User talk:Belovedfreak/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Belovedfreak. 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.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Œil-de-bœuf

Belovedfreak,

I do not understand why correctly-spelled Œil-de-bœuf was redirected to this Oeil-de-boeuf.

This is how Wikionary spells it : [1]

--Frania W. (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the article's at Oeil-de-boeuf, probably to do with WP:UE. I don't really have an opinion on it, was just creating the redirect so that Œil-de-bœuf wasn't empty.--Beloved Freak 16:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Phil Taylor is a GAN again

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I have nominated Phil Taylor for GA again, do you think it will gain the GA status this time? It would be great if you could review it. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk ^guestbook 18:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's OK, it was reviewed by someone else; sadly it failed agin but I will not give up until it is a GA. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk ^guestbook 10:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've only just read this. Sorry it failed again, but good for you for wanting to keep improving it. I wouldn't have reviewed it anyway because I've already reviewed it once for GA, and for PR, so I think it's better that someone else looks at it. Good luck with it though. It might be an idea to try and seek out some editors that have written FAs and GAs on sportspeople, and try and get some pointers from them.--Beloved Freak 16:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, i'm going to try that. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 16:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS September 2010 Newsletter

The September 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Church of St Peter and St Paul, Ormskirk

On 2 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Church of St Peter and St Paul, Ormskirk, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for St Mary's Church, Purton

On 2 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Mary's Church, Purton, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for St Andrew's Church, Wanborough

On 2 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Andrew's Church, Wanborough, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Valhalla

Thank you for tidying it up, I didn't wnat to take it on myself ha ha. Tom Green (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh - no problem. :) --Beloved Freak 14:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Boys Don't Cry

Thanks so much for going through the article! I will request it to be copy edited to fix prose. I am not sure how to get this request completed, though. I have not been editing on Wikipedia for very long and I am still getting used to it. Most of the questions I have regarding your problems with the article are on this page. Once again, thank you so much! Ashton 29 (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I will have a another look if you like and make some changes to the prose. I didn't change too much other than obvious typos yesterday but I can see if there are improvements to be made. Having said that, I'm not the best writer in the world so it wouldn't hurt to have someone else look at it. You could try making a request at the film wikiproject, where you might find people who can write well, and are also interested in film articles. There is also the option of putting in a request at the Guild of Copy Editors. I've seen mixed results from there, but in the first interest we want to get it readable enough for GA. (That sounds bad—I don't mean it's unreadable as it is! Just could use a bit of polishing! :) ) I'll give you a bit of time to work on it, but I will go back to read and respond to your comments. It'd be great to see that article be featured one day, so I'm happy to help if I can.--Beloved Freak 17:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is in response to the comments on my talk page: I understand your issues and it's fine, I don't mind going with whatever needs to be done to improve the article, so feel free to edit it where you feel is neccessary. If there is a major change needed, let me know. One user recommended starting a book reference for the article, however I have never done this before and I am not sure how to. I understand that a few FA pages for films have a booklist (Fight Club, American Beauty, Halloween). I also do not mind you editing the citations and sources, that is one of the main things that I wanted to improve for the consistency and that they source the statement correctly. Thanks once again! Ashton 29 (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've worked on the citations and added some more comments to the peer review. I'll have a look at some books I have access to and see if I can find anything relevant.--Beloved Freak 20:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

GA

Hi, thanks for the notice, but I'm not sure how to do what you said. I mean I did place my info under the nominators, and it came up that I was the reviewer, however it disappeared :s. Maybe a bot?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically, you don't have to edit the WP:GAN page at all any more; not to nominate, not to review, place on hold, pass or fail. All you do is edit the template on the article talkpage. So, in this case, you would edit Talk:Telephone (song) and where Legolas has added

{{GA nominee|12:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)|nominator=— [[User:Legolas2186|''Legolas'']] [[User talk:Legolas2186|(talk2me)]]|page=1|subtopic=Music|status=|note=}}

you add "onhold" after "status=", (if you've put it on hold). The bot should then update the GAN page. What I don't get, is that it should have updated the GAN page when you started the review page, to add your name there. It may be because you manually added your name to WP:GAN; then the bot undid your edit here for some reason. It's all a bit confusing! I wouldn't worry about it, but I just wanted to let you know that the procedure has changed recently.--Beloved Freak 12:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, thank you for the detailed explanation! :). I was aware there was that change in the system. It is weird, those damn bots lol! Anyways, thank you

