User talk:Pegship/Jan2007

Patrick Scott

This artist has no connection to the UK so I have reverted your sub-sort. Notjim 22:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sidons' Law

Can you check print refs on this bold action when you have a few minutes to rummage printed sources at work. No hurry, but zero web (except law offices— YUCK!) hits indicates something! Let me know (eventually <g>) what you find. Thanks, and a Very Happy New Year, lass! // FrankB 17:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get well soon!

And thanks (Din't look at the contribs, as has been there since June-July, and going back takes time. Good Job! Dang!)

Just what is your definition of 'hurry' and 'urgent', all things considered? <g> Many thanks! // FrankB 19:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Tamil-stub

Well, Classical Tamil redirects to Tamil literature, but the WP is called WikiProject Classical Tamil, so I'm not sure which should be used. My guess is to side with the WP here, and rename {{Classical Tamil-stub}} to {{ClassicalTamil-stub}}, perhaps with a redirect from {{Tamil-literature-stub}}. If you want to do this, I would suggest adding this to the SFD page for today so that they get closed on the same day and I (or whatever closing admin) can take care of it at the same time. At 41 articles and an associated WP, this is probably a keeper and should be listed on WP:STUBS. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006

The January 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

From Mr. Blofeld

Thanks Pegship. I thought it might be useful for other users who may want to develop American film stubs. I unfortunately am way!!! too busy at present to write up the stubs. I have been continuing with adding new film articles from Argentina and 1930s US films and compiling the filmogrpahy of Canada in List of Canadian films and the lists of missing films. I also had to start the first episode of one of the greatest TV series of all time Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased), I don't know if you have ever seen it?. See My Late Lamented Friend and Partner. I created this earlier What do you think? When I have time I will complete all 26 epsiodes and I created that box down the right of the page to connect it all. It is also important because it roots out missing actors such as Dolores Mantez I started earlier. And you are ill? Flu? I hope you get better soon . Saludos! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created th category Category:Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) earlier which will house all of the episodes and new articles on the characters such as Jeff Randall, and alos a category within it for th actors so eventually at the end of it we should have a detailed category of all the actors who have appeared in it. I have been adding the category to the actors articles and mentioning it in their articles. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whereabouts Unknown

Ok, I will start the category and populate it. But I'm not sure we're getting anywhere with the discussion. We learn interesting things, but any applicable results are still cloud-hidden. I tried to put the existing Cat:Films "tree" on paper, but it's getting too big for my desk. I'll try Visio and see if I can make a presentable graphic. Another thing: would you mind if I attempt to tabulate your /backup userboxes? Nothing personal, it's just highly challenging for hoverfishes. Hoverfish Talk 15:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. I have always had such a headache with those; userboxes all seem to have varying parameters as to spacing, etc., so getting them to line up is a pain. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hopefully to your liking. Hoverfish Talk 18:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the obvious items went in the new category. Now we have the "about"s. Is this "Category:Lists of films by topic", or should I pass on this? Hoverfish Talk 17:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ghm, er... and please, see if I have any mistakes in the text I added in the Lists of films. I will be looking for a good grammar checker soon. Hoverfish Talk 20:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESB

You said 95 articles for Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, and Chile combined? There are now 120 articles for Argentina alone should reach 300 pretty soon and as I said I have been filtering down a list of feature Argentine films and have only reached AN. Aslo when Argentina is done Brazil will ahve an even longer number of films. I then aim to write each article into full detail with images and detailed synopses and start all of the notable actors and directors. ALso check out my Randall and Hopkirk mini project!! 95% by me Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong template stub

On Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy you added {{StarTrek-DS9-episode-stub}}, when it should have been {{StarTrek-Voyager-episode-stub}}. I don't know if there were others that had the same mistake or not. I fixed it on that one page though.[1] -- Bovineone 16:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Adam Bayliss

He is an Austrailian film producer whose films have been featured at the New York Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender Film Festival. I noticed that you contributed the article on the festival. The Bayliss article is in AfD and needs some documentation of his significance. Do you have sources which might help to persuade the AfD editors of his notability?

Thanks.

Kevin --Kevin Murray 19:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't picked on you lately

and since I figured you might know... <BSEG> Don't you just love waiting for that other shoe to drop...
Are there any copyedit templates, such as '{{repetitive}}', '{{regorganize}}', '{{Awkward}}', etc that can be tagged on something in-line like {{dubious}}, {{fact}} and such? Thanks, may help with a mediation for a lad with rough edges. Sigh.
Do you get into the FAC process at all? // FrankB 06:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dazed and confused?!!

