Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:13, 4 November 2007

Welcome!

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Archives
October 2005 – December 2005 January 2006 – March 2006 April 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – September 2006 October 2006 – December 2006 January 2007 – March 2007 April 2007 – June 2007 July 2007 – September 2007 October 2007 – December 2007 January 2008 – March 2008 April 2008 – June 2008 July 2008 – September 2008 October 2008 – December 2008 January 2009 – March 2009 April 2009 – June 2009 July 2009 – September 2009 October 2009 – December 2009 January 2010 – March 2010 April 2010 – June 2010 July 2010 – September 2010 October 2010 – December 2010 January 2011 – March 2011 April 2011 – June 2011 July 2011 – September 2011 October 2011 – December 2011 January 2012 – March 2012 April 2012 – June 2012 July 2012 – September 2012 October 2012 – December 2012 January 2013 – March 2013 April 2013 – December 2013 January 2014 – December 2014 January 2015 – December 2015 January 2016 – December 2016 January 2017 – December 2017 January 2018 – December 2018
Current Talk
updated 14 April 2009 — (changes • edit)

Opporknockity tuned

Hey Kevin! Long time no chat!

Just caught this catching up with the Novels project, and had a couple of questions that occured in recent edits that bear on some of that. Specifically, whether there is a proper category of literary terms, such as Point of divergence (aka departure point, or divergence point—I love these scholarly cross-field thefts from math!) Seems to me the terms in question in that Concerns about moves and original research in quite a few literature-related articles are similar to many terms which might be classified into a category Literature term or the like. (another member/example: canon (fiction)) The questions are two, is there a category such as those two should be classified into under Literature, and if not, has there been any discussion that you know of, that there should be (Which seems to be my prejudice! <G>). Thanks // FrankB 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Gibsonian

Hello Kevin, I'm wondering if you would mind making more use of edit summaries, especially when reverting the edits of others. For example, you reverted this edit of mine which seemed to me uncontroversial (novels necessarily being a subcategory of books, and subcategorisation being an uncontroversial Misplaced Pages policy). I've noticed you have twice edited Template:Gibsonian to convert the existing template to a navbox. However, you provided no rationale for why this was a desirable change. The navbox format unnecessarily multiplies the colours used and unbalances the text, rendering it ugly and difficult for users to read; furthermore by converting an easily identifiable template to a generic version it makes it difficult to identify this particular template by passing glance and contributes to the drab, aesthetically uninspiring style which affects much of Misplaced Pages, making it a less attractive resource for users. I look forward to reading your opinion on the talkpages, and hope we can avoid unconstructive reversions in future. Regards, Skomorokh 11:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Lots of things in here. Having seen a few other editors convert to "navbox"es I thought this to be non controversial. see Wikipedia_talk:Navigational_templates#.7B.7BNavbox.7D.7D_is_the_new_standard :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 12:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"novels necessarily being a subcategory of books", not true, they (novels) are a literary form and "books" are only the "normal" containers of those forms. They (novels) should be considered part of "works". Also the fact that someone has written a "book" tells you little about the nature of his writing, i.e. no "form" information. "unnecessarily multiplies the colours used", by default it adds one hardly excessive. "unbalances the text", all English readers know about right justification etc. and are quite comfortable with this technique, the confusing thing is when Misplaced Pages mixes one style to another from one article to another, very unprofessional. "rendering it ugly and difficult for users to read", entirely subjective view, one to which I disagree. "makes it difficult to identify this particular template by passing glance" and what on earth is the value of this! "drab, aesthetically uninspiring style", oh unlike the garish, any style will do approach that detracts from a serious reference resource that Misplaced Pages is aiming to be. "hope we can avoid unconstructive reversions in future", oh please, very POV. Having said all of that I will endeavor to leave this particular template alone if you feel strongly about it. I have no wish to fall out over any of this. We need to talk further an seek to see each other viewpoint and whether there are common grounds. Thanks for you comments by the way. regards. :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 11:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Evil in the Land Without

Did you intend to complete the process of reporting Evil in the Land Without as a copyvio? -- 192.250.34.161 14:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is! the template is a might confusing. I thought the procedure was to bang on the template as the categories collected together the alerts. :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 14:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The template also has a parameter to fill in to tell where you think the text was copied from (a URL or a text description), and it gives instructions for adding the copyvio to a date-ordered list (not the same as the categorization which automatically happens because of adding the template.) The list is necessary because if we used categories only, the same person who committed the copyvio the first time could remove it from the category and no one would be the wiser unless they spotted the revert in the revision history, which is unlikely to happen. -- 192.250.34.161 19:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hello I saw you were online so I hope you don't mind the message. I put in a peer review request on the wikiporjects page for an article I;ve been working on, The Dark Age.

