Jump to content

Talk:Ciske de Rat: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Muziekfan (talk | contribs)
m -infobox
Muziekfan (talk | contribs)
Title, splitting
Line 1: Line 1:
{{NovelsWikiProject}}
{{NovelsWikiProject}}

== Title, splitting ==

Thanks for help and sorry for my bad English.

I'm not sure about the best title. Dutch Wikipedia says Ciske, most links pointed to Ciske de Rat, the book is called Ciske de rat (small r) or Ciske the Rat. And it could be split into 3 or more articles Ciske de rat (novel), Ciske the Rat (film 1955) and film 84 (and perhaps the musical). And a dismabiguation page Ciske or Ciske de rat is then needed.

Image: The Image had been proposed for deletion, first because of missing fair-use rationale, then bad rationale, wrong article (was Danny de Munk) etc. I'm not sure if this is cleared. --[[User:Muziekfan|Muziekfan]] 17:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:11, 3 June 2007

WikiProject iconNovels Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Title, splitting

Thanks for help and sorry for my bad English.

I'm not sure about the best title. Dutch Wikipedia says Ciske, most links pointed to Ciske de Rat, the book is called Ciske de rat (small r) or Ciske the Rat. And it could be split into 3 or more articles Ciske de rat (novel), Ciske the Rat (film 1955) and film 84 (and perhaps the musical). And a dismabiguation page Ciske or Ciske de rat is then needed.

Image: The Image had been proposed for deletion, first because of missing fair-use rationale, then bad rationale, wrong article (was Danny de Munk) etc. I'm not sure if this is cleared. --Muziekfan 17:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]