User talk:Plange/Archive1

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watch it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific nations or periods.
Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 03:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I posted the notability tag when there was nothing on that page, all it told me was that Barney was a lt. in the Confederate navy. I still am wondering why he is considered notable, but I will remove the tag since there is more context. I didn't want to see the article deleted, I just placed the tag to let you know that notability wasn't stressed. Right now, I think it's fine, so I'll remove the tag. If anything arises please leave a message on my tak page. Yanksox 17:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Infobox Question

Oops, my mistake. I'll just blame my keyboard for that one. I'm not even sure how it happened. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I have just had a look at this in use on Mr Bennet and I would post details on Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum for discussion. Also you should look at the Discussion page of the Template for some documentation, something in the style of the Template talk:Infobox Book page. I have also made a slight correction on both pages. Firstly there was a carriage return missing in the "Pasttimes" display, and I changed the legend for the 1995 UK series as "Mini series" is not the description used for UK TV series. This is a US description which is inappropriate and also only came into use (to my knowledge) during the arrival of the blockbuster "miniseries" of US TV during the 70s and 80s. So I altered some earlier ones as well although I an not sure of their origin. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 _t 22:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very late welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Plange/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — Brenden h ull (T + C) at 23:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novels WikiProject Newsletter June 2006

Here is a new initiative for our project. You are recieving this as you have at some point signed up as a "member" of the project. Have a look at the newsletter via the link and see what you think. The June 2006 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. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Fireflyvarietyad.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fireflyvarietyad.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:IMD-1151.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:IMD-1151.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup article

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia and wanted to help on an article you recently tagged as needing cleanup. It's this article: Jayne Cobb What things jumped out at you as needing work? I can then try and tackle those, thanks! -plange 00:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The article seems fine to me. I was actually just sorting it into an individual cleanup by month category (see here). The actual user that flagged the article is JQF. I have no idea why. I would suggest either contacting him or removing the tag yourself. As I said, I see nothing wrong...but thanks for the nice message! --Alphachimp ^talk 00:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Maritime task force

I can't really think of anything other than tagging talk pages offhand; but I'm not much of a naval warfare person myself, so I don't know the state the articles and categories are in at the moment. Once some more editors working in those areas join up, it'll probably be easier to figure out what needs to be done content-wise. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, keep me posted... plange 22:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See FAQ #2. Why not rate them as you go? (I suspect that you're in a position to give them more accurate ratings than I would, considering how little I know about many of these topics.) Kirill Lokshin 22:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! And I wouldn't worry too much about trying to be conservative, since there are only three levels in the importance scale. Kirill Lokshin 22:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 issue of the Military history 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:H55226t.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:H55226t.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Firefly/What is canon?

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Firefly/What is canon? (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 00:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPFirefly template

Hi. I see you've copied some of the WPBeatles template to make this template, which is fine, great and what wiki is all about. However: Please please please, although this is wiki, people still deserve credit. I can see some of my own code in there, and no credit in the edit summary. When I contribute here I don't release to the public domain, I release under GFDL which guarantees my right to be credited. So, all I'm asking is if you copy stuff in future please include a note and wikilink in the edit summary saying where you copied from. Thanks. (No reply needed). --kingboyk 11:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll credit you, but am confused, because the only thing I took from your template was learning how an if statement works {{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments and just the general wording for the link to the comment page. The rest I already had and used the military history template as the basis. I'm new to Wiki so don't know all the rules so please assume good faith on my part, thanks!plange 16:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request I've been tweaking this template and I'm still working on it... but I got it partly sorted. I use the convention of responding where stuff is started so you should continue the discussion there, I've replied in more depth. I stil have more to do and I'll see if I can slot in a credit to Kingboyk and myself somewhere as well as crediting milhist... if you think it excessive feel free to remove it again. Another reaason for the credit is to be able to know where to go for help when OTHER projects copy from you... ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity

