User talk:D'Ranged 1/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:D'Ranged 1. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

2011 posts

the apprentice series 7

I believe that it is helpful to have the names of the candidates in the infobox and the current order of the names does not suggest the order in which the candidates leave, as they are 'to be confirmed' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyboy819 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

tbc is what is has been changed to already. isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyboy819 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

i agree about not starting an editing war, but i dont understand what is wrong with putting the names in the infobox as they're not in any particular order this is shown by the fact that if they haven't left the show 'TBC' is put alongside their name in the 'left show' column —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyboy819 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

ok, thats great by me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyboy819 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Feedback

Your request for feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 May 12 has been replied to. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Columbian Review (added from feedback site)

I have to say my biggest concern is the tone of the article. It does not seem to encyclopedic. For example, "A sheet of flame" seems more journalistic. Also, you may want to take another look at the guide for reliable sources. I'm not sure if they are all reliable. Other than that, it looks pretty good. Beautiful categories. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As for Canadian editors... I do not know who you could contact (I'm a little far from the True North for the next two years). Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - I will continue to work on the article and may ask for further review. I appreciate your time and consideration.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 13:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)"

Don't know if you're still following this; if so, you might be interested to know that my "beautiful categories" were decimated by another editor who pared them down to the lowest specific category, which apparently is what we do on Wikipedia. I disagree, but won't start a war over it. I think at some point (when I have more time and energy) I may argue the policy as being too limiting and preventing folks from finding things they're looking for or stumbling upon things that are of interest that they weren't necessarily looking for. Cheers.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 01:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry it took me so long to reply. Like most human endeavours, the perfect categorization is not agreed upon. I still think you included good categories, but different editors have different ideals. The rewritten lead looks pretty good to me. If you need to get my attention (for anything), perhaps you should contact me on my talk page. If all of the requests seem to be finished at RFF I don't return to check on them. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Lord Sugar

Hi there, er... "Lord" Elton John? Really? Anyway, you might be interested in Baron#Style_of_address. They are referred to as "Lord" and then their surname, not "Lord" then first name then surname. I don't know if you watched earlier series of The Apprentice (looks as if you are a fan, so I'm guessing you might have!), but you might remember he used to be called "Sir Alan" by the contestants, and now they call him "Lord Sugar". Elton has a knighthood, so it's "Sir Elton". Common usage isn't really relevant if it's incorrect.--Beloved Freak 21:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant "Sir" Elton John. I'm not a fan and can't remember how I got involved with these articles in the first place. In my experience, Wikipedia tends to err on the side of common usage. They do so with article names, at least. I don't' want to start an edit war, so I'll leave it alone. It might be nice to find a way to work his first name into the lead of the article, though. If you're going to change it in the series seven article, you may want to look at previous articles and change it there. I've already removed the {{Main}} template from the other articles.

Happy editing!—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 22:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I've no intention of warring either, that's why I didn't change it back. I may have a look tomorrow when I'm less tired. I see no reason why we shouldn't just call him "Alan Sugar" at the start, as that's what his article uses. Later mentions could be "Lord Sugar" maybe, to tie in with what they call him on the programme. The "common usage" thing is fine to a point, but not when we're wrong. Just an example off the top of my head, lots of people think Tiffany & Co. is called "Tiffany's" because of the book/film, but that doesn't mean we should call it that (we do redirect to it though...) Anyway, not quite the same but hopefully you get my point. I'll stop going on about it now... :) --Beloved Freak 22:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't be wrong; I was just under the impression that sometimes we didn't care and resorted to common usage. Go ahead and change it back, but please do have a look at previous articles in the series. I don't know when "Sir" became "Lord", so I'm sure it doesn't apply to all of them. I'm too lazy to suss it out myself. And yes, I'm American, and yes, I used "suss" :-) Take care!—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 23:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and changed it on series 6 & 7. Series 5 claims (and that fits with my memory) that he was still Sir Alan at that point. The only thing I can't quite suss out is whether he should be later referred to as "Lord Sugar" or just "Sugar". The manual of style guidance on this is a tad confusing to say the least. (Either is correct in the real world, but according to the MOS? Who knows...) I'm sure someone will fix it later if it should just be "Sugar". Cheers, --Beloved Freak 09:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I still can't remember how I stumbled upon this topic, but I'm the editor who split the long, ungainly single article into six articles and therefore there is now a seventh instead of yet another section in an impossibly long article. (A literally thankless task, by the way - apparently no one noticed it had been done - or at least no one commented on it.) Splitting it was much more work than I anticipated due to the way it was constructed; I think I got all the links fixed, but I'm not promising. If you see any that aren't working, send some forgiveness my way and fix them, please?

Thanks again for your editing.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 01:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Steamboats of the Yukon River

Hi, I am answering your query placed at Template talk:Refimprove here as that page is really for discussion of that template and your query was a lot wider. Firstly let me explain that I am only another editor just like you (although I have been around a while), but what I am telling you is only my opinion and may not be 100% correct:

In answer to the question of which tags may be appropriate for the referencing on this article i would suggest {{no footnotes}} or {{more footnotes}} as there are plent of references listed but it is not clear what they are related to. If there is anything that is particularly controversial you can use an inline {{fact}} template in the body of the article. For a whole section you could use {{refimprovesect}} for poorly referenced or {{unreferencedsect}} for completely unreferenced sections. Do note though that there is some opposition to putting these tags on short articles, obviously true facts, or indiscriminately throughout an article. It's often better to try and fix the problem yourself.
The inline "References" and the "Notes" could be split out into two different sections, see here on how to do this - although I have to admit it looks complicated.
There is no policy that sources need to be available online, see the verifiability policy here or (although not policy) this essay. I checked a couple of the listed general refs's and they are available to preview on google books so you may be able to check them there.
Copyright of lists, this is the best advice I can point you to. If you feel the content is in violation then follow the instructions at the copyright problems page
I would suggest that the lists of ships be split into one or more list articles as they are very long and the history at the top into another, but that is just my opinion. Try asking at WikiProject ships to see what they think.

Hope this helps,

regards,

ascidian | talk-to-me 00:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I think the {{no footnotes}} template is the best for the situation. I don't want to start working on the article, frankly. I was looking for something else and stumbled across it and noticed the lack of inline citations and footnotes passing as references. I may not even tag it, I haven't decided yet what (if anything) I'll do. Thanks again for your considered response, however.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 01:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there D'Ranged 1, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:D'Ranged 1/Sandbox 1. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sternwheeler Columbian disaster

Looks much better. I have removed the tag. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)