--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no problem! --Beloved Freak 20:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lancashire churches

Thanks for the very good articles you are writing on these churches. And thanks for the links you made to the Paley-Austin lists, which is how I found St Bartholomew's Church, Colne. I've added a little to this article. Also for St Wilfrid's Church, Ribchester which I spotted in the waiting list for DYK. Keep up the good work. I had intended to write some articles on the Sharpe-Paley-Austin churches, but you are saving me some work. The trouble is I've got involved with conserved churches, such as here. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah thanks, that's very kind of you to say so! I'm quite enjoying these church articles, which is a bit of a surprise to me. I'm learning a bit about architecture too! Thanks for adding to the St Bartholomew's article. I didn't realise the Ribchester one was at DYK! I'm well aware of your CCT articles; I still have your talkpage watchlisted so I keep seeing it pop up as you add another one you've created, or you get another DYK credit. I'm always impressed by your level of output! Anyway, these churches have certainly distracted me from a variety of other stuff I wanted to get done, and at some point I would like to do some more work on some Fylde-related articles. I'd quite like to see at least all the Grade I listed churches in Lancashire having articles. I've noticed that quite a lot of the architectural terminology articles are not in great shape (as I keep having to look things up to see what they mean!); might be nice to improve some of those too. More distractions... :) --Beloved Freak 00:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree about articles on architectural terms. There is Glossary of architecture of course, but this is not always adequate, and you can't really make a link to it. I'm certainly no expert in architecture but, like you, I'm learning. I've even written some tiny stubs; Broach spire and Poppyhead (carving) come to mind. Fortunately the Pevsner series has a pretty good glossary, as I'm sure you know. But the descriptions of roof structures baffles me (so I usually leave it out — someone else can add that later if they have a mind!). I did write some articles on Lancs (and Cumbria) Grade I churches, but then got led astray by conserved churches.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about the Pevsner glossaries. I may make more use of those. Its one of the good things about Wikipedia that people can read about a church they're interested in without having to already be an architectural boffin, because they can click on a (hopefully) nice helpful article that explains the terms used. I do keep expecting someone who knows about these sorts of things to come along and read one of "my" articles and ask me what the hell I'm on about.--Beloved Freak 13:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You just point to the fact that everything is verified by reliable sources, and then invite (challenge) them to improve it (with full inline citations of course). Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My GAN reviews

Hello again. I am not sure about the way I am reviewing GANs and think that I might be too easy on the nominators. Could you please have a look. Here are my 3 reviews – review 1, review 2, review 3. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 18:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mr K... glad to see you're getting into reviewing. I'll try and have a look at those tomorrow, and let you know what I think. --Beloved Freak 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Have given some thoughts at Mr. Kennedy1's talkpage.--Beloved Freak 12:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for going through each review and it's good to know that I am improving with each one. I will try to do a joint review for my next one but do I still put myself down as the reviewer or do I do something different? I have one more question though. Is it OK to change the criteria during a review like I did with History of FC Barcelona? Once again, thanks so much for looking at my reviews. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 14:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And yes, I was talking about changing the symbols, the way you suggested is a good way where I go through the criteria then suggest changes and when they are done, go through it again. Thanks for the reply. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for St Wilfrid's Church, Ribchester

On 14 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Wilfrid's Church, Ribchester, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Favor