We definately need to push this up to featured article status. It'll get the word out to the Wikipedia community. More money for Universal = more of a chance of a sequel. The Wookieepedian 22:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree, but am bummed it just got knocked down from GA status :-( Trying to get that rectified. I liked your re-ordering and renaming of some of the sections! I posted a message today on fireflyfans.net to help hunting down the sources in the Production section. (I'm PLANGEGA on there)...plange 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I modeled my rearranging around the layout of the Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith article, which is an FA. The Wookieepedian 22:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I saw you worked on that! Do you have experience in trying to edit down plots? I gave a stab at it, but still feel it's a bit long and blow by blow like. Also worried it's too in-universe, but not sure. plange 22:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might ask User:The Filmaker for help on that part. He did a very good job cutting down to the essentials on the Revenge of the Sith article. The Wookieepedian 22:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered that I was recommended for the job. I've never seen the film, nor the series. But I have wanted to see the film for sometime so I'm going to order it off of Netflix now. I should be able to cut down the plot within the next week. :) The Filmaker 22:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Maybe we'll make a Browncoat out of you! I've pared it down some more since I wrote you, but it still needs work. Thanks a ton!

You can keep the plot sounding in-universe. (If you "out" it too much, I fear it may sound choppy). It's the plot afterall, and one should be able to clearly tell what the film is about, once they've read it. --P-Chan 02:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award

I moved your Browncoat Award from Wikipedia:Wikiproject awards to Wikipedia:Personal user awards. There is a protocaol that all Wikiprojects Awards have to get vetted first on the proposal page. If you want to place it on the Wikiproject Award Page, please post it on the proposal page to first have it reviewed. --evrik 14:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

um, okay, didn't know that since it didn't say anything at the top of that page. Where is the proposal page? I'm a Wiki noob and it's very bewildering all the rules and guidelines that mysteriously exist. I know they must be somewhere but it would be helpful if links to them were given where it's relevant (i.e. on this project awards page). Not saying this to be antagonistic, but as a suggestion from someone who's still feeling overwhelmed by the vastness of Wikipedia and desperately trying to learn :-) plange 15:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, found it!plange 15:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Newsletters

No, at the moment it's done by hand (at least by WP:MILHIST). We're looking at some automatic way of doing it, since the list is getting too long, but nothing concrete has come up yet. Kirill Lokshin 16:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novels WikiProject Newsletter July 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The July 2006 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. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity picture

Just thought I'd let you know that I added the source of the picture under its summary section. -- Underneath-it-All 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! plange 15:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly GA nomination

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, it slipped my mind. When I made the comment on the talk page I was unaware of how the GA process works - I assumed a vote the way FA articles work, but it's a decision that can be made by a single person, and I'm not comfortable making that call myself.

I also wasn't aware that the GA criteria are nearly as stringent as the FA criteria, but that GA is meant for shorter, less comprehensive articles. Firefly seems pretty long and comprehensive to me. If I was making the call, I'd suggest getting some more references throughout the article, a comb-through/proofread or even re-write by someone with good grammatical skills to assure consistency of language, and going straight for FA. - dharmabum 20:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity FA

I think Serenity could be a FA. I have been making comments and pointers as to how this can be done at the entry's talk page. I think, after we clean it up and re-tool it, it stands a good chance of being an FA. TruthCrusader 13:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "Big shiny welcome"!

I responded a bit to this on my Talk page, too, but I figured I'd post over here so you knew I had and all. :)

Hi! Thanks for welcoming me to the project! :D I was happily surprised to see such a quick response, as every other time I've joined a WikiProject, I'm usually lucky if anybody even notices I'm there. :P *coughFanfictionWikiProjectcough*

I'm trying to dig up a source as we speak; I do know that everybody I saw talking about it on FireflyFans.net was always saying "and they only spent $10 million on marketing!", or "but you have to figure, they also spent $10 million on marketing, they also have to make that back before we can really hope for a sequel"... again and again, "$10 million". Not any other number but that. Definitely sourcing it, though. :)

