough and that we needed to have some sort of template that to be honest I've never seen before. I am sick and tired of Wikipedia's copyright nazis assuming that we're all psychic. I will continue to try and police and rescue AFD-threatened articles when possible, but I'm not bothering with images anymore. I got a reply back on my talk page saying I had to check out XYZ policy and there's the template, etc. Too much work for no pay in my opinion. 23skidoo 22:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- skidoo, I was not being one of those nazis, trust me. I was just informing you of the policy, I was just trying to help. I can see where you are coming from raising your concern about the bot, but do not let this put you off working with images! — jacĸrм (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Reply
I agree. Do you know how long this 'rule' has been around? That all images must have a rationale as well as an image tag? I saw somewhere a discussion about changing it to "images uploaded after -whichever date- must contain an image tag and fair use rationale or they may be deleted after seven days", which I agree is a good idea. Oh, and, can you tell me what you meant when you said "we are obviously doing ourselves no favours at all if we are "cheesing off" even our most loyal and hardworking supporters" - do you mean the bot sending them tens of image notices? Or saying the policy is annoying and confusing? — jacĸrм (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is very off-putting to receive those messages, I agree. I recently saw an editor who got very distressed, receiving over 50 messages from the same bot. If one has uploaded lots of images to this project, and you receive 50+ messages saying they may all be deleted, and that they are incorrectly summarised, it is rather offputting, especially if these images have been around for a long time, and the policy on image descriptions changed without the using being aware of those changes. See The proposal which calls for a slight change in some policies, but as you can see, it hasn't got far for an important subject, but they seem to agree that Betacommandbot is doing a good thing, which I guess it is, but it is still really off-putting to receive many messages of this kind. — jacĸrм (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Plot summary length
Where was it decided that plot summaries should be no more than four paragraphs?? As a recent discussion in the talk page notes, this is not community standard since most featured articles have a longer plot summary. In general, there are no Wikipedia policies limiting the amount of content that can be provided for a given topic (in fact, there is a sort of converse: Wiki is not paper). Loom91 20:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, let's take this another way then how would you discourage the article that is nearly all "plot" and little else or where the plot is more than a reasonable potion of the whole. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- The solution to that is not cutting out the plot summary, but expanding the rest of the article. This is the standard practice for all other content. If one section of an article is too long, do we tell editors to cut that section short? Why should plot summary be an exception? Loom91 16:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well yes actually we do - you will find numerous examples of overly long Plot summaries that are highlighted with the {{plot}} template and then either heavily trimed, rebalanced (as you suggest) with other material or even in some cases the plot is removed. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- We really need to discourage this practice. This is not done for any other type of content. I'm really alarmed to hear that the plot is even removed. That is vandalism! Please give me examples of where this has happened. As I said, no community consensus for putting universal caps on plot summaries has been demonstrated. Since a style guideline is an official document, it must reflect only consensus. I'm going to remove that statement. Loom91 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- "universal caps" is too strong a way of describing it. It is a Style guideline - not prescriptive. It represent best practice "guidelines". On the other front have a look at the use of the {{Plot}} template and where it has been used and the effect given. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Policies and guidelines are prescriptive as well as descriptive. They state what most users think should be done by all users. Unless a discussion with community participation indicates that plot summaries should not be longer than 4 paragraphs, we should not be including that in a guideline. Loom91 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- "universal caps" is too strong a way of describing it. It is a Style guideline - not prescriptive. It represent best practice "guidelines". On the other front have a look at the use of the {{Plot}} template and where it has been used and the effect given. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- We really need to discourage this practice. This is not done for any other type of content. I'm really alarmed to hear that the plot is even removed. That is vandalism! Please give me examples of where this has happened. As I said, no community consensus for putting universal caps on plot summaries has been demonstrated. Since a style guideline is an official document, it must reflect only consensus. I'm going to remove that statement. Loom91 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well yes actually we do - you will find numerous examples of overly long Plot summaries that are highlighted with the {{plot}} template and then either heavily trimed, rebalanced (as you suggest) with other material or even in some cases the plot is removed. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- The solution to that is not cutting out the plot summary, but expanding the rest of the article. This is the standard practice for all other content. If one section of an article is too long, do we tell editors to cut that section short? Why should plot summary be an exception? Loom91 16:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Please show me where consensus has been achieved for specific caps. I don't see what that has to do with the plot template. Loom91 16:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing more to add, feel free to check it and eventually sent out with Grafikbot. feydey 01:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
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 @ 09:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Apocalypse Trilogy
- Apu trilogy
- Black Triad trilogy
- Blade Trilogy
- Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy
- Bourne Trilogy
- BRD Trilogy
- Calcutta trilogy
- Dollars Trilogy
- Europa trilogy
- The Grudge Trilogy
- The Human Condition (film trilogy)
- Koker trilogy
- The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
- Mediocre American Man Trilogy
- Mexico Trilogy
- Pusher trilogy
- Qatsi trilogy
- Road Movie Trilogy
- Samurai Trilogy
- Spy Kids trilogy
- Star Wars original trilogy
- Star Wars prequel trilogy
- The Sabata Trilogy
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 -- 15:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Grafikbot stopping deliveries
Hi Kevina,
I'm sad to announce you that after more than a year, I'm getting increasingly bored with the delivery job and rewriting everything with each AWB version. Besides, RL constraints make that job less and less possible as lists grow bigger and bigger.