Hey BF... Belovedfreak... how you been? Long time no talk. I know it's late but I want to take you for reviewing "The Fabian Strategy", very much appreciated. Listen, I want to ask a favor; if you have some free time, is there a way that you can look over the plot for "Reaganing" and see if it "makes sense"? I want to submit it to GAN, but the plot is what's killing me right now. If you can't, all is cool, but if you can... AWESOME. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, you're welcome! I'd be happy to take a look at "Reaganing". It might not be until Sunday though. I'm too tired tonight to concentrate on it properly and I'm not sure what I've got on tomorrow, but I'll look at it tomorrow if I can. Otherwise, Sunday! :) --Beloved Freak 21:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking over "Reaganing", and suggesting your plot which I went with... hope you don't mind... if you do... damn I got a problem. Yeah, the Liz revelation story I wanted to cut down and then "tease it" later but it didn't make sense so I added the story to see if it worked, but afterwards everything didn't start making sense. I wrote the plots the way a non-30 Rock reader would understand, but it didn't make sense to me, but with your interpretation everything makes sense, which I'm very grateful. Listen, if you have a favor or whatever please let me know about it. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome; of course I don't mind you using it. It's probably far from perfect and may need tweaking some more, but hopefully it works better from the perspective of the reader who hasn't seen the episode! I know it's hard to get that distance sometimes when you're very familiar with the source. :) --Beloved Freak 17:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry for the late response, been busy... working on stuff. Okay, cool [on you not minding your revision of the plot being used] cause I was like he said use a little or some of his revisions in the article. I know that you haven't seen the episode and if you're interested I know you can watch it on NBC.com... I think... maybe not cause you're overseas... gonna have to find this out. Yeah, that's true. I've read all the sources available to make sense of the plot, sometimes what they write doesn't match up to what others write; it's always something different. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No the episodes on NBC.com don't seem to work for me. Apparently they aired the first couple of series in the UK on channels I can access, but they've since moved to Comedy Central, which I don't get. I think it'll have to be the DVD boxsets at some point! --Beloved Freak 20:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought, since NBC is from the US. You should rent 30 Rock it really is a funny show, and I'm not just saying that. If you do rent them I recommend renting the first two seasons cause they are hilarious and I'm sure you'll like it. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Emmanuel Ray

Hi. I've spent the day attacking the 30-day NPP backlog. You can now go ahead and cut more if you wish. The creator has had time enough and there is really too much to be done to expect other editors to sort the mess out and clean it up. I have left an appropriate message on their TP. --Kudpung (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Saroj Ghose

Dear Belovedfreak, Thank you for correction of the newly page created. I am gathering more informations with citations on Saroj Ghose. With regards. Biswarup Ganguly 12:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :) --Beloved Freak 12:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2010 Newsletter

The Octoberr 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Burkina Faso

Thanks for taking the trouble but I fear it's is a waste of time!

The integrity [and long term viability] of Wikipedia is placed in jeopardy whenever data are manipulated to benefit donor recipients by vested interests. References here can be and are manufactured and whenever effort is made to confirm the data it turns out that the reference is "borrowed" from elsewhere and is, in fact, irrelevant or simply out of context!

But the articles, per se, appears impressive what with the many numbered citations and footnotes - just what the busy sponsor needs to glance over as he/she hauls out a cheque-book "so the good works may continue."

But Potemkin facades crumble, Wikipedia is discredited and the perpetrator moves on to fresher fields using, in this case, the Burkina Faso articles as "proof" of her/his ability as another noveau riche sponsor is cozied, coddled and milked - again with the "assistance" of Wikipedia.

Usually I would just ignore these confidence tricksters but their actions are tantamount to borrowing a crippled/starving baby to draw sympathy from passers-by. And all the baby gets out of it is a rag moistened with dirty water!

Burkina Faso and Wikipedia are both, in this instance, werry badly served... Semperlibre (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Mitchell Parsons review

Thank you for taking up this peer review. Your attention to detail is very much appreciated. I have implemented most of your suggestions and left responses for a few where I have questions regarding your advice. KimChee (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you once again for the prompt feedback! KimChee (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

KimChee (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You're very welcome. Good luck with it. :) --Beloved Freak 20:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Website names in italics.

