User talk:Bede735/Archive 1

Archive 1

Celtic Folkweave

If you undo a redirect, please explain why in the edit summary or on the talk page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Responded at Talk:Celtic Folkweave. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Got any defense? I'm just not seeing how this album is notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Very good job. Thank you for acting on this and actually improving the article. Got anything on Mick Hanly now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. I'll see what I can do for Hanly. Bede735 (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

You're making my poor little article on The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (song) much better! Thanks! - Brianyoumans (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the article. It's a great song. Bede735 (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Mark Knopfler

Just a quiet thank you for the upgrade to many Mark Knoplfer articles. Note my user name. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for remembering Jim's accordion. I saw the recent Montreal show and he played it beautifully. Bede735 (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Detail in plot

Please explain why you restored that detail about the walk in the park in Autumn in New York (film). I fail to see its importance to the story. Debresser (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's the point in the film where the main character leaves his childish ways behind him after admitting to his daughter his regret for abandoning her. In the next scene, he returns to Charlotte to face their relationship honestly and responsibly. Bede735 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That is interpretation. Possibly on a symbolic level. I won't argue with that, because I also had that feeling, but I suppose you agree that the sentence looks absolutely trivial if taken at face value. Debresser (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

Hello. Thanks for all the great MK articles. :-) Altered Walter (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Walter, for the new category. I'm still working on the remaining tours and other MK articles. Merry Christmas. Bede735 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	Germany Barnstar
	For your superb work on Rolf Magener. Keep up the great work!! Merry Christmas! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, doctor. Merry Christmas. Bede735 (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Zane Grey

Sorry about this edit. I could have sworn I searched the navbox for his name and couldn't find it. I thought it was just goofy vandalism. Mea culpa; thanks for fixing my mistake. Ntsimp (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. His name did not display in bold in the navbox because it linked to a section in the article. Bede735 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Basilica of Saint Mary Major, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. stop removing my oppose. I am not rwflammang. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, but I've been an editor here since 2007. I notice you've been a contributing editor for 2 months and 5 days (not including your 5 edits in 2008) so I'm sure this is a simple mistake. As a beginning editor, you seemed a little confused about the discussion on Talk:Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore. After User:Rwflammang did not sign his edit, you added a second duplicate "Oppose" for him. When you added that second duplicate "Oppose" crediting Rwflammang, User:Johnbod pointed out your mistake and removed the duplicate vote. You then inserted the duplicate "Oppose" vote again in this edit. I'm sure it was a simple oversight on your part. I moved your comment about Rwflammang to its correct location, and deleted your duplicate "Oppose", knowing you would not want a false vote counted. I clearly described my edit in the Edit Summary, which you apparently did not notice. If you have anything further to add on this issue, please use Talk:Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore. Thanks. Bede735 (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

lol, I replied on my talk page. the welcome thing is part of the lvl-1 (good faith) template. I try not to patronize, or assume bad faith, and avoid biting anyone undeservedly. I was a bit frustrated with my comment on there being repeatedly removed. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Papal intro consistency

I was trying to make the papal bio intros consistent by removing the awkward reading of "Pope X, was pope". Why did you partially blanket revert me? Now you've made it more confusing. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead sentences of the papal articles were consistent—all starting with "Pope [Name] ..." I do not see a compelling reason to change this. Bede735 (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Check the intros of papal bio articles, starting backwards from Pope Francis, before you revert me again. Note: I've overturned your reverts of yesterday & today. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#RFC on Papal article consistency

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#RFC on Papal article consistency. Elizium23 (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you should (your choice) either continue making your changes or start reverting them. The Rfc seems to have stalled. Above all we need consistancy on all Papal bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I will, as soon as the discussion is closed at WT:CATHOLIC, indicating no concensus for change on points 1 and 2. Bede735 (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The duration of an RFC is typically 30 days, so we still have half the time to go, unless we should experience some miracle of consensus before then. Elizium23 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Two editors voted to remove Pope from the common name in the lead based on the arguments presented in the discussion at WT:NCCL#Pope_as_part_of_the_name. One of the two in fact suggested we should "centralize these discussions, since they seem to be getting at the same basic issue." A few days ago, an administrator closed that discussion, writing, "Consensus is against changing the naming convention for articles about Roman Catholic popes, and also specifically against applying the naming conventions for European sovereigns to Popes." Do you think this will change any opinions? Bede735 (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Gold on WikiProject:Catholicism navboxes

