User talk:Storye book/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Dates clean-up enquiry

Copied from my talk page, Storye book wrote:

Hi Marek69. Thanks for the clean-up on Alexandrov Ensemble soloists, and for spotting two typos I'd missed. Please could you kindly explain the Wiki policy on dates? Being from the UK, I have been writing dates in the UK manner, e.g. 1st and 2nd. I note that your clean-up tool Americanises 1st to 1, but it leaves 2nd as 2nd. Are UK-style dates against Wiki policy, and if so, is there a reason for this? Also I've noticed that some biographers are putting internal links on all their dates. Should I be doing this on all my musical biographies? Should I put internal links on dates when songs were written or performed? (Please reply on my talk page). Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Storye book, thank you for your message. I am not an expert on this subject, but I believe the information you are looking for can be found here in the Manual of Style guidlines. I too am from the UK but did not realise that this was the American system. I have been using the built in features of AutoWikiBrowser, the clean-up tool you refer to, which I suggests edits according to the above mentioned Wikipedia guidelines, (I suppose). You are right about the inconsistency; in the changes 1st - 1 , but 2nd not changed. I think the program just misses some occasionally - I don't think this is deliberate. I've only been using AWB for a short time, so I don't know that much about it. I'm still learning.

Also, I've noticed that in 'My Preferences', under the 'Date and time' tab, you have the option to decide how dates are displayed, US or UK format, although I can't say I've experimented with this feature.

Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 15:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:A BorisA Berlin1948.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:A BorisA Berlin1948.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --(ESkog)^(Talk) 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• The solution to the copyright problem on this file has now been found, and will be dealt with next month when I have time.--Storye book (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Phil & Lit

Thanks for your message. I'll reinstate the link, as I plan to get around to doing an article for LPLS some time, and there's already a red link to them from William Hey (surgeon) (though, looking at it, I think I created that one!). Thanks for expanding the Museum article, though I'm not sure it's really correct to say that "Leeds City Museum" was established in 1819, as it was the museum of the Phil and Lit until they gave it to the corporation much later. PamD (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Thank you

>Are you from the Japanese Red Army website?

Yes GAVVA23212 = ヴァレリー・ガッヴァ —Preceding unsigned comment added by GAVVA23212 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Georgi Pavlovich Vinogradov

Hello, Storye book. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you

Thanks for kindly (and so swiftly!) tidying up the inline refs on Ilkley Toy Museum - I still don't know how to do that - it gives me a headache to think about it. Cheers. --Storye book (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your more then welcome! As for the inline refs they are simple - well, they are simple when you did it a couple of times.

Lets say i got a reference that i want to cite twice (For example my talk page). Normally you would add them like this:

<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Excirial</ref>

<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Excirial</ref>

Since it is the same reference twice i would rather have them take a single lines in a reference list. To do that you can switch them as follows:

<ref Name=ExcirialTalkPage>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Excirial</ref>

<ref Name=ExcirialTalkPage/>

The first reference is changed by adding a Name=ExcirialTalkPage parameter to the ref tag. This is what is called a named reference; These are used to identify a reference later in the text. Note that if you cite a reference multiple times, the first reference should be named as in the first line above, subsequent references should be in the second line format.

The second reference is changed by entirely removing the link, and instead adding the Name=ExcirialTalkPage to the ref tag. The wikimedia software will then "understand" that you mean to quote the same reference that you earlier named ExcirialTalkPage. As long as the name is indenical, they will show up on the same line in the reference list. If you want more named references, you can just give them different names.