Not knowing how this system works, how long does it usually take to get feedback?

Thanks alot Disrepdog 15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Crippled God

Oops, thanks for the page move and template fix from Novel to novel. I'm ashamed of my failure to use MOS:CAPS. WLU 20:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Room 13

Why did you delete my blurb? That wasn't a justified edit!?

-CharmediPodLover1993 A.K.A TwilightLover1993 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TwilightLover1993 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Non standard category name

The Standalone novel category is of non standard name and breaks the "By author conventions". Could you not use this please. I appreciate you are attempting to help but! :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 10:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What are standard catagory names and what are the "By author conventions"? Pmcalduff 13:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically they are the "work type" names as used at the start of Category:Works by author and the convention in most cases thereafter is to have "by 'author name'". There are some that don't work that way or the consistency is still to be established but in the main that is how it works. Category:Single-author short story collections may look different but that is just the main category name you will notice all the contents are in the normal form. Thanks for your note. :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 13:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be difficult but I don't undersand how: "Category:Standalone novels by Orson Scott Card" breaks that convention. I'm fairly new here and am still learning. Thank you for your time. Pmcalduff 13:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let try it a different way. There are two or three elements to the format of these categories, First the work type "Novel", "Short story", "Essay", "short story collection" for instance and second the "author name". So most of the categories will have the form "'work type' by 'author name'". The only generally accepted extension to this is to add the genre to the front of this form so "Fantasy short stories by A. N. Other" is used too. There is to my knowledge no use of the a term with describes anything other than genre in this place. Particularly anything that describe an "exclusion" from a group or category, one such as "Standalone" which describe a novel "not" part of a series or some other undefined grouping. Do you see my point. I can see why you might want to have linked at the point in the template for some "consistency", however it would be a false consistency even now as the other novel series links are to series articles, not to categories. :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 13:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense. Thank you. Pmcalduff 13:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I got rid of the "Category:Standalone novels by Orson Scott Card" tags in the novel articles. How can I get the category deleted? Pmcalduff 13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would just add a {{db|I as the creator made this category by mistake}} in place of the category content and an admin will tidy it up. not the truly formal way of doing it but is cuts out the extra bureaucracy. Thanks, it is hard to maintain some consistency here without being misunderstood, so again thanks. :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 13:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:RichardMatheson WhatDreamsMayCome.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RichardMatheson WhatDreamsMayCome.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ChrisHaslam TwelveStepFandango.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ChrisHaslam TwelveStepFandango.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:JohnFox TheTrailOfTheLonesomePine.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JohnFox TheTrailOfTheLonesomePine.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Eachwiped 03:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:SSVanDine TheCanaryMurderCase.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SSVanDine TheCanaryMurderCase.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Eachwiped 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And speaking of images

That's it. I'm no longer putting in any effort to even rescue images now. Betacommandbot flagged an image (Cyborg IV) that had perfectly reasonable rationale given, and some guy said it isn't good enough and that we needed to have some sort of template that to be honest I've never seen before. I am sick and tired of Misplaced Pages's copyright nazis assuming that we're all psychic. I will continue to try and police and rescue AFD-threatened articles when possible, but I'm not bothering with images anymore. I got a reply back on my talk page saying I had to check out XYZ policy and there's the template, etc. Too much work for no pay in my opinion. 23skidoo 22:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