Consequently, I'm informing you that this delivery will be the last. I can handle the next one in December if it's really needed, but nothing more after that I think.
See you around, Graf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grafikm fr (talk • contribs) 16:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ConnIggulden WolfOfThePlains.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ConnIggulden WolfOfThePlains.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Years in Ireland
Thanks for changing Category:1316 in Ireland etc to use the {{IrelandByYear}}. I rather ran out of steam after creating the template and doing a few centuries of the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
AWB 4.1.3.0
4.1.3.0 and 4.1.2.0 have been re-enabled by jogers due to the current issue with 4.1.4.0 for most people...
Removing your bug as a duplicate
Reedy Boy 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Napoleonic War novels category
I was too hasty in applying your new category to the Sharpe series and forgot that some are set elsewhere - thanks for the pick up. I have now created the War short stories category that you referenced with the two Sharpe short stories. Sharpe's Devil, while it falls after the Battle of Waterloo, includes a visit to Napoleon on the island of St Helena and the key conspiracy relates to freeing Napoleon to create a new empire - is this sufficient connection to make it onto the list or does it need to be no later than the conclusion of the Battle of Waterloo? Cheers, AusTerrapin 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I would say the timing excludes it. The subject matter is relevant, hence your question I'm sure, but we should stick with the normally agreed definitions of the limits of historical conflicts. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. It's the subtle but significant difference between Napoleonic War and Napoleonic Era...this was half my original problem in allocating all the books to the category, I read the category title and processed it as Era when it didn't actually say that. Cheers, AusTerrapin 16:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your diligence. I am in the process of creating articles for Alistair MacLean novels where none currently exist, and expanding/adding info boxes to existing articles. The article in question is about the novel The Golden Rendezvous. I intend to create a separate article for the movie with the same name shortly, which will be why it will be necessary to disambiguate the two articles. Cheers! --MChew 14:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you've been around a while and you seem to have an unimpeachable record as a stalwart of the community, but you don't have administrator powers. Would you consider applying for adminship? We do need more experienced Wikipedians to come forward. --Tony Sidaway 21:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have resisted requests in the past - so I'm not sure whether to step in now! My main focus has been on the WP:Novels WikiProject, so any adminship responsibility would largely be with this work as a focus, and perhaps spilling out into associated areas of broader fiction and non-fiction literature. What made you ask the question? Did you think it necessary for any particular reason? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Me too, I would love to co-nominate. Drop me a line if interested. Rudget 15:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're exactly the kind of person who should, in my opinion, have the extra tools for the asking. Your commitment to the project is unimpeachable and you've interacted well with many other editors for a very long time in all kinds of situations. You've become trusted and respected, and yes, the fact that you're involved in a particular well defined sector suggests that you might feel comfortable taking responsibility for some administrative activities related to that sector. --Tony Sidaway 03:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Review Request
Hi, Kevinalewis. Was wondering if you might review To Kill a Mockingbird for me. Yesterday it passed GA, and I'd like to know what parts to focus on for FA. I placed it on peer review and didn't get much of a response, and it's changed quite a bit since then. Appreciate anything you can do. Thanks. --Moni3 13:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Book cover
This is to let you know that I've orphaned the fair use image Image:WilliamWellsBrown Clotel.jpg, and replaced it with Image:Brown Clotel 1853.jpg, an image in the public domain. For more information, see the book cover replacement project. Thanks. Chick Bowen 19:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Fantasy vs. Lost World
Why do you say that The Eternal Lover, The Cave Girl, and Jungle Girl are Fantasy (genre) as opposed to Lost World (genre)?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 12:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not so much not part of that genre but the major genre is surely Fantasy of which Lost WorlD is a virtually unknown sub genre. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- My question relates to the fact that these involve no "magic" and very little if any "supernatural" aspects (other than a sort of time travel or at least recollection of a past life in The Eternal Lover), the much greater aspect is the discovered world that has the same physical laws as the present but is millions of years out of place in time. Very closely related to The Land that Time Forgot.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- In which case a better classification might be Sci Fi or even Speculative Fiction which are are both major genres. I appreciate the Lost World can be seen as a legit genre but a "rather" small one, and not too well known. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- My question relates to the fact that these involve no "magic" and very little if any "supernatural" aspects (other than a sort of time travel or at least recollection of a past life in The Eternal Lover), the much greater aspect is the discovered world that has the same physical laws as the present but is millions of years out of place in time. Very closely related to The Land that Time Forgot.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Kev!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| For being the heaviest contributor to WikiProject Novels! Keep it up! |
Seriously, I have that page watched and every time there's a change there, it says "Kevinalewis." It's crazy. Great job. --Gp75motorsports 17:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Category: Novels dealing with slavery
In the category, Novels dealing with slavery, I would like to have a reference to my novel, Ama: A Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade added. I'm not sure whether it would be proper for me to do so myself; and, in any case, I'm not sure how. Can you help?