I saw you added a background color for Template:Opus Dei. Is their a Wikiproject:Catholicism policy that all navboxes become Gold unless otherwise colored (Marian, religious communities that specify colors, etc.). I had left Opus Dei uncolored wondering if it should be colored gold. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a policy. Last month a few editors changed the color of some Catholic navboxes from yellow to gold (the Vatican flag color). I added gold to some of the Catholic navboxes that they missed. I left the Marian navbox red because its the color of the Legionaries of Christ logo. The main Catholicism navbox is protected, so I left a request on the talk page. If you think the Opus Dei navbox should retain the default color, or be a different color, you can either delete the word "gold" or replace it with another. Bede735 (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I was one of the said editors. it was changed from yellow to gold to match the Vatican flag, and to reduce eye strain due to the very bright colors. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a good change. Bede735 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, now I know. I have already created a few Catholic Navboxes and planned on creating more. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Around a Small Mountain poster

Hey! Thanks for updating an older film article. I was wondering why you changed the poster for Around a Small Mountain. Since it's a French film using the French poster makes a lot of sense. I was reviewing the MOS:FILM and looking at the previous film talk archives I came across Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_22#Posters_for_foreign_films. It seems it should have the French poster. Thanks! Peppage^ಠ_ಠ 04:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I changed the infobox image for Around a Small Mountain because I moved the article to the current title per WP:TITLE. The old poster was for the original French title, 36 vues du pic Saint-Loup. I see the discussion from 2008, and I see it references MOS:FILM#Image, but I do not see anything in MOS:FILM#Image that indicates original foreign language posters should be used for English titled article. It could be that the guidance has changed since then. I've also checked WP:FILMNFI, WP:IUP, and Template:Infobox film and found nothing. Template:Infobox film indicates: "Insert a relevant image for the film. Ideally this should be a film poster, but a DVD/VHS cover, screenshot, or other film-related image may also be used." I think the practice of using the original theatrical release poster makes sense if the title matches the article title, but it doesn't make sense when the titles are different or in a foreign language when the article is in English (and vice versa). If you find specific guidance indicating that it should, let me know and I'll change it back. Bede735 (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Paul Bedson socks

Thanks very much. He's become not much more than a run of the mill vandal, doing it just to annoy. At least a dozen socks a week, probably more, usually blatant. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think he's now editing under this user name: Special:Contributions/I_am_(not)_Iron_Man. Bede735 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not. Please get someone to CheckUser me. I've just been editing anonymously for years (in a variety of areas) and finally created an account today. No sockpuppetry at all. I am (not) Iron Man (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor

Hey Bede735

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The Joy Luck Club (film)

Gatoclass (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Why?

Hi! Why did you cancel my edit at William-Adolphe Bouguereau? Markhole (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Centering and enlarging the thumbnails in the gallery is not necessary. A reader can click on a thumbnail to see the full image. Changing the thumbnail size more than doubles the vertical length of the gallery. Bede735 (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Swept Away?

The original U.S. title of Swept Away was "Swept Away by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August". That was the title of the film when I saw it when originally released in Italian in the 1970s, not "Swept Away". (It was the first foreign film my wife ever saw—quite an introduction!) That is the title in film reviews of the time, e.g. Roger Ebert's review. That is also the full international title.

The title was changed only recently for marketing reasons, when Madonna's horrible version was released.

That is why I put the completion of the title in brackets in the infobox—so readers would understand that "Swept Away" was not the full original title of the film.