Thank you for taking an interest in my edits to Listed buildings in Fleetwood which you have substantially reverted. Perhaps you are not aware that field 'work' is supposed to appear in italics - at least it is in templates such as Cite web, for some reason 'work' is not mentioned in the instructions for Citation. Why this should be I don't know, but part of the idea of templates is to create a common look and feel for Wikipedia articles. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Per WP:ITALIC, print works such as newspapers, books, magazines and journals (and other works not relevant here) are "supposed" to be in italics. Websites are not. I like to use the {{citation}} template when I write articles, to help keep a "common look and feel" for Wikipedia (we seem to be working towards the same thing there!). The workaround I use to remove italics from website titles is one I've picked up from other editors when I've had articles reviewed at WP:GAN. (Some editors use tags to achieve the same thing, but I prefer to slightly reduce the number of characters used). I'm happy with the effect and haven't seen a compelling reason not to use it. Thanks for taking the time to explain though.--Beloved Freak 14:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying the website names should not be in italics because websites are not on the list in WP:ITALIC? I really cannot see why website names should not be treated the same as newspapers, books, magazines and journals. More to the point, Template:Cite web puts them in italics and that must have been used thousands - maybe millions - of times on Wikipedia and is therefore a de facto standard. I cannot see that there is anything to be gained, but if you really want to resist that trend you should seek consensus on an appropriate talk page. Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really use {{Cite web}}, so I can't speak to that. As far as I'm aware, consensus already exists that website titles are not in italics. Print sources are, non-print sources are not. That's my understanding. "Resisting trends" is really not my intention. I just get on with editing as best I can, tweaking my editing habits to match what I pick up from my own GA nominations and peer reviews as well as reading as many peer reviews, GA reviews and FACs as I can. In addition to the guideline I mentioned, I have seen many editors say that on Wikipedia, website titles should not be in italics. It's not something I push onto others if I'm reviewing a GA nomination, but as far as my own article-writing is concerned you haven't really convinced me that I'm doing it wrong.--Beloved Freak 23:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my intrusion, but I too have "suffered" from this sort of thing. There seem to be two families of citation templates, the "Citation" family, and the "Cite X" family; they do not always produce the same result, which is silly. Some of them also produce italics where the MoS do not advise there should be italics, which is sillier. I do wish the GA, FA, etc people would sort this out with the template writers. I suppose I ought to campaign about this, but I am too lazy to spend time in controversies; I'm here to write articles (at least that is my interest and intention). Good luck with all this stuff! Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If there is a conflict between WP:MOS and the citation templates then that is clearly a problem - quite a serious one. I am not sure I want to try and resolve the issue. What started all this was an automatic part of WP:AWB that removed the italicisation from a 'work' field and that is going to happen to pretty much every article visited by AWB. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The templates can be problematic, I don't blame people for not using them at all, but I find it slightly easier to use them. For example, sometimes the title field gets italicised when it shouldn't be, if the publisher and work fields haven't been filled in to the template's liking. Like you, Peter, I'd rather just get on with writing stuff than get involved in controversies, although I perhaps have a slight weakness for trying to follow rules (definitely a weakness, not a strength!). The problem is, the "rules" are a bit fluid. This particular article is nowhere near FLC yet, but I'd like to get it there one day, and I've made those website titles non-italic to avoid it coming up at a review, like it has at this current FAC (Brianboulton's comments about half way down, search for "italics"). I don't know about templates, so I don't know what to suggest. I just see the AWB issue as something that crops up on my watchlist every now and then (along with bots) that occasionally needs fixing. (Like this one that broke the article's citation templates.) I don't blame the AWB users or bot operators, I know a ton of valuable wiki-gnoming gets done for every mistake (or conflict or whatever!)--Beloved Freak 18:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Excellent Userpage Award
		I dig it! — Hun ter Ka hn 04:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh.. thanks. I mostly purloined it. :) --Beloved Freak 17:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bells

If you want a good up-to-date site for church bells (you may have found it already), try Dove's. The entry for Poulton-le-Fylde is much as you stated in St Chad's Church, Poulton-le-Fylde, but a contemporary, online source might be better. By the way the Fleetwood listed buildings list is looking promising. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was meaning to look at that as David Underdown has mentioned that site to me previously. Probably should have done before I edited, but never mind! I have a few bell titbits from Cheetham's book to add to a few articles, so I'll check them out on Dove's too.