There are two editions in print.
Ama: A Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade, by Manu Herbstein, Picador Africa, 374 pages, ISBN1770100032
Print on demand edition: Ama: A Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade, by Manu Herbstein, E-Reads, 456 pages, ISBN1-58586-932-5.
The book won the 2002 Commonwealth Writers Prize for the Best First Book.
Companion web-site: www.ama.africatoday.com. This contains primary and secondary texts relevant to the novel.
Reviews are collected at www.ama.africatoday.com/reviews.html.
I have dual citizenship, Ghanaian and South African. This might qualify the novel for inclusion under both national categories.
There is a short Wikipedia entry on my name Manu Herbstein. I had nothing to do with that.
Manuherb 15:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've set up the entry with what you gave me - I could do with more information on general notability of the material so it is not just a vanity entry. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. For use of the novel within an academic environment, please see the links at [3]. The reviews page is at [4] not as noted above. Manuherb 16:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i just recreated Raymond E Feist's Magician and was wondering if you could take a look over it make sure its all up to scratch. Salavat (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Added comment to article talk page. Needs a lot more work although I can appreciate the effort the is in what is there. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, I would edit myself but my skills when it come to that sort of thing are poor, whats the tag that identifies the plotline as overly long and in need of rewriting? Salavat (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- That would be {{plot|date=November 2007}} - I would give adding these other things a try - I could keep an eye on the page and help tidy up as you go along if you would like. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:JulesVerne_MathiasSandore.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:JulesVerne_MathiasSandore.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. Jusjih (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Assessment table
The bot won't update if it is a "-", that's why only the first column was updated this morning. If you put "0"s then it'll work. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 13:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Better source request for Image:3_Wakepig.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:3_Wakepig.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. OsamaK (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
French novel titles
I've finally left some more thoughts. Thanks for your feedback. – Scartol • Tok 16:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, do you think you could stop the redirect for this novel? I don't know how to do that, and I would think it deserves its own page...Besides, I have to say I am dismayed at the realisation that very few novels by this classic author have a page of their own - maybe we could bring this to the attention of other members from the WikiProject Novels?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Changed back to original of page and enhanced slightly - already for you to set work on. All you needed to do was edit the redirect page itself. It can be a little tricky to get to if you are new to it. In this case it would be input "Precaution (novel)" and then when you get taken to the James Fenimore Cooper page you would have seen a line under the title which when you select would take you explicitly back to the original redirect page, then it can be edited. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ConnIggulden WolfOfThePlains.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ConnIggulden WolfOfThePlains.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your excellent layout work on the Moorcock book! Nick mallory (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Job Centre/er
I like it! I would suggest making Outreach a High priority, though, and perhaps the addition of a MOS-Novels team, since there seems to be much confusion over the format of an article dedicated to a novel, or even where to find appropriate sources and external links. María (habla conmigo) 13:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done as requested - I hope. And the other matter I think is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Resources page. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
WP Novels JobCentre
Looks interesting and has promise. I'd still expect the page not to be super popular...
Also maybe add something about inactivity i.e. no edits to wikipedia in 2 months or no response to "job" related queries etc leads to "vacancy". Maybe encourage editors to sign up to multiple Activity Groups if they feel like it?