And hey, no prob on the reorganization! With so many things relating to its promotion, it needed to have subsections, and it wasn't difficult to do thanks to the way it was already written (e.g. the sneak previews paragraphs were already on top, the online promotion stuff was right under that, the charity screenings stuff was right below that. I didn't even need to break a paragraph! Can you say "way shiny!"? :D ). ESPECIALLY on the "Charity screenings" section, which got smooshed into "Promotion and release" after being in its own section, which is weird, considering it's just as much a simple charity fundraising drive as it is promotion for the film, really (also, you'd think the amount of money raised and number of international screenings would be notable enough for it to have its own section, but I guess not. At least my previous addition, referencing the website it was all organized through and such, got kept, though!). I was also thinking we could include the "Serenity Now/Equality Now" logo next to that (as it is, on my screen size, at least, the R. Tam sessions picture is right next to the "Charity screenings" section, and plus, the logo is pretty neat-looking), but I've never added a picture before, so I'm sorta afraid to try it, especially with me already having a weird-sized moniter (my laptop has a "widescreen" screen. Which is great for viewing anamorphic widescreen movies, but apparently not exactly nominal for viewing the more complicated Wikipedia page layouts). I'm also thinking of renaming "Charity screenings" to "Fan-organized charity screenings", as the it's very much of note that it's not Universal, but the fans themselves that organized it. In fact, really notable, considering that fan involvement in Firefly/Serenity is much higher than it is in many other fandoms, especially regarding the film itself. In fact, I'm going to go do that now, after I've finished adding in those sourced "Other themes" somebody brought up on the Serenity (film) Talk page. :)

By the way, in ALL of the Firefly/Serenity articles' nifty ol' "other articles thingies" (I can't remember what they're called, actually), "Companion" leads to a disambig page. Surely there's enough material for a small article? I mean, there was at least one article on Companions (and similar historical figures as Companions) in the "Finding Serenity" book Jane Espensen edited, and there's a lot of material on them in the series, too. Surely there's enough for a small article, and there's a "Companion" link in EVERY Firefly/Serenity article, so should we not start an article on it at some point and change the links to point to it?

UPDATE: In the process of my writing this response, I actually ran across a source[1] that put the marketing budget at not $10 million but $20 million (quote: "...the 40 million production cost figure is before you add in $20 million in marketing costs"). Argh. I have no idea how accurate CinemaBlend is for these things or where the writer was getting their figure from, though, so it's not helping, either. >.< This reminds me rather painfully of my recent work on Pie Jesu, where I searched and searched and searched endlessly and never did find the piece's origins (luckily, another user knew them, and so we were all spared the horror of not knowing that the Reqiuem piece Pie Jesu was based on a poem and has undergone several different musical incarnations featuring a paraphrase of said poem. Yay for the collective Wikibeast!)Runa27 03:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novels Collaboration of the Month

You supported the idea of a Novels Collaboration so our first is The Mystery of the Yellow Room, which has been selected as the Novels WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article towards featured article standard. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just about got this up and running. If you can please get envolved. thanks :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 issue of the Military history 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.

Userboxes consolidation support

What's on the slab Do not use these templates yet

You have recently either supported my userbox consolidation efforts or at least applauded them. Currently, I am putting together another larger batch of userbox deletions which will have master templates. (The master templates are not "live" yet.) Would you be willing to support me in this and any future consolidations? There will probably be a lot of resistance at first to this, so having a group of people supporting me would be greatly appreciated.

At the moment, 5 master userboxes are in the works to replace 72. That may increase significantly if I can get the sixth one to work as I would like. Some of the templates to be replaced are widely used, but with the consolidated templates there is more funcitionability.

Please let me know, you can click [edit] above as this conversation is transcluded to all.

