Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:14, 12 May 2014

Template:Usertalkpage (rounded)

Archives

1: Oct 05 2: Oct 06 3: Oct 07 4: Dec 08 5: May 09 6: Dec 09 7: Nov 10 8: June 11 9: Mar 12 10: Sep 12 11: Nov 12 12: Aug 13 13: Dec 13 14: Mar 14

Derek Martinus

Something I noticed regarding the Hollywood Reporter and BBC News articles about the death of Derek Martinus. Hollywood Reporter stated that "His family told the BBC the director had suffered from Alzheimer's for years and died from complications related to the disease." But the BBC article, featuring comments from his family, makes no direct link between Alzheimer's and his cause of death, merely stating that he had "suffered from Alzheimer's for many years". Given that the writer of the HR article is not likely to be a medical expert, I'm concerned that the Misplaced Pages article on Derek Martinus is going too far in stating that he definitely died as a result of Alzheimer's (an uncle of mine died recently; he'd suffered from Alzheimer's for a couple of years, but his final illness was not related). --VeryCrocker (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry about you loss and you have made fair points above. I changed the article to match the Hollywood Reporter item on the assumption that the writer of the BBC, who is also likely to be a generalist, choose to miss out relaying a direct connection between Alzheimer's and Derek Martinus' cause of death. Perhaps s/he thought readers would automatically make a connection. On the other hand, it could be simple human error by either writer, but this is impossible to establish from the sources I have seen. It is possible the BBC News article is the only source the Hollywood Reporter had to hand, their resume reads like a precis of the BBC piece, and falsely attributes the issue at hand directly to the Beeb. Again we don't know, but the material and some of language used by the BBC writer suggests s/he used an earlier version of Martinus' Misplaced Pages article as a source. Which is a potential problem on its own. Philip Cross (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. But the Misplaced Pages article still states something that is not reliably sourced. The BBC article does not say the statement that we, as Misplaced Pages, are saying. And the Hollywood Reporter is not reliable for sourcing the statement we're making. Instead of writing "from complications arising from Alzheimer's disease", wouldn't it be more correct to put "after having suffered from Alzheimer's disease"? That way, we note his illness but do not appoint ourselves as coroners. --VeryCrocker (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter is a long standing serious publication, not just a website or a 'tabloid', and thus surely meets the RS requirement. Despite this, I have no substantial objection to what you propose, and will not enter into an edit war. Philip Cross (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Kate O'Mara

Thanks for clarifying the reasons for unconventional ref position. In the table of Film credits are all those titles unlinked just to allow sort? Seems a bit counter-productive. Is there any way round that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not worked on the credit sections of O'Mara's article. Whether or not one adds red links to titles is a matter of precedence. As red links can irritate other editors, it always seems to me best to follow practices established by earlier editors to avoid potential clashes. Philip Cross (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

e.g. The Main Chance etc. it's not red, just unlinked. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I had not come across the template used for some of the credits in the past. Anyway, its removed now. I found one or two other absent links as well as the one you indicate. Philip Cross (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done, Philip. I added a red link for The Avengers (1971 play), but just to steer away from the dab page. It's probably a bit unlikely for a new article, but you never know. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael Joseph

Hi, I see your edit Michael Joseph as I depart late -04-10. Feel free to do more, or even take over with enthusiasm, but FYI the LCCatalogue links remain in the Books list because I don't have time to check WorldCat library records, which are likely to resolve much --especially finding UK publisher/year where LCCat holds only the US edition. Perhaps I should have tagged it {{underconstruction}} as I plan to check that source soon. Actually plan to expand and re-layout the prose some more too.

I must run--distracted at Dolores Hitchens four hours ago and now starving.

Thanks for your time. --P64 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thames

Thank you for revising Thames Television page. For your information, Since the user made the point in 2011, I original overhauled the page to improve the content, refs etc. I did not deal with his main concerns ie layout. Thank you for fine polishing the page. --Crazyseiko (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5

The Misplaced Pages Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New Visiting Scholar positions
• TWL Branch on Arabic Misplaced Pages, microgrants program
• Australian articles get a link to librarians
• Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Misplaced Pages"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Newark by-election Infobox

Hi. Request you to provide your opinion regarding the inclusion of candidates in an infobox of an ongoing by-election here. Thanks. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Lawrence and Wishart

Hi Philip, New to editing wikipedia, apologies if I'm not using correct protocols. There is an incorrect sentence in the section about the copyright of MECW that it was just about the first 10 volumes, this is an inaccurate claim made by MIA in their statement. They did in fact host content from all 50 volumes on their site as can be seen from the various mirrors. How can I change content in such a way to reflect this accurately while meeting Misplaced Pages standards?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.155.18 (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed the sentence. For the reason I mention in the edit summary I should not really have added it. Philip Cross (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Congratulations, the 100,000th notification made by BracketBot was to you! 930913(Congratulate) 08:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)