skidoo, I was not being one of those nazis, trust me. I was just informing you of the policy, I was just trying to help. I can see where you are coming from raising your concern about the bot, but do not let this put you off working with images! — jacĸrм (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I agree. Do you know how long this 'rule' has been around? That all images must have a rationale as well as an image tag? I saw somewhere a discussion about changing it to "images uploaded after -whichever date- must contain an image tag and fair use rationale or they may be deleted after seven days", which I agree is a good idea. Oh, and, can you tell me what you meant when you said "we are obviously doing ourselves no favours at all if we are "cheesing off" even our most loyal and hardworking supporters" - do you mean the bot sending them tens of image notices? Or saying the policy is annoying and confusing? — jacĸrм (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is very off-putting to receive those messages, I agree. I recently saw an editor who got very distressed, receiving over 50 messages from the same bot. If one has uploaded lots of images to this project, and you receive 50+ messages saying they may all be deleted, and that they are incorrectly summarised, it is rather offputting, especially if these images have been around for a long time, and the policy on image descriptions changed without the using being aware of those changes. See The proposal which calls for a slight change in some policies, but as you can see, it hasn't got far for an important subject, but they seem to agree that Betacommandbot is doing a good thing, which I guess it is, but it is still really off-putting to receive many messages of this kind. — jacĸrм (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary length

Where was it decided that plot summaries should be no more than four paragraphs?? As a recent discussion in the talk page notes, this is not community standard since most featured articles have a longer plot summary. In general, there are no Misplaced Pages policies limiting the amount of content that can be provided for a given topic (in fact, there is a sort of converse: Wiki is not paper). Loom91 20:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's take this another way then how would you discourage the article that is nearly all "plot" and little else or where the plot is more than a reasonable potion of the whole. :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 08:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The solution to that is not cutting out the plot summary, but expanding the rest of the article. This is the standard practice for all other content. If one section of an article is too long, do we tell editors to cut that section short? Why should plot summary be an exception? Loom91 16:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well yes actually we do - you will find numerous examples of overly long Plot summaries that are highlighted with the {{plot}} template and then either heavily trimed, rebalanced (as you suggest) with other material or even in some cases the plot is removed. :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We really need to discourage this practice. This is not done for any other type of content. I'm really alarmed to hear that the plot is even removed. That is vandalism! Please give me examples of where this has happened. As I said, no community consensus for putting universal caps on plot summaries has been demonstrated. Since a style guideline is an official document, it must reflect only consensus. I'm going to remove that statement. Loom91 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"universal caps" is too strong a way of describing it. It is a Style guideline - not prescriptive. It represent best practice "guidelines". On the other front have a look at the use of the {{Plot}} template and where it has been used and the effect given. :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 17:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are prescriptive as well as descriptive. They state what most users think should be done by all users. Unless a discussion with community participation indicates that plot summaries should not be longer than 4 paragraphs, we should not be including that in a guideline. Loom91 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter

I have nothing more to add, feel free to check it and eventually sent out with Grafikbot. feydey 01:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Need your help to apply the naming convention for film series

Hi! I know that I haven't been around much in the last year, but I am sort of back now and trying to catch up on things that I left undone when I went on a long unannounced sabbatical from Misplaced Pages. One of the things that I would like to do it get the film series articles under control. To do that, a few that I have found misnamed need to be renamed according to the naming convention we agreed upon. However, there are those who defend a single word in an article title as if it were sacred, such is the case with a few of the discussions below and the word "trilogy." The detractor(s) for the convention cling to the word trilogy as if for dear life. Could you take a look at the articles in question and give me your opinion on the matter? I would really appreciate your take on this.

Also, the convention we came up with for film series is being discussed further. If you want to jump back into this, please do so.

Thank you for your time. - LA @ 09:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Apocalypse Trilogy
• Apu trilogy
• Black Triad trilogy
• Blade Trilogy
• Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy
• Bourne Trilogy
• BRD Trilogy
• Calcutta trilogy
• Dollars Trilogy
• Europa trilogy
• The Grudge Trilogy
• The Human Condition (film trilogy)
• Koker trilogy
• The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
• Mediocre American Man Trilogy
• Mexico Trilogy
• Pusher trilogy
• Qatsi trilogy
• Road Movie Trilogy
• Samurai Trilogy
• Spy Kids trilogy
• Star Wars original trilogy
• Star Wars prequel trilogy
• The Sabata Trilogy

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007

The November 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 -- 15:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Grafikbot stopping deliveries

Hi Kevina,

I'm sad to announce you that after more than a year, I'm getting increasingly bored with the delivery job and rewriting everything with each AWB version. Besides, RL constraints make that job less and less possible as lists grow bigger and bigger.

Consequently, I'm informing you that this delivery will be the last. I can handle the next one in December if it's really needed, but nothing more after that I think.

See you around, Graf.