Sent to: Aeon1006, Andrew c, BigDT, Billpg, Brian Olsen, Cyde, Gperrow, Khaosworks, Luna Santin, Marcus-e, MiraLuka, NKSCF, Pegasus1138, Phil Boswell, Plange, RedZebra, Rfrisbie, Riana dzasta, Stefanmg, and Tuspm
Lady Aleena talk/contribs 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's an interesting use of transclusion. :) Can't promise I'll always vote to support, but I imagine that in many cases I will. Feel free to let me know when you post them (I tend not to watch TfD too often), and as always I'll be more than willing to lend what technical advice I can. Luna Santin 22:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lady Aleena, as noted in an earlier discussion with you, I think consolidation is fine for thematically related userboxes. However, I also support diversity through mass customization, so I'm more inclined to support consolidations that maintain display differences in images, colors and especially wordings. That's easy enough to do with parser functions. I wish you all the best. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 22:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per the two posts above, I might very likely support it but I'll determine it on a case by case basis. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't overly care too terribly much. I will say that I think having generic userboxes is a good thing from one standpoint - it helps newbies learn Wikicode. If you can't just add {{User Hokie}} to your page but instead have optional parameters like {{User Hokie|year=2001|border=maroon|major=CS}}, that's definitely a good thing. BigDT 22:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here - case by case. I only voted on the Doctor Who box because it was part of the Wikiproject, anyway. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just let me know when you need my support LA, Most od th eboxes I use are aprt of a wikiproject anyways or made myself Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 23:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use userboxes, I only got into this because of the Doctor Who project. But I'd take a look on a case by case basis, certainly. --Brian Olsen 02:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BigDT. Userboxes with optional parameters taught me how to use Wikicode. A master template isn't a bad idea... hell, it should be like that for most userboxes. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 02:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do like this use of transclusion. I think I'll vote on a case by case basis, but I do like and support the idea as a whole. —Mi ra 02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also take a look on a case-by-base basis. --Gperrow 17:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have appreciated your efforts so far and will extend my support to similar "consolidation" projects. RedZebra 13:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you know of anyone who may be interested in this, just transclude this to their talk page as it is transcluded to yours. - LA @ 06:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs up! Stefanmg 11:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa ... time travel! ;) BigDT 12:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... I always copy some of previous posts. It's easier... I just forgot to change the date Stefanmg 17:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Far I like what you have done! See your Talk page to find out How much! Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One concern I have about this form of communication on a topic that admittedly might be controversial is the potential for accusations of recruiting for votestacking. What are others' views on this? Rfrisbie^talk 21:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had wondered about this, but unless I am mistaken, this is an uncontroversial tidy up operation. Stephen B Streater 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a lot of you have said, you will take my recommendations on a case by case basis. That tells me that you are ready, willing, and able to tell me when I have crossed the line. - LA @ 21:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just anticipating a potential issue so you can prepare for it. If anyone ever puts up a stink, you might want to disclose this page is here. But then again, it might never come up. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't vote on Wikipedia it should not be an issue hopefully. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 00:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other consolidations

Myers-Briggs

ENFJ: 26
ENFP: 48
ENTJ: 30
ENTP: 46
ESFJ: 15
ESFP: 7
ESTJ: 19
ESTP: 8
INFJ: 43
INFP: 80
INTJ: 135
INTJ2: 45
INTP: 151
INTP2: 34
ISFJ: 13
ISFP: 13
ISTJ: 69
ISTP: 42

Rfrisbie...have you thought about getting your Myers-Briggs templates deleted in favor of the combined one that Thadman created? That would be another 18 deleted. I did a survey of how many people were using each...

Some people have more than one of these on their user pages, so some of those are duplicates. I know that some look like a lot of people use them, but once we get people migrating from individual templates to master templates, it will get easier and easier to consolidate them. Hopefully we can keep user templates in Template space if we can show that we can police them. - LA @ 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LA, of course, we all know they're not “my” templates. I just moved some to userspace as part of the effort to find a userbox compromise most people could live with. I wasn’t kidding when I said I support diversity in userboxes. Although I think Thadman’s userbox {{User:The Thadman/Userbox/MBTI}} is cool, it displays differently than the others – only one color scheme with a set of profile scores – and it doesn’t use categories . I don’t have any problem with it or another template designed to consolidate the existing features of the other boxes for “elegance” reasons, as long as no features are lost. However, I do not see a “need” to do it. On a web site that went from 1 million articles to over 1.25 million in about four months, I really consider the number of userbox pages to be a non-issue. I’m also not aware of any material debates on keeping userboxes in templatespace if someone polices them. Maybe you can show me a link or two on that. In this particular case, it’s even more superfluous because all personality boxes already are in userspace (User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Personality) and the Wikipedia directory page was deleted. [2] Rfrisbie^talk 02:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on GUS on the WikiProject Userboxes talk page. - LA @ 11:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. What that shows me is that you are very well-intentioned in your efforts, your rationale for this process as a means to keep userboxes in template space is not supported by consensus, and the specific case of the Myers-Briggs templates does not apply, since they already are ugly in userspace. Sorry, I'm still not convinced of the need or consensus to do this. However, if you're still interested in combining the boxes for "efficiency," without changing the displays or categories, it's fine with me. Rfrisbie^talk 12:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have only gotten one reply to my initial statement. I wish that more people would comment for I really want to keep user templates in the template space. I will never use a user template in user space. - LA @ 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that LA I have been dealing with other issues, I agree with what your doing it should make things a lot simpler. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 17:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOTR

I've found a few more that may be worth consolidating: the LOTR userboxes. Luna Santin 02:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at those, however the merged template would have to have standardized wording. I will give it a good think. - LA @ 04:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Live master user templates

I have made four of those master templates live. I will not start the TfD process on the ones they are replacing for at least a week. I want to see how well they catch on without a TfD first. However, do you think that I could slip a little note onto the to be TfDd templates noting the new master without too much censure. The message would be in the box appearing on the user pages like a TfD, but not as obtrusive. - LA @ 06:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good idea. What do the others think? Æon ^{Insane Ward} 06:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 11:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the card game user templates have been marked with a message about the master template. The ones which are of different design are not marked as of yet. - LA @ 22:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion in progress

Here are the TfDs in progress...

August 7

~~User chess variants~~

~~Card game user templates~~

~~Idol series user templates~~

~~Newspaper types user templates~~

August 11

~~Prison Break~~

~~Law & Order series~~

Go take a look and tell the community what you think. - LA @ 07:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checked them out, went delete on all. Great Job LA! Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Aleena's userbox consolidation desk

If you find a group of userboxes which you think could be merged, place them on my userbox desk. Please alphabetalize them over the Edit section with NEW in the section name so it stands out a bit. I currently have 6 projects there. - LA @ 00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More user template deletions

To those who are still watching this, please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 25/User templates and give your opinion. - LA @ 08:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 19:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A member!

A member! My project has another member! Woohoo! Wjhonson 06:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Yep, I went to your user page and saw the project! I'm currently working on an article on John W. Johnston and have it as a candidate for DYN right now... Would love your feedback! I actually bucked tradition when I got my Masters (in Heritage Preservation) and wrote about an ancestor for my thesis -- boy did that make some department heads upset, but I eventually prevailed :-) They doubted I could be detached enough.... Anyway, am very into local history, specifically Abingdon, Virginia and other parts of Virginia. I was also a museum director for a local history museum for 7 1/2 years... -plange 06:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need more footnotes! Ok I'm joking. It's fantastic.Wjhonson 06:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Questions

I don't really think there's any need to disclose relationships with article subjects unless they're very close. If you're editing an article about your father, for example, it might be problematic; but for someone four or five generations removed, I don't think anyone will complain.

As far as manuscripts: simply putting them up on a website won't really help unless the site itself can be cited as a reputable source (which most personal sites tend not to qualify as). I don't really see any good way to use them at this point. (If you were to publish a secondary source—such as a book—based on them, however, the secondary source would be citeable.) Kirill Lokshin 23:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Biography project

Feel free to take as much as you want, but do keep in mind that some of the things we have may not be the best approach to take for a smaller or less active project ;-) Kirill Lokshin 05:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see efforts to get this project really moving. If there's anything we can do to help, let us know. Meanwhile, please keep those assessments coming! One thing - you will find with this project (which cuts across so many subjects) that you may be adding your template to a page that already has another project's template - in such cases the importance issue may arise. Your assessment of a King YYYY of XXXX may be that he is Mid-importance, but to WikiProject:Kings and Queens of XXXX he may be considered Top-importance. That would be totally appropriate, but you may start getting nasty comments on the project page, "How could you say that King YYYY is unimportant!" With bands/pop stars, TV stars and sports people, feelings can run very high! I think we probably need to discuss some general policy on how to handle this, with the Biography project as one of the main groups involved.

Maurreen has talked about having a Biography project at WP1.0, and she even went so far as to set up a page for this. However, we don't have enough people to run the project. If WP:Biography can get moving, I would love to see WP1.0 working with WP:Biography to produce a CD of biographies. Thanks, Walkerma 14:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Walkerma! Let me know what I need to do to help with the dialog for discussing the importance rating across WikiProjects.... Also would it be safe to say, then, that we should tag as "Top" anyone who is in the list that you posted above and its offshoot of eligibles? -plange 15:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Howdy!