I can write some more about the JobCentre to the next (January) newsletter to promote it more. After going active it needs a prominent place in the main WPNovels page so people looking for advice and direction can find someone responsive easily, IMHO. N.B. Thanks for "promoting" me to "Newsletter editor" ;-) Best, feydey 15:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Isn't the "Newsletter distributor" position going to Grafikm_fr (Grafikbot) by default, or do You mean the person who notifies him? (I'd suggest one of the "Newsletter editors" just do it (notify Grafikm_fr) feydey 15:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- P.P.S. I can volunteer for an "Admin tasks" position if needed. feydey 15:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Admin tasks, as in Wikipedia edits that only the administrators can make. There is no such "Activity Group" currently... feydey 15:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- We'll see in the future if the position is actually needed. feydey 16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: Grafikm_fr, that's a big hit to the Newsletter. feydey 15:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
To Visit the Queen
Please tell me that this edit summary was an accident. :-)--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- (add cats) -- what, you don't think there were enough felines in that book already? *grin*--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 10:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for altering the website link on Talk:Mount Tabor Kathleen.wright5 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:JoelChernoff promo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JoelChernoff promo.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIX - December 2007
|
Issue XIX - December 2007 | ||||||||
|
| |||||||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | ||||||||
This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 14:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Louise Stanley Afd
Hi there. I think that you accidently may have deleted a couple of comments when you added yours on this Afd. I ended up just adding the comments (one a keep, one a delete) back at the bottom. I'm just putting this here so you know; for all I know it was just a software glitch. Thanks, and take care. Xymmax (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sharpe's Escape.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sharpe's Escape.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Bot I don't want it
Kevinalewisbot keeps sending me Novels newsletters even though I've added my name to the cancel list. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Redirect of Ron ellis mean streets
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ron ellis mean streets, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ron ellis mean streets is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ron ellis mean streets, 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) 08:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Stubs
Hi, Kevin. I won't revert any of your changes, because you clearly feel strongly about the matter, but I think it is very counter-productive to label every article that isn't long and detailed as a "stub". In my opinion, we should concentrate on the short articles with little detail - the real stubs - rather than trying to expand articles that are already substantial and useful to the reader. Deb (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. "label every article that isn't long", actually that isn't true if you look at my comment on Brighton Rock (novel) by main complaint is the lack of referencing and quality of what is there. It isn't just about length. Wikipedia makes a big thing about WP:Verifiability which is a massive problem with this article as it currently stands. Also given the nature of the novel, major work by major writer, I would myself consider this article as lacking material content too. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Stephenswimmer...
Is there any way to change my name?
Stephenswimmer (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have never done it but above you user page is a "move" function which allow the rename of any page. I imagine it is a matter of changing the name to one you want and then logging on to is rather than you existing name. As I say I have never done so this is just theory. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I tried it but it didnt work... oh well, i'll just stick with this then. Thanks anyway --Stephenswimmer (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, My computer deleted al of my files for some reason, including my account, so i made a new one, and i changed my name!--76.252.50.125 (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow
wow, you like the smae music as me... You've started a lot of articles! ive started like, one, and then i think it got deleted(I wasnt a member).--Stephenswimmer (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This page is/was intended to be a feed to {{copyedit progress}}, but I was having difficulty making it work without breaking the <timeline> markup. Now that I'm back I'll have another go at it, because having an automatically updating table would be extremely useful. Happy‑melon 21:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review of Category:Articles needing an infobox
Hi there! You participated in the CfD of Category:Articles needing an infobox. You may be interested in the DRV I opened at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 12#Category:Articles needing an infobox. Thank you! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
A Canticle for Leibowitz
Kevinalewis, I see you've shown some interest in the A Canticle for Leibowitz article in the past. I'm interested in bringing it to GA status soon and am soliciting your help. A number of revisions have been made in the past few weeks to position it for a successful nomination process. Would you mind reviewing the article and making suggestions/changes to assist in the process? Any assistance you can provide will be appreciated. Thank you.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Gothic Novels
Thanks for tidying up The Necromancer and the other articles. You were right about the authorship, I read that bit wrong. Been a long day! Nick mallory (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, nice little set of articles. I'm glad you're standing up for yourself against the well intentioned deletionists that are about. I have some sympathy with them there is sooooo much rubbish being added that someone needs to "watch the doors". 11:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Adoption
Hello there, I'm looking for someone who's willing to teach me a few things about this place. If you're still looking to adopt please leave a message on my talk page. Thecrimsonanthropologist (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I am currently on eastern standard time (US). My interests include art, literature, music, writing, travel, science, language, culture, history, politics and anime. I'm learning xhtml and my girlfriend is trying to teach me flash. While I must admit I am no kind of expert on any given topic, I'm willing to learn anything. Thecrimsonanthropologist (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, great. do you have Gmail? Thecrimsonanthropologist (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, if you have some time on your hands, teach me something useful ; ) --thanks TheCrimsonANTHROPOLOGIST 19:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
: D That was useful, thanks a lot. If you can think of any sort of task to give me or some way I could be helpful, just let me know. TheCrimsonANTHROPOLOGIST 14:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think this should be deleted or redirected to The Ambassadors?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merged maybe! this article has stayed without much content or referencing for many months now! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Unspecified source for Image:HelenDeWitt_TheLastSamurai.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HelenDeWitt_TheLastSamurai.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Littletown Breadmill Excerpt
Im not quite sure what you mean, in the meantime I returned the excerpt section. I would like to emphasise that all of the content of this articel is written by me. It has not been proof read by anyone nor taken from any site. It is also not posted in any other site other than wikipedia. This article is created specialy for wikipedia and this im not sure why you raised the issue that I should try to should write more introduction or summary with my own words.