Happy editing to you Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Excirial. Thanks for that. I created Cliffe Castle Museum yesterday, complete with a few duplicated inline refs as above, so I'm going to have to work on that (none of the bots seems to have found that page yet). Meanwhile please could you kindly now remove the "citations needed" tag from the top of Ilkley Toy Museum as I have since added the requisite citations, ext links and image links. Sorry I threw the page to the lions before it was quite finished, as the owner of the toy museum wanted to see it. Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Throw the page to the lions before it was completed"? Eh, Would it shock you if i told you that was one of the best new pages i patrolled today? As for the refimprove template: I removed it, but any editor is allowed to remove maintenance templates from a page if he or she does not think they are warranted anymore. If you are not sure if something is allowed just use common sense and Be Bold! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thx Excirial - much appreciated. And I've just had my first go at tidying refs on Cliffe Castle Museum and it worked, hooray! So thanks for that too. I'm relieved to know I can remove maintenance templates (thought I'd get botted for vandalism) so thanks for that also. I'll go and finish doing the Cliffe refs now. Cheers. --Storye book (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The only templates (That i actively know of) you can't remove are the CSD and AFD related templates, but believe me, you will be both warned on your talk page and on the article itsself not to remove them in bold text. As for the maintenance templates: Unless you suddenly start removing them in huge amounts from masses of pages it is perfectly ok to delete them - just think of those as a quick notice for editors who might want to improve the page. Either way, good luck with the other article :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:NicolaiAAbramov.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:NicolaiAAbramov.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Also File:Bse sci lib com.jpg. Please let me know if you need help or have any questions. —Bkell (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice for File:Bse sci lib com.jpg that you say, "This website says on its Copyright page that it has a policy that its material should be freely licensed. It just requests a link back to the source." Where is this copyright page? I was unable to find it. —Bkell (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• This problem has now been resolved.--Storye book (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Eisenach.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eisenach.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Bkell I have replied to both messages on your talkpage.--Storye book (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Storye book. You have new messages at Bkell's talk page.
Message added 21:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• This problem has now been resolved.--Storye book (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2009

Delivered June 2009 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 00:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply about undeletion of images

Hello, Storye book. You have new messages at Bkell's talk page.
Message added 19:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bracken Hall Countryside Centre and Museum

The above is my latest baby. It includes my first ever shot at doing navboxes. Please could you kindly have a glance at the page and its navboxes, and let me know any general errors? With each new page I try to use what I learned from the mistakes of the last - but the tidiers-up always find something . . . (Please inform me of any reply on my talkpage). Cheers. --Storye book (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to respond to this - i have been actively working on a new prototype for Coreva-Bot which caused my on wiki time to shrink to almost nothing. I have read the article now and i admit it looks as fine as the previous one - which is a good thing. I still see room for a few minor tweaks, and perhaps one semi-major issue with the page:

Minor

A) The first one is already changed: Due to the long list of references the references section takes up a lot of space on the screen. A minor tweak to switch this is to set a number of columns to display when using the reflist template. In this article i set it to display two columns, effectively cutting the space references use in two.

B) When referencing an article, keep in mind that references should mainly be used to prove statements in an article. For example, references 10, 11 and 12 contain pictures's of a wasps and wasps nest. While this does indeed prove the details on structure and honeycombs it should actually reference the fact that there is actually a wasp nest in the museum - details on structure et all should be included and references on the wasp article. In other words: Only bother with references for statements that have a direct relation with the subject, or that are crucial to the subject.

C) Try to evade Peacock words such as "interesting" and "popular", as they are subjective in stead of being neutral

D) Keep in mind that images must be relevant to the article. While i personally love images keep in mind that an overload of them is a bad thing. In a large part of the article the images are "Sparse" enough to allow for an easy read, but headers such as "Reception and shop" and "Pond area" contain almost more images then words in the section - not only does this hinder readability, it also fills up the screen and takes a lot of scrolling!

E) The article currently had a great load of details in it, perhaps a tad to much. About everything is covered in the article, from the reception to the exhibit trough the small museum shop. As yourself: Should that really be covered into an encyclopedia? Is it important to mention there as a shop, or does this provide to much non required details?