Thanks for the hello. I make occassional forays into various Confederate history pages, but don't really have a organized plan of attack that appears to be your more methodological approach. It's more of what I am interested in on any particular night or correcting what I see as egregious errors when I am skimming what other authors/editors have done on pages on my watchlist. I wish you luck, though, in organizing the effort on the CS Navy and will help where I can. Nicholas F 21:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project tags

If you're going to be doing a lot of tagging for the bio project, might it be possible for you to add {{WPMILHIST}} tags to pages that are missing them at the same time? It would be a big help, as our tagging of biographies is somewhat haphazard at the moment. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops, I should have thought of that! I was rating the MILHIST ones when they were present, but for some reason didn't make that extra leap. Think I've been at it too long today :-) plange 04:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Garland

I was disappointed to see the Judy Garland article removed from the GA rating. Upon review of the article I beleive that it still is a GA but accept that it needs some (minor) work was the removal from GA down to the lack of citations solely in the "Addiction" section or were there wider problems? I use Wikipedia a great deal in my research and find when measuring this article against others it is more comprehensive and provides a solid overview of Garland's career and life that is useful and factual with good references and citations It has value for researchers professional or otherwise and that as "celebrities" go it is an exemplar of what those type of articles should be - Is there any way by which the status of the article can be reviewed and upgraded - This article has the potential to be a FA with only some minor edits.Vono 07:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAR note

Thanks for the note~ I've got so many of those notifications to do, that I hope I can remember you've set up a special section. If I forget in the future, please give me a gentle reminder, and move the notification as needed :-) Sandy 17:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Importance Scale

Whoa, hold on there! You seem to be using the Top-Class way too much! Can we restrict it to being used on only the most famous people, please? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've restructured the Taskforce discussion on the talk page, hope you don't mind. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 06:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Warfield Johnston

I don't know. It's a very well written article and you've referenced it very well. I'm not sure why I missed seeing it -- I would have picked it for sure (I think I was the only one updating DYK this weekend). Indeed, I would suggest putting it up for WP:GA even in the absence of a biography review. My apologies -- Samir धर्म 05:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:DYK

Your nomination was removed because it was created on the 24th, and articles can only be 5 days old to eiligible. I'm sorry it never got picked, I'm not an admin so I can't update, but most people's first nominations are rejected. I look forward to your future nominations! Cheers, H ig hway ^{Return to Oz...} 09:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

I've added you as an approved user of AWB, but not as a bot (which would be beyond my capacity as a Wikipedia admin but not an AWB developer; besides I don't know how the bot feature works). Please be sure to follow the instructions carefully and get a good feel for the software and it's features before using it in anger. It's a powerful tool. Cheers. --kingboyk 10:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return invitation

Having considered your proposition, I'm thinking that I should quite like WP:BRoy to remain its own project. However, I am not adverse in any way whatsoever to co-operating with WP Bio, and would wish to be a child-project of the Bio project - would this be agreeable to you? If so, I would be deeply honoured if you would join BRoy:

Plange/Archive1, WikiProject British Royalty wants you!
WikiProject British Royalty is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Yours, D B D

Jesus

I did not imagine that a project tag would become an issue. Maybe I should know better. I answered at [3].

Regardless of anyone's religion or lack thereof, he is one of the most influential people (beings?) ever, and the article really ought to be made into at least GA. But WP controversy is often not worthwhile.

Also, thank you for breathing life back into the biography project. You've done a lot, and you should be proud of yourself. Maurreen 03:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome to WikiProject: Bio. Michael 06:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novels WikiProject Newsletter August 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The August 2006 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. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Military bios

Let's see...

A liason department isn't a bad idea, but might run into some trouble in cases where you have multiple interested "ambassadors" from a single project. That's something you'll need to expect and be in a position to deal with as you see best. Of course, such a department need not have corresponding task forces for every ambassador.

As far as a military task force is concerned, I don't really have any strong objection to its existence in principle. My major concern is that WP:MILHIST not be taken out of the loop for discussion of technical issues—particularly categories and templates—in favor of decisions being made exclusively by the task force. How to best ensure this, I'm not quite sure; perhaps simply having notices on the task force page that major changes shouldn't be made without discussing the issue with us would work?