I think it is necessary and I hope you'll put my change back. Thanks! — NickP —Preceding undated comment added 08:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The article title and the lead sentence clearly show "1974", so there should be no confusion for the reader. The infobox name should reflect the article title, which is the current title of the film. The original Italian title is presented in the lead sentence. The English translation of that original Italian title was used in the initial North American release, but it was presented as a title with a subtitle, Swept Away... by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August. According to WP:SUBTITLES: "Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book (or other medium, such as a movie, TV special or video game) does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name." Since all subsequent releases of the film omitted the subtitle, it is not necessary to include the original longer title in the article title or the infobox name. I added two sentences to the lead presenting the original longer title. Bede735 (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks NickP (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Layout of pics

With regard to the positioning of images on the left of the page, the reason given for preference to right justification is simply to avoid the heading of the section becoming detached from the body of the section. In cases where there are short sections this can make it very difficult to position pictures.

The solution is to place the image above the heading, so that the heading stays with the text. I have been doing this in all the major art and architecture articles for the last five years or so. I have worked professionally as a layout designer and illustrator, and design every page that I work on to look as good as possible on a variety of screen formats i.e. every layout has to work on both narrow and wide format screens. Getting them to work well on wide screens (increasingly the norm) is the most difficult.

Please don't change the left/right arrangement of pictures simply in order to conform to the MOS. Most rules in the MOS are guidelines. They are not set in cement. The rules certainly apply to things that are done badly, but when you look at an article that has obviously been laid out very carefully, and the layout works in terms of usability, then it is not appropriate to force the rule, just to comply with the MOS.

Amandajm (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Amandajm. I appreciate your efforts on the St. Peter's Basilica article. I'm not questioning your skills as a layout designer or illustrator, but I think we may have different views on the purpose of this encyclopedia's Manual of Style. I think the purpose is summarized in the introduction to the MOS:: "The Manual of Style documents Wikipedia's house style. It helps editors write articles with consistent, clear, and precise language, layout, and formatting. The goal is to make Wikipedia easier and more intuitive to use. Consistency in language, style, and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion."

I based my recent changes on these two Manual of Style points: 1) MOS:IMAGELOCATION "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph." 2) MOS:IMAGESYNTAX "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences)." After reverting my edits, I saw you changed your fixed sizes, which is good. It allows readers to set their own default image sizes. Accomodating personal preference is important.

Regarding image locations, placing an image in the previous section above a heading does not address the intent of the first point. It is also not consistent with the third bullet here: WP:MOSIM. Breaking the left margin with an image at the start of a section affects readability. When people read, they rely on the left margin when transitioning from one line of text to the next line of text. This is especially true when transitioning to a new section. Please go back and move the images into their appropriate sections (per WP:MOSIM) and change the locations of the three images you placed on the left at the start of sections. These are minor changes that will improve the article's layout and make it consistent with the Manual of Style. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

To address the point of transition to a new section: When the new section heading is positioned directly above the text to which it pertains, then the transition is simple. Breaking sub-section headings from their text is problematic. The left placement above the heading solves this problem.

The MOS statement that a picture ought to be in the section that it belongs to is dream world stuff. Many sections are too short to contain the picture that pertains to them, yet require illustration, if possible. In such a case, the picture needs to be put wherever it will fit best with the other material, both written and illustrative. This might be half way up the previous section. it is a case where the MOS rule is plainly inappropriate for anything except longish sections and smallish pictures.

Obviously, the main solution to the positioning of a left-hand image so that it doesn't split caption and text, is to place it above the caption.

This is about taking a pragmatic view of the MOS.

If you are looking at this on an upright or comparatively narrow screen, then you probably don't realise that your edits (changing the order of the pics that were right and left) simply changed which pictures were breaking through the heading sections, so that instead of having a relevant picture beside the heading, the heading (in a couple of instances) was being displaced by an irrelevant picture.

In the case of a major heading, where the heading is already separated from its text by a line, a picture can sit under the line just as well as text can, without disrupting readability.

So far, I haven't bought into the MOS, except over the matter of the writing of alt captions, where the previous recommendations were just plain stupid.

Article layout is one of those areas where very few people really have a clue about how to produce articles where pictures and text are going to work together effectively. I could write a manual on it, but probably, for the average editor, a simple instruction like "Put the picture in the text it belongs to" is sufficient.