I'm quite enjoying these listed building lists, thanks for your encouragement! I need to get some more pictures for the Fleetwood and Blackpool ones, but waiting for when I have time and it's also a sunny day. That's getting harder! And I'm finding the lead sections quite challenging. I'll probably put the P-l-F list up for FLC soon, I just keep drawing a blank in the lead! --Beloved Freak 19:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's funny; I see there are 8 bells now, not 6. Cheetham actually made a comment along the lines of "there are 6 bells but 2 more spaces, as if 2 are likely to be added in the future." I guess that was right!--Beloved Freak 19:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Billie Holiday: Strange Fruit (Music Sample)

Belovedfreak,

I'm afraid this might not be the right forum for this question but I need your help and I was not sure how to contact you.

I just listened to the short sample of "Strange Fruit" (File:Strange_Fruit_(Billie_Holiday).ogg) that you added to the article "Strange Fruit". I think the arrangement is beautiful. But it is not the studio version I know. I tried to identify and buy the version the sample is taken from but I couldn't find it.

Which album is this version from? When was it recorded/released?

Thank you very much!

Matiguri (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry but I don't think I can help you. I have no details on the song in my iTunes, I think I got the track from a friend, but there are no album details. I don't know if you've tried looking on the iTunes store, but there are several versions on there by Billie, and you can listen to samples, so you might find the right one. Allmusic lists the various albums the song appeared on, and many of those tracklistings also have samples, so that might help. Other than that, you could try our reference desk where someone might be able to help. If you do post a question there, you can link to the file like this:

[[:File:Strange Fruit (Billie Holiday).ogg]]

Sorry I can't be of more help!--Beloved Freak 21:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll have a look. I already waded through samples of about 80 versions on amazon ... :) Matiguri (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

How do we change a title to a page?

The following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Naylor_(voice_actor) refers to Robert Naylor as a voice actor; however, he is an Actor who also does voice work, per various sources already listed in the references. I therefore wonder how to change the title to Robert Naylor (Actor) Winniep32 (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, we change page titles by moving the page to a new title (as long as it's available). You won't be able to do that yet, as you won't be "autoconfirmed" until you've made at least 10 edits. I've moved the page for you, as I agree that Robert Naylor (actor) is a better title here. If you do want to move pages in the future, you can read about it at Help:Moving a page, but please be careful, and read about how we title articles first, as it can be complicated. (Note for example that I have moved the page to the title that uses a lower-case a for actor). --Beloved Freak 13:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Another question re: titles

Thanks for the change to Robert Naylor (actor) - however, as I check the cast of Arthur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_(TV_series) which has a link in Robert Naylor's page, their is a cast list. Robert Naylor however on the Arthur page cannot be clicked on to direct the reader to his page. How does that get changed? Do I simply edit the Arthur page? I also notice that when I click on any other cast member name, their page is strictly titled with their name, it does not have (actor) after it. Just wondering why the difference?

Thanks again Winniep32 (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, firstly the page titles. We don't normally give pages about people titles that include their occupations. That is why most of the people in the list have pages that are just titled with their name. With Robert Naylor, however, when you go to Robert Naylor, there is already an article about somebody else with the same name. So, for "our" Robert Naylor, we have to add (actor) to make it clear which one we mean. This is what we refer to as disambiguation. Sometimes, if there are several people with the same name, we have what is called a "disambiguation page". For example, there's quite a well-known actor called Richard Thomas. If you (or anyone) types "Richard Thomas" into the search box, you'll be taken to a disambiguation page, Richard Thomas. As you can see there, we have several articles on people with that name. As we don't know which one a reader is looking for, the list there should help them find the right person. In the case of Robert Naylor, there are only two on Wikipedia as far as I know, and we don't generally make a disambiguation page just for two. If you go to the other Robert Naylor, you'll see that there's a notice at the top of the page directing readers to the actor, in case that's who they're looking for. That's the basics of dismbiguation. It can be a bit more complicated so I'd recommend reading Help:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Disambiguation.

