 Archives |
|
| |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Good Article promotion
|
Congratulations!
|
| Thanks for all the work you did in making Dr. No (film) a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated.
In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)
|
Just to let you know that the Widmerpool article, to which you contributed via the peer review, is now at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments added. I hope you'll find some or all of them useful. You express doubt whether the article is potentially of FA standard. I'd say yes. Tim riley (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Later: I see a discussion above about info-boxes for articles on people who have more than one career. I find myself in some difficulty with David Sheppard (cricketer and bishop) and Alec Douglas-Home (cricketer and prime minister). Any thoughts you have on this would be welcome. (Info-boxes are a damned nuisance and waste of space for many articles, but for cricketers in particular, and politicos to some extent, they serve a useful function.) Tim riley (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They're great comments: many thanks indeed. I've done something for all but one, and I need to go back to the sources for that.
- I abhor the boxes on most biogs, apart from sportsmen, the military and politicians: anyone who has stats or positions/offices which need to be summarised. And in those cases it should only summarise that element of their lives, rather than more generally, when they degenerate into over-simplified nonsense. I'd love to remove it from McNeile, but there's one already there and the one editor who edits the article would prefer that it remains, so I'm leaving it in place: far be it from me to try and stamp my POV on articles, regardless of what anyone else thinks (unlike some of the infobox inclusionists)! In terms of the double career, most of the specialist boxes don't work at all in that respect and the general {{infobox person}} doesn't work well enough. I think there is a way to drop in modules from other infoboxes, but I've no idea how it works and the template documentation is singularly unhelpful and user-unfriendly! - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Marvellous work on the Sheppard info box. I hope you'll copy and paste it into the Sheppard article. Many thanks. Tim riley (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am very much obliged for this. It is tons better. I'm planning to give Dr Sheppard a thorough overhaul at some point, and this encourages me to get on with it. Bless you! Tim riley (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While researching Saltzman's Micronauts project (in pre-production for a decade!) for a forthcoming wiki article, I stumbled across a March 1974 news article reporting that Saltzman was courting Paramount to buy out his 50% share and that the producers were "splitting up". Haber, Joyce (5 March 1974). "Falling Out Among Multimillionaires?". Los Angeles Times. p. C6. abstract link This contradicts reports that say Saltzman's troubles began after Golden Gun's release. How should we rewrite James Bond in film#Albert R. Broccoli .281975.E2.80.9384.29? I'm also not happy with that particular wiki article's claim that "Spy's" production was delayed for three years. Two-and-a-half years elapsed between the release of "Gun" and "Spy"; "Spy" went into production one-and-a-half years after "Gun"'s release. - Fantr (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, I'm not ignoring this! (although I'll admit I did forget about it for a bit!) I'll get round to it very shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweaked the first part to show he sold in the aftermath of MWTGG, rather than had financial constraints at that point.
- I've tweaked the timeframe of delay by removing the period involved, so it now reads "... delayed production of the next Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me.[133]". As we don't know how long it was delayed, this should be OK now.
- Have a read through and let me know if you think it a) reads OK; b) is not misleading; and c) provides enough info. Do you have the full text of the article? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Leighperson and "punctuation errors". Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great: many thanks for raisiing the whole issue. I'll keep an eye on it all and chip in when needed. - SchroCat (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another notice, about article history, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I finally get round to reading it, and it's closed already! - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A good close! - This is open, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
re: The Killing Zone. I can verify that Hatfield is credited as "Jim" rather than "James" on the cover and title page. The back cover blurb does indeed state "slit-eyed Oriental". Not sure how you want to deal with this but I'll defer to you. - Fantr (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers for that. Odd he used a different name for that book, but is called James elsewhere - a semi-pseudonym, I suppose. Having it in speech marks does make a difference. It previously read as straight reportage, rather than the quote it now is. I don't have too much of a problem with it being in there for a quote, but I would for normal text. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Thanks for uploading File:007-TND-UK.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know I sound awful mean, but that's all it is. I'm sorry. Ash Loomis (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I just want a grilled stake and mashed potatoes, that's all. Ash Loomis (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
_cropped1.jpg)
){kind=link}