My general comment to you and other people who want to enforce the rather inadequate manual of style, is that there are thousands of very messy articles to work on. It is better to fix what is obviously not working, than to enforce a rule upon something that works even if it doesn't comply.

With regards to the resizing, once I discovered how to "upright =" size images, I have made it my standard practice, but still haven't gone around the traps to fix every major article that I have worked on. Since you apparently know how it is done, please don't turn artworks and other important images into minimal thumbnails without applying that option.

Amandajm (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Bob Dylan

You recently moved the Dylan and The Basement Tapes links down to the compilations section. I always understood those to be considered studio albums. Do you know of any sources that say definitively one way or the other? The Wookieepedian (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The only change I made to Template:Bob Dylan was to add a new title (Bob Dylan Gospel Tour). I also added years to the tours. User:PJtP moved the two titles. I agree with you that they should be considered studio albums. Bede735 (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. The Wookieepedian (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Altenburg Abbey

I have expanded this article. But there is an img of the layout of the Abbey which has legend in German. Can you pl translate it into English and include it in the caption and also under the section heading of Layout.--Nvvchar. 08:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice work on the Altenburg Abbey article. I added the English translation of the legend to the image page (File:Stift Altenburg Grundriss 1.jpg) and added the image and caption to the article. Also, a sala terrena is a large formal room with access to a garden. Bede735 (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You are welcome to add or correct from the German references (website of the Abbey) which I have used. I have used google translate and there could be some oddities in the translated version.--Nvvchar. 10:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Altenburg Abbey

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Lechtal Comment

Hi Bede. The normal practice on Wikipedia is that we translate the compound German noun Footal as "Foo valley" if there is a river Foo running through it e.g. Rhine and Rhine valley. Of course, particularly in the Alps there are valleys whose name is different from that of the river e.g. the Leukental and its river the Jochberger Ache, so we tend to leave -tal untranslated. But the Lechtal has the River Lech running through it. So could you please help me understand the analysis that suggests Lechtal should be preferred over "Lech valley"? Most book sources as far as I can tell, use "Lech valley", but I'm assuming your research was more in depth than a quick browse of Google books. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bermicourt. While "Lech Valley" appears in English publications—frequently as a parenthetical translation—I believe the more common presentation in English sources is "Lechtal", as it appears in Baedeker p. 353, Michelin p. 207, Fodors p. 443, Walking in the Alps (Cicerone Guide) p. 410-14, Off the Beaten Track Austria pp. 27-33, etc., and popular English language travel websites, such as Tiscover, TripAdvisor, and the English translations of official websites, such as www.tyrol.com. Some sources present both, as in Frommers p. 406, while others split the difference with "Lechtal Valley". The -tal placename ending is widely used on the English Wikipedia, as in Lechtal Alps, Brixental, Hochpustertal, Kaisertal, Kaunertal, Ötztal, Ötztal Glacier Road, Pitztal, Pustertal, Spertental, Tuxertal, Wattental, and the lovely Zillertal. I think the article title Lech (river) is correct because Lech Ache or Fluss Lech are not widely used in English publications. Bede735 (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly true that both are used in English sources, but a quick tally on Google books produced 33 English sources using Lechtal (excluding "Lechtal Alps"), but some 120 using "Lech Valley" or "Lech valley" including Encyclopedia Britannica and Frommer's guides. So on all counts - WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CLARITY and WP:USEENGLISH - it appears that "Lech Valley" is the primary name. You will have seen from many other articles I have created that I try to be even-handed about this e.g. Pillerseetal, Karlstal, Spertental are all untranslated for the reason cited above (thanks for adding some nice images to some of those articles BTW). I'm willing to work with you on a more detailed research of the sources, otherwise I would be grateful if you'd consider assisting me in moving Lechtal back to "Lech Valley"? Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we're using the same MOS standards, but we've reached different conclusions. If you feel strongly about reverting the article title back to "Lech Valley", I'll support that move. Bede735 (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I'm not in a hurry to revert it. Instead I'm wondering whether it's worth improving the guidelines instead, to make this sort of discussion unnecessary. Based on translating a few thousand articles, many geographical, I've tried to flesh out the basic convention here. However, I've found in practice that most editors ignore these project-generated guidelines in favour of the Wiki-wide ones, especially WP:COMMONNAME. Problem is that it's much more complicated when translating from another language. English sources may use a variety of options. There may be two or more different English translations include upper/lower case variants (e.g. Valley/valley) as well as those using the native name. In the latter case, how do we know whether it's deliberate or because the author didn't know how to translate it? Sometimes there are very few, or no, sources. In which case, should we not follow the usage for similar, more common ones. And so on. It would be useful if the well-known conventions like WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH recognized this and gave greater weight to (sensibly agreed) translation conventions IMHO. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I will admit that my approach to such issues has been to apply Wiki-wide guidelines to such questions, and rely on consensus to work out the complicated cases. I took a quick look at the project-generated guidelines and I think you've done a very good job. I would like to review the guidelines more carefully and perhaps provide some comments later. I've added the project page and conventions page to my watch list so I can better follow the issues being discussed. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Knopfler