This is a very short introduction to the story but it does not belong to the plot summary. How would you sugest i should categorize this? I'd apreaciate it if it would stay on the page but placed on a more suiting catagory. thank you Xrecent (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:TwaniODell BackRoads.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TwaniODell BackRoads.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 (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:JustinSomper VampiratesDemonsOfTheOcean.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:JustinSomper VampiratesDemonsOfTheOcean.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 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:MattRedman PassionForYourName.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:MattRedman PassionForYourName.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 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:AndrewNeiderman TheBabySquad.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AndrewNeiderman TheBabySquad.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 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Text may not be hidden below redirects; it screws things up. The text has been moved to the new location, and as such I've blanked the page below the redirect. If there are issues with this that I'm unaware of, please let me know on my talk page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
How does the template work exactly? I took it from what I'd done with James Baldwin but somehow I couldn't get only one line after creating it. Sorry if I made things difficult. I do think those templates make things clearer though, don't you?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure what you just did but the titles now stick out of the box to the right...10:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
CfD for taxobox categories
I just wanted to notify everyone that participated in the original CfD and the deletion review that there is a new CfD to reverse the proposed changes to the taxobox categories. Justin chat 05:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:MattRedman PassionForYourName.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:MattRedman PassionForYourName.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 (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:ErskineCaldwell God'sLittleAcre.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ErskineCaldwell God'sLittleAcre.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. UIN revo (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
RE: Welcome
Happy Holidays, Kevinalewis! I know I'm a little in putting this up, but I do want to thank you for welcoming me to the novels wikiproject. As my contribs and username imply, I focus more of my edits on film and animation than I do novels. My edits may be sparse for this wiki-project, but I usually make edits to classic novels like Lord of the Rings, The Maltese Falcon, Animal Farm, and (of course) To Kill a Mockingbird. I will eventually branch out to other genres, but for now you should expect most of my edits to go to those pages. Thanks again. And a Happy New Year to you! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Categories: Detective fiction short stories
Hi there: I have been engaged in completing entries for John Dickson Carr books (based on the ones that come to hand when I open boxes in the basement LOL) and in connection with The Men Who Explained Miracles, I hit a problem with the category. I'm pretty bad at understanding categories but it seems to me that there are at least two separate categories that cover books that contain short stories that are detective fiction. Added to which, I was reading through the material on the talk page of the Crime Task Force looking for information and realized that authors like Berton Roueche wrote volumes of short true crime stories, and I don't think there's a category for that... Anyway, is there a single category that I should be applying to books like The Men Who Explained Miracles? Your guidance would be much appreciated. Incidentally, I don't know if it came to your attention, but I've been granted administrative status here and if there's anything that I can now do for the crime task force that I couldn't before, you have but to ask. Thanks in advance for any insight you can offer and happy new year! Accounting4Taste:talk 00:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks -- I'll follow the example you've provided, much obliged. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Revision to WikiProject Novels template
Hi. I'm wondering if we can consider a revision to the Novels WikiProject template. I think it may have outlived its usefulness. I'm posting here to ask you how we can get the discussion going. There have been sporadic comments on the discussion page for the template, but nothing has been done. I'd like to get the discussion posted on the newsletter so that we can arrive at a template that will last us for a long time. The current template, as I see it, is too oriented toward plot summary and trivia (Allusions subsections). I think we can make this encyclopedia better by fixing up some of the limitations of the template. Thanks for reading! Victorianist (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)