Now, to add the link you want to add, you simply edit the Arthur (TV series) page. To make a link to another article, you just add two square brackets on either side of the name, so if you were linking to Robert Naylor, you'd make it look like this: [[Robert Naylor]]. You did this with this edit, although you added the words at the end of the sentence, instead of just "wikilinking" the words that were there. In the case of Robert Naylor the actor, as we know, the article title is different. We don't want it to look like this: Robert Naylor (actor). Luckily, we can make a piped link, using the "pipe" character which looks like this: |. That makes the link display as the text that comes after the pipe. This probably sounds complicated; basically, you would type the link as [[Robert Naylor (actor)|Robert Naylor]], so it would display as Robert Naylor, but still links to the correct article. You can read more about this at Help:Piped link and Wikipedia:Piped link, also Help:Link. Hope this helps, let me know if you have problems.--Beloved Freak 15:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference request

Hi Belovedfreak. I saw your request for a paper at WP:REX, I can't access it myself, but you might be able to get hold of it by contacting the author, through the email on their website. SmartSE (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the suggestion. I hadn't thought of that & was giving up hope of getting hold of the article! That's a good idea though, so I'll try it.--Beloved Freak 21:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit to Joseph Merrick page

Hi I'm not particularly familiar with Wiki and its workings....but I can confirm first hand (as the composer!) that Face To Face was indeed a musical about Joseph Merrick and his relationship with Dr Treves, the surgeon at the London Hospital. I believe that you may have edited a slightly incorrect statement out...

The facts:

"Merrick" - a musical written by Danny Davies (composer) and Judy Wolfson (lyricist) was first showcased as a series of songs with narration, at the Pleasance Theatre, London in 2001. A limited edition CD was released and sold through Dress Circle Records in 2001. Pete Gallagher (who played Treves in the showcase) then joined the creative team as the script writer to produce the full version musical which was completed in 2007, under the new title "Face To Face". This show has been showcased in parts at various locations including Cardiff's Global Search for New Musicals (part of the International Musicals festival hosted in Cardiff) and, indeed, the first full production of the show took place in November at Council Rock High School South. Yes, a school production (but it has to start somewhere!). A single "Shadows Of Evening" sung by the original London showcase lead, Stephen Weller was released in 2009 and is still available on iTunes.

Verification of the Musical may be found on the Pirate Management website: piratemanagement.com.

I've no idea how to update wiki (it took me ages to learn how to join!) - but do feel free to reinstate the comment removed or...better still...please do update the page with the facts above!

Many thanks

Danny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirateman dan (talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied at Danny's talkpage.--Beloved Freak 11:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Internet linguistics

Hi Beloved Freak, thanks for offering to help me with some of the technicalities. It has been resolved. I would like to invite you to review Internet linguistics (as a GAN) if it interests you and would not be too much of a trouble. Thank you very much. Lai eric (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Internet linguistics (2)

Ah, silly me, you're quite right. I'm familiar with the situation of the school project going on at GAN, and I should have checked the talk page history first. Don't worry though, it doesn't sound patronising at all; I'm always open to constructive criticism from everyone. Regards, wacky wace 16:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No harm done, we live & learn! :) --Beloved Freak 21:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Darius Rucker

I took care of all the issues mentioned in the GAN. I also caught a couple things that were unreferenced and fixed them up. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Esprit15d has agreed to check the sources they added. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what's left now? Just adding the access dates for the web sources? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: infobox on Joseph Merrick

Thanks for your attention. I'm not that invested in the issue, but I do consider it desirable that biographies should contain infoboxes, as a general rule. They are standardised and aid consistency among bios, in addition to providing basic information at a glance.

I'm aware of some fields where it has been found difficult to create good infoboxes (mostly classical music and the visual arts), but I don't think these issues apply here, since Joseph Merrick is a general interest biography and it is easy to summarize the person's claim to notability. --Dwiakigle (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I would agree in many cases and for the most part, I'm a fan of infoboxes. For Merrick, however, the important details and claim to notability are all in the first couple of sentences. He doesn't have important "stats" like a sportsperson or model, or several occupations to summarise. There isn't the genre/instrument information you'd get in a pop musician article. There aren't the easily summarisable details that you get in a politician article. The names of his parents aren't desperately relevant, neither is his occupation as a hawker. I also think its difficult to adequately summarise his possible medical condition in an infobox.

The boxes help standardisation & consistency across similar types of article (by which I don't just mean biographies, but types of biography), but Merrick isn't doesn't really fall into an obvious group. I can see reasons for having the infobox, but stronger reasons against. I'm not saying "absolutely not" but I'd feel more comfortable gaining some consensus for its use first. --Beloved Freak 20:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)