Don't know if we really need the whole list of awards, but I like what you've done with the discography -- comprehensive, but not sprawling. — Bdb484 (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the summary lists provide a good overview in the main article. The chart numbers and certifications, as well as additional recording credits, are available in the two discography articles. Regarding the honours and awards section, there's no reason to exclude it if properly sourced—it's a fairly common section in biographies. Bede735 (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

John Wayne's talk page

Hi. I have written in Talk:John Wayne#How is the links I inserted not better?. You are welcome to discuss it there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Towns in Austria

Just so you know, it wasn't actually my edit that caused that, but a related series of edits by other users to {{Infobox Town AT}}, the template that's being used to generate the towns' infoboxes.

A user applied a coding change to the box yesterday so that the template (which autogenerates a content category for transclusion onto the page that it's being used on) wouldn't categorize the page if it was being used on sandbox drafts in userspace, but their change accidentally caused about 1,200 mainspace articles about towns in Austria to get picked up by the uncategorized pages tools, which is the problem I was starting to fix earlier today. Because of what happened, however, another editor temporarily reverted the infobox change this morning, and then a third diagnosed the coding error and reapplied the intended edit correctly — and that edit seems to be what caused the pages to start displaying extraneous coding.

It seems to be easily fixed, however — on all three of the pages you pointed out to me, I just did a null edit and that removed the extra coding. So I'll do a quick batch run in AWB to null-edit the affected pages so that they're back to normal. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Bearcat. I appreciate your quick response in fixing the Infobox Town AT template. Bede735 (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES

I have opened a formal RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Request for comment on the deprecation of left-aligned images under sub-headings,an issue on which you commented in previous discussion there. DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Move to close at NPOVN

The topic here seeks comment on its proposed resolution with consensus. The new consensus would alter the consensus of the discussion you participated in here Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Nice Article Clean One Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 10:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Annie Oakley (poster).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Annie Oakley (poster).jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I provided the source in my previous edit. The copyright holder is RKO, as indicated. Bede735 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Barbara Stanwyck

See WP:SIZE. Also, it's rarely a good idea to have so much duplicated content. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarity, please note that WP:SIZE applies to "readable prose" in the main body of the text and excludes "material such as footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", bibliography, etc.), diagrams and images, tables and lists, Wikilinks and external URLs, and formatting and mark-up." I restored my original revert because I think the inclusion of such lists is helpful to readers who print the PDF articles or simply want to scan the actor's history in a convenient way. If you disagree, please seek consensus on the article's talk page. Thanks. Bede735 (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Melville Novels. Books. or Travel Adventures?

Hi Bede735; Your good work on the Melville template and a number of the articles brings up a question that has been swept under the rug, namely the genre of the first books. It's pretty clear that Typee and Omoo are based on HM's own experience so are not exactly fiction. He presented them as actual, though we know that he made up or plagiarized a lot. He used the word "narrative" in several cases. So "book" seemed to be a workable compromise because the lead didn't seem to be the place to go into an argument one way or the other. Maybe "travel adventure" would be better. But you are quite right to make bold edits and raise the question.