You? Far for it to be for a proper gentleman such as I fancy myself to tolerate that, or the dismaying way it apparently impacted on your self image! <g> Try WP:FAC--Featured article candidate/criteria, iirc. That help? // FrankB 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm, you're soooo quiet! I guess the answer is no. Well have a flower for the trouble. There should be some bennies to being picked on, after all! And check yer email. Did you get over your cold or whatever yet? Take care. // FrankB 19:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novels by X

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For enabling consensus on Novels by Author categories. RobertG ♬ talk 10:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I add my appreciation to the thanks of others for the work you carried out here? That consensus seemed pretty clear, and it encouraged me to reinstate my proposed naming convention guideline here, on which I had previously given up! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 10:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub categorizing

Your message in WP Films Categorization came just as I was thinking to ask you to make a short subsection at the end of Overview about how to give additional categories by stubs. I've read somewhere that if we have a drama-film-stub, there is no need to also give the category. This sort of thing and also where one should find all recomended film stubs (for some reason they are not all in one place). Cheers and congrats for the tireless Barnstar. Hoverfish Talk 09:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something strange: I tried to sort the category in Template:Music-documentary-stub by *, so it would leave from T. Then all the films of the category got sorted by *. Then I took away the * sorting, but all the films stay sorted by *. Uh-Oh! Hoverfish Talk 19:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't worry about it and I never give a cat as per stub. It's just that I am picking the articles from the Category:Music documentary films, so it's already there and I don't take it away. Thanks for explaining on defaultsort. I'll be using it. Hoverfish Talk 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot: Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#WikiProject Films Award. Hoverfish Talk 22:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LIS

Hi Pegship, I have a few questions regarding LIS I'd like to see answered by a librarian:

In the Netherlands informatiekunde (information sciece) is a field which has it's origins in bibliotheek- en documentatiewetenschappen (library and documentationsciences) but nowadays mostly associated with informatica (computer science). Worldwide you will now see not only many departments of library and informations but also departments of computer and information science at universities. I therefore assume the situation is the same abroad.
- The article on information science is written from a "computer and information science" perspective. How accurate do you find it from a "library and information science" point of view?
You said that "Library and information science is the current term for our profession". Did you mean that the library and information parts are strictly inseparable, or that your profession nowadays encompasses two related but distinct fields? (From talk:library science I get the idea that the latter is the case.)
- In the first case, shouldn't the library science article be moved to library and information science? ***However, from the talk page I get the idea that it are two distinct fields and that the article focusses only on "library science" and not on "information science".
  - Furthermore, Encyclopædia Brittanica's article is also titled library science (and has a separate article on information science, both roughly correspond with Wikipedia's articles.) So even if the current fashion is to call this field library and information science, wouldn't it be better to keep the article at library science to avoid people which are not intimately familiar with librarianship to think these are two separate fields instead of only one (and rename the category for consistency?)
  - As far as I know and have read information science provides the theoretical foundations library science, but also for other fields like medical informatics. If this is correct, I think it would be preferable to have clearly separated categories for information science, library science, medical informatics, ... Naming the category for library science Category:Library and information science might be unnecessarily confusing?

Cheers, —Ruud 02:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LIS stub and portal

You said in the CfD: ". And I really want to keep the portal name and the stub template as is; the stub template wording distinguishes the discipline from the physical buildings, and the portal name...well, it just sounds elegant."

but the stub template now reads: "This library-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it" (which I do not think separates the subjects) so I think you mean that it puts the article into the Category:Library and information science related stubs, but among them are many many stubs for libraries as buildings/organizations. There must have been another version? I see no harm about the present state, since at present there is only 1 information-science stub among them. .

As for portals, I don't think there are presently enough information science people around to maintain a portal of their own, but at the moment the content of that page lists only librarianship topics, so maybe it should be re-edited once we get the category straightened out.DGG 05:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the stub category is Category:Library and information science stubs, I assumed the scope was for LIS. (See the June 2006 renaming discussion here.) So perhaps it does need rescoping, or renaming. Same with the portal, I guess. I'm just trying to keep the words "library/librarian/librarianship/library science" from disappearing off the face of the earth, bumped off in favor of "information science" which, as we all seem to agree, is not synonymous. I seem to be in the minority, so I'll work with whatever comes along...I'm personally very tired these days (not the fault of anyone at WP), so not in the mood for a lively debate at the moment. Thanks for your comment - Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomic assistance

Whatever it is, the host of WikiGnomes is on your side. [2], [3] Hoverfish Talk 20:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESB

Hello your pegship. Please could you upload the correct icon for spain-film-stub as with Argentina, Finland and all the others. -you know with the flag inside the film. Cheers Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoverfish

Hi. I found something in a book's Talk page you might want to check. Being a talk page, I'm not sure what rules apply: Talk:All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. If it is appropriate, it's fine with me. Hoverfish Talk 18:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a personal essay & not appropriate for article space, however heartfelt. If a user wants to post it on her own user page, that's probably OK. I went ahead and deleted the text. Thanks for the heads-up - Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if you took a minute to clarify this "heads-up" for me. I looked it up and found it as a poker term but am not fluent as for its use, and I do hear it quite often. Hoverfish Talk 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<g> See "heads up" in Wiktionary. As used here, it means a comment meant to draw attention to something. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good to know. </g> Hoverfish Talk 23:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Films Newsletter

The January 2007 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. Thank you. Nehrams2020 06:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Trajansmarket.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Trajansmarket.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey 22:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually you did specify the source, but the licence information is a bit lacking. I have not found a statement of release under the GFDL at the source. Can you point to it more explicitly? —xyzzy_n 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It’s not really explicit… I guess David Chaszar won’t object, but I can see other people not making this assumption. Could you try asking the guy? There’s an e-mail address in an old version of the page, davidchaszar-you-know-what-hotmail.com. —xyzzy_n 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for sorting compulsive behavior. Say, that's not a compulsion is, it? ;-) --Uncle Ed 14:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]