For other ideas, I can't think of anything particularly clever at the moment—beyond simply exchanging messages when things of mutual interest come up for COTW and the like—but I'll let you know if I think of something.

(One general comment I'll make is that you should probably keep a firm eye on the importance ratings; we've recently abandoned them due to a number of issues, and I suspect that the Biography project—with its similar subjectivity and far larger number of articles—will eventually encounter the same problems. What you decide to do about it is, of course, your choice.) Kirill Lokshin 13:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rating importance over such a wide scope is going to be terribly difficult, certainly. Has there been any reaction from the WP1.0 folks to your refusal to assess importance? --kingboyk 16:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. Let me know when you set it up :-) Kirill Lokshin 14:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Apologies

Thank you. I appreciate your support. I have my feelings that Wjhonson (talk · contribs)'s actions may have been personal, due to possibly harboring feelings over a sticky conflict over an AfD review (Kitty May Ellis) that did not go in their favor. I do not believe I ever let things get personal over the matter, and I felt that there were no hard feelings, so this action, while still completely inappropriate, could also have been more light hearted. However, I was still offended, so thank you for the words on my talk page.--Andrew c 15:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bushwhacked & Rime of the Ancient Mariner

I suggest you read the article for the poem (or the poem itself, if you have the time). While Wikipedia is not the place for original research, I am not making a very sophisticated level of literary analysis to make this comparison. I'm talking about the major themes in Rime, which are clearly also present in this episode (and the series at large, as the article for the poem mentions). It's reasonable to assume this was deliberate, since Mal refers specifically to the poem in Serenity. I've seen reasonable speculation of this sort on Wikipedia before, and I think it has a place in the article. -Juansmith 18:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Chaves

Thanks for reviewing Manuel Antonio Chaves. A particularly useful comment was that a certain sentence was awkward—that's the kind of thing I often miss on my own. However, your first comment was that the article needs more in-line citations. The Good Article criteria say, "the use of inline citations is desirable, although not mandatory". Is there something about this specific article that leads you to see inline citations as mandatory? One reason I didn't use them is that everything is from Simmons's biography except as noted, and I wasn't sure how to handle that. —JerryFriedman 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not going to get to the sources right away, but one of these days. I will take Simmons's book back out of the library, though. (It includes information on Chaves's wife, for one thing.) The only thing in the article from Twitchell is Chaves's decoration from the Mexican government. The person who added that also added the bit about the gravesite from Twitchell, but the same information is in Simmons (who, incidentally, heard from a later property owner that the graves had been moved, and who couldn't find them anywhere). —JerryFriedman 22:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Python templates

I know that userfication is the worst thing, but I may be able to at least get rid of that blasted Elderberries one, see August 2 TfD page. I put that back up for other reasons. It may get canned there. After that, they may have to be re-TfDd one at a time as they are emptied.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 08:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST tagging

Ooooppppssss, forgot that! I'll try harder to remember and I'll head on back and add those banners. --Laserbeamcrossfire 06:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Core biographies

Just so you know, I plan to move on from this for the time being. Now that several people are working on it, I think it's best for discussion before changes, and apparently at least one person disagrees with me but prefers not to discuss it. I care less about what's on the list, than that the list is formulated in a cooperative manner. Thanks for your help. Maurreen 17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the core lists and importance rating were a bad idea anyway. Some people seem more concerned with determining other people's lists than I think is proportionate. This relates to history on a related list. Ciao. Maurreen 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

I replied on my talk page. If you want to continue a dialogue please watchlist it. Cheers. --kingboyk 20:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asist with Civil War ship box

I have tried to get the CSS Tallahassee to list in the box at the article's bottom which includes your CSS Archer and others but just can't figure this one out. Could use some help with this. Noles1984 21:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Talk about the butterfly effect. I came across WikiProjectBiography, and saw a derelict, and useless little WikiProject, so I saw no harm in creating that talk page template. And looked what happened. Kudos to you, my friend, because through your hard work, we've got a WikiProject that has the potential to shine. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 01:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! :-) plange 01:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dylan article