The other question is the Template, which to be sure now says "novel." You seem to have some experience with this. Would it be a technical problem to change the category from "Novels" to "Travel adventure and novels" or some such? This would finesse the problem, if it could be done.

Cheers in any case, ch (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, CWH. It looks like we left messages at the same time. I can see your point about Typee and Omoo not being "novels" in the traditional sense. As you noted on your talk page, we should explore the issue on the Herman Melville article talk page. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Stability of article GA candidate Gary Cooper

I'd like to review this article for GA but I have some concerns about stability.

Can you summarize for me the conflicts going on with the article and on the talk page?

Is there a way the parties involved could come to some understanding before the GA Review begins?

— Cirt (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The article was rewritten recently by one editor who removed significant sections of sourced content with no input from editors who have worked on the article for some time. This editor's rewrite contained multiple errors, poor writing, and immature editorial decisions. This editor's GA nomination was inappropriate in that it did not meet the basic criteria of stability and MOS compliance. I plan to improve the article in the coming weeks. As for the editor in question, he should learn some basic rules of editing and civility. The article's talk page reveals his level of maturity. I recommend removing the GA nomination until the article has reached the appropriate level of quality. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I see. That's most unfortunate. I've suggested to Jonas Vinther to remove his nomination, as in that case due to what you say you plan to do the article isn't stable. Regardless of whether or not I agree with your above assessment, the ongoing disagreement and impending new changes to the article means it's not yet stable. — Cirt (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Gary Cooper

For the sake of the article which we have both worked on, why don't we just squash our differences so the article can pass the next GA-nomination in terms of stability? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is not ready for GA nomination in its current state, so I do not support its nomination at this time. As the GA reviewer indicated, the article failed based on stability per WP:WIAGA. I have made significant changes to the article since that assessment, and I am still in the process of making changes. If you have additional issues with the Gary Cooper article, please address them on that article's talk page. Bede735 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

One day, we need to talk about the differences in the "real" world versus "wikiwonderland's"" idea of citing and giving bibliographical notations which basically make no connection to most standard forms of Modern Language Association and American Psychological Association style guides. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

As for numbers, I usually use whole numbers from one to nine as words, and while numbers from ten on as figures or numerals as it just makes for easier reading. The style of entirely written out numbers is most often used in British and other than US publications. Most style guides simnply leave the option open but advocate a word use from zero to nine and numerals from then on. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 12 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Gary Cooper page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Bede735 (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Iceberg edit

You are kind. Thank you for your appreciation. I worked hard on that as a non native speaker :-) 85.193.218.118 (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gary Cooper

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gary Cooper you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Review done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

How are we doing? The lead still looks long. I don't think you need to mention hobbies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a second cut. Bede735 (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gary Cooper

The article Gary Cooper you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gary Cooper for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. One thing I just noticed is that there's a lot of photos in the career section but none in personal life or below, it might be good to add a few photos to those sections to balance it out a bit, although it is useful in some places to have the images accompanying the film performance. It some places there does look quite a lot of them though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the images again and see if some can be moved to the other sections, or at least add new images to the later sections. I found one of Hemingway and Cooper that might go nicely in the Friendship section, and a trailer screenshot of Cooper and Neal from The Fountainhead could be added to the Romantic relationships section. In the last few days, I made notes on potential areas of cutting:

• American folk hero, 1936–43 – The first half of the fourth paragraph "In contrast to his output ..." could be deleted, and the rest moved into the previous paragraph.
• Mature roles, 1944–52 – The entire fifth paragraph, beginning "In the next two years ...", could be deleted.
• Later films, 1953–61 – The first paragraph, beginning "Following Cooper's appearance ..." could be deleted.
• Marriage and family – The last paragraph could be trimmed and moved to a footnote.

Do you think I should make these changes now, or hold off until the Peer Review? Bede735 (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Images are usually looked at there so I'm sure somebody will mention it, if not they will at the FAC!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1