User talk:Paul A/2005-1

Pictures

[see User talk:DrWho for the missing bits of this conversation]

Can you elaborate on the history of Image:Ainley095.jpg and Image:JohnLevene.jpg? They've both been labelled as being in the public domain, but it hardly seems likely that either photo is old enough for that to be the case.

Also, what is the origin of Image:Deserter.jpg? (If it's a movie screenshot, it ought to be marked as such with the {{screenshot}} label.)

--Paul A 03:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have just seen your message now. The above two Doctor who related photos were taken by me in 1984 and I am releasing them into the public domain via Wikipedia.

As far as the Deserter image it may be a screensnap but I don't really know. I think it should be under far use. Did I label these pictures wrongly? DrWho 15:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bond template

Hey, since both the JamesBond template and Bond movies template are identical, I changed the lesser used James Bond template to link to other articles pertaining to James Bond. Since I've seen you contribute a lot of discussion on various James Bond articles, I thought I would get your opinion on this. Do you think this is a good idea? Template:JamesBond K1Bond007 02:47, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, and I like it. It looks incomplete without links to Bond novels and Bond movies, though. --Paul A 03:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good call, I'll link those right away. K1Bond007 03:55, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry.

I'm sorry if I got a little annoyed on my user page about the photograph situation, but I was a little bewildered! I don't know all the ins and outs of the subject, I just wanted to be helpful and submit some of the photographs that I took personally regarding Doctor Who. I'm so confused. I just wanted to release them it's good that the subject is taken seriously but it is honestly beyond me. Thanks for your help. DrWho

Thank you!

Thank you for doing the summary of The Secret Garden. I was doing it, but I just wasn't summarizing well, so I quit. sorry. Lee S. Svoboda

Thank you!

Thank you for doing the summary of The Secret Garden. I was doing it, but I just wasn't summarizing well, so I quit. sorry.

Lee S. Svoboda 21:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll

see User talk:Number 0

Graham Richardson

moved to Talk:Graham Richardson

Category name changes

Why are you changing "U.S." subcategories to "United States" variants? Was there a discussion on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion that I missed? Just curious... Postdlf 03:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If there was, I didn't see it. I just did it because it seemed like a good idea at the time. --Paul A 08:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Horatio Hornblower

Hi,

I reverted your edits of Horatio Hornblower. I think we do need so much details in Wikipedia. Besides, if there is very detailed description of The Secret Garden why it can't be so much detailed Horatio Hornblower? Nevertheless, I'll try to trim it down somehow and move excesive details to pages about each Hornblower books. Przepla 21:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Secret Garden is not a good counterexample: it needs trimming, too.

On reflection, though, I think you're right; the Horatio Hornblower edit wasn't really excessive detail, I just didn't feel like doing all the spelling corrections it needed. (And I was grumpy about there not being a spoiler warning.) The idea of moving the details to the relevant book descriptions is good, though. --Paul A 02:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John Fletcher

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and have done some recent work on the John Fletcher pages. I was wondering a technical question...why is "John Fletcher" directed to the playwright rather than the disambiguation page? It seems to me that the disambiguation page would be a better, "more fair" target for "John Fletcher" than the playwright page OR the theologian page. Perhaps there is a technical Wikipedia thing of which I am not aware. Just wondering! KHM03 20:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that the "fair" approach assumes that people are as likely to be thinking of the theologian as they are of the playwright, but this does not appear to be the case. As an indication, internal links to the playwright outnumber internal links to the theologian by around 10 to 1. In cases where one meaning of a topic is by far the most common, Wikipedia policy allows for that to have the plain article title, with a separate disambiguation page. (Another example is Rome, which is an article about the city in Italy instead of a disambiguation page.) The most obvious advantage is that if someone links to [[Topic]] without thinking to check whether it needs disambiguating, the link is more likely to go where they meant it to. See also Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Types of disambiguation. --Paul A 01:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering then if it would be appropriate at the top of the John Fletcher page, rather than having a link to the disambiguation page, to have a link to the theologian's page, since they seem to be the only two out there? I'm looking at the page for "Cream", which Wikipedia cites as an example of this. Thanks for your help in clarifying. KHM03 12:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

image:Krypto_Resolved.JPG

see User talk:Michael Reiter

re:Krypto_Resolved.JPG

Seeing as it isn't Public Domain, How about Fair Use?

User_Talk:Michael_Reiter

Television Series

[see... actually, I have no idea where the other half of this conversation is now. Sorry.]

Paul,

For {{tvseries-stub}} there is a scope note, as there should be for all categories, stubby or not. The scope note, associated with the category @ Category:Television series stubs says:

This stub template and category are for television series, individual episodes of series and people, places, and things associated with particular television series.

If you do not find this a reasonable scope, then please say so at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria; just add a new topic to the page (not the Discussion page, but the project page. Personally, I think it is a reasonable scope.

Courtland 23:35, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing, I won't sort any more stubs into the category until you've had a chance to air your grievance, as it sounds from your tone like you do have a grievance. Courtland 23:40, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

I didn't answer your question? Then you'll need to rephrase it I think .. for instance, what articles are you talking about that I mis-categorized. I could have always made mistakes, but I can't answer to something I don't know about ... as far as I know I've only added stubs that match the category description (which I wrote when I made the template and category). Thanks for clarifying. Courtland 02:23, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Yes; Dr. Julius Strangepork comes under the "...and people, places, and things associated..." part of the scope. If you would prefer restricting the scope, though, it can be brought up for discussion as I suggested a couple of replies back. Courtland 02:32, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

OK, now I understand. I'll not get into a discussion of the definition of "about" but rather suggest that the wording be changed to This is a television series-related stub article. Maybe a more explicit statement would be better, like This stub article is about a television series, a series character or episode, or some other aspect of a specific television series. Courtland 02:56, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Disney animated features

There is an anon who's been placing those articles in Category:Disney animated features canon in Category:Disney animated films, for no reason other than to cause trouble it seems. Thanks for helping remove those redundant categories. --FuriousFreddy 15:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. (My first assumption, seeing as it's an anon, would be that he/she just doesn't understand yet about how subcategories work.) --Paul A 07:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

American radio show about wikipedia

Hi

My name is Robin Amer and I’m a producer for an American public radio show called Open Source, which you can check out at www.radioopensource.org.

I’m writing you because this week we’re doing a show on Wikipedia including an interview with Jim Wales. We’re also looking for some particularly passionate and interesting Wikipedia users to talk to, especially users outside the US. I would love to talk to you about your involvement with the site. If you are interested, please give me a call at 617-497-8096, or email me at robinamer@riseup.net and send me your phone number.

Thanks so much.

Best, Robin Amer www.radioopensource.org

Edgar Allan Poe

Hi! I noticed you have previously been involved in editing this article, and it is currently being worked on to try to raise it to FA standard. If you are interested in helping improve this article once more, see here. Harro5 00:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)