I've worked in a highly contentious area for a while and have learned some of the ins and outs. I posted near the end of the disccusion page in the Dylan article what the source of difficulty, as I see it is. I also removed most (I tried for all) of the 89 'citation requested' stickers requested by a single editor in 2 edits. And, provided on the discussion page, the editing difference link which lets anyone look at how one editor managed to confuse a lot of good work by a lot of editors. good luck with that. Terryeo 02:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had no idea how to help get this resolved! plange 02:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus the Great PR

Hi Plange, thanks for responding to the Cyrus the Great peer review. Also, thanks for cleaning up the article! I've responded to you on the peer review page about the images. ♠ SG →Talk 08:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied again. Finished the map I was doing; care to take a look? ♠ SG →Talk 08:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I used Adobe Illustrator with Image:BlankMap-World3.svg as a base (from Wikipedia:Blank maps). I tried to save it as an SVG image (as the original, which was the whole point I used SVG in the first place) instead of PNG, but for some reason it's not working. I'm going to give it another shot later on. ♠ SG →Talk 20:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Thanks

No problem. Usually the issue comes from an include close tag (</include>) that is followed by a carriage return. I just subst a version of the template that caused space issues in a sandbox and started experimenting with deleting things. I hope that I found the right thing, it appears to be fixed, but I was only looking at a few examples. Anyway, hope that makes sense and isn't too technical.--Andrew c 18:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

I've been furiously looking for the userboxes on your page concerning wars and your ancestors, etc. Where did you find them?

Ex: Plange's ancestors fought in the American Revolutionary War from the state of Virginia.

Plange's ancestors fought in the American Civil War from the states of Virginia and Alabama.

Oh, please respond on my talk page.

-Brian1979 (talk · contribs)

Barnstar

You're welcome! You deserve it. Thank you. Maurreen 06:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alizée Review Page

Please discuss the position of the page, on Talk:Alizée before making any further content moves. Regards. --soum^সৌমোyasch 06:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie McLean

Thanks for the rating of the Jackie McLean. However, would it be possible for you tpo provide some details about what needs to be added to raise it to B class? That would be useful to whoever decides to upgrade the article (if anyone does).

I'm unclear about the reasons for your rating, but perhaps I'm misinterpreting the scale. Anyway, it seems to me that the article does not have "significant gaps or missing elements or references," does not "need substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content," and does not "contain other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR," which, the way I read the scale, are what keeps an article which meets the criteria for Start class from being classified as B class. But then I suspect you know a bit more about the scale than I do, and probably more than the person who undertakes the eventual upgrade, so some details would help.

Again, thanks for getting to the rating so promptly. John FitzGerald 13:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. I'm not going to modify the article myself chiefly because I have too proprietary an interest in it. John FitzGerald 14:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a little more info on the comments page, but thought it might be helpful to show you an article that is considered B - Alfred Hitchcock. I see B as being almost ready for GA nom; needs a good once over; cleanup; sourcing, etc. plange 05:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt and informative reply, especially as it wouldn't have been necessary if I'd read the quality scale definitions carefully – I apologize for wasting your time. Another reason I won't be doing the upgrade is I don't agree with all the standards. For example, I don't know how encyclopedic further information about his life outside of music would be – the article already notes he was a junkie, was in the joint, and established and ran an arts foundation. I don't see what further information would be helpful.

But I won't be offended if the article is upgraded in that way. Good luck with the project and thanks again for your help. John FitzGerald 15:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for the rating of J. R. Ackerley, which I agree with entirely. John FitzGerald 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPBiography

Greetings, thanks for writing. I've included the {{blp}} template into the {{WPBiography}} template because the {{blp}} template has evolved since the original text was included. Templates can be somewhat "alive" and as such the text from one should be included included into another via transclusion to allow for their evolution. I believe I've got the coding correct now. Maybe you could take a look? Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, yep, we've been trying to keep it current, but this is better, however, it appears that it's lost the <includeonly>[[Category:Biography articles of living persons|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly> code...plange 17:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the heads-up, I've added that code to {{blp}} where it should go. That should cover articles as necessary. Anything else that seems to need attention? (→Netscott) 17:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]