Major

A) There is just one issue that i would call major in this further very nicely made page. The page currently read like a brochure, rather then an encyclopedic article. After reading the article it feels like i have just made a tour trough the museum, rather then that i have read an encyclopedic article about it. This actually has two reasons: First this is caused trough "Minor, section E", as the level of detail is perhaps a bit to much. Second, lines such as "the children put their hands in the holes, feel the items, and guess what they are. The answers are at Reception." is not exactly information you would find in an average encyclopedia, which adds to the brochure idea.

Well, that was it for the review - i hope you deemed it useful. As i stated before, i am only reviewing your articles on such an incredible detailed basis because they are high quality articles. Normally i review much briefer but in those cases article's are rarely worth reviewing in great length as they lack the basis such as wikifying or proving notability. So don't take this extensive list of comments as a bad omen for the article quality - most are minor, and i am already glad i can review in such detail for a change, rather then explaining the same guideline over and over :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Brighouse

Hi Storye book. I have replied to your message on my talkpage, for continuity. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats a good set of images. I have taken the liberty of linking them from commons to the Brighouse article and also created a new category for Brighouse and linked it as a subcategory in the commons West Yorkshire Category. Would you have any objections to me cropping the Brighouse town hall image to get rid of the unrequired background, as it will then provide a better image in the infobox? Also the 'extra sky' ;) around the forward facing Brighouse Memorial image. Richard Harvey (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Alexandrov Ensemble

Hello! Sorry about the oversight. I assumed that the info had already been included in A.V. Alexandrov's article. Done now. BTW, none of the revised material is actually "lost" in WP, you can easily recover it with the history function. And, if I may suggest, most of the text in the Alexandrov Ensemble article on him ought also to be transferred to his article and the history section rewritten with more info about the ensemble itself, e.g. notable events, first performances abroad and the like. I realize that it is hard to come up with sufficient sources, so this is strictly a friendly suggestion ;), but you can ask some of the people available for copy-editing to give a hand with the article's style issues. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 11:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I fully agree that the two Alexandrovs were central to the history of the Ensemble. It's just that the relevant sections as they were (and are, in the case of Alexander Vasil'ich) put the emphasis on them and not the Ensemble. It is chiefly a matter of content and context, not style. For instance, the section "During World War II, Boris Alexandrov, with his father, led the ensemble in All-Union radio concerts and over 1500 [5] concerts at the Front, officially to actively promote Russian folk music and the songs of Soviet composers and folk music for the sake of patriotism and morale. During this time, Boris shouldered increasing responsibility, due to his father's heart condition. After Alexandrov's death in 1946, Boris Alexandrov, his son, went on to succeed his father as musical director for the ensemble [6] [7] [8]." is perfectly OK for a biography of Boris Alexandrov, but for the Ensemble article, this should read something like: "During World War II, the ensemble gave several All-Union radio concerts and over 1500 concerts at the Front, contributing greatly to the morale of the frontline troops. [Here you could easily expand a bit on this]. After Alexander Alexandrov's death in 1946, his son Boris Alexandrov succeeded his father as musical director for the ensemble." Similarly, since the two Alexandrovs overlap each other in the 1930s and 1940s, much of the info is duplicated. As for style, the prose needs tightening, as it is written with many redundancies. That's why I suggested a thorough copy-edit. Best of luck, Constantine ✍ 12:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, as of now, no info has been lost from your original version (unless by mistake), it has merely been transferred to the respective biographical articles. Constantine ✍ 12:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Blp policy

Hi. Concerning your question in my talk page: Per consensus in Wikiproject biography, all musical groups are part of the project. Morover, if this mucial groups involve living individuals we tag the article with "living=yes". Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wither emblems

I imagine Category:Emblemata at the Commons would be glad to have them. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Alexandrov Ensemble

Sorry, I don't speak Russian a word so I can't help you. I got on to this page accidentally and word "Bridge" in between Czech towns and cities caught my eye. However, I think you could try your luck on Russian talk page about the subject: http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0%BB%D1%8C_%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B8&action=edit&redlink=1

(I found it quite strange that Russian article is almost empty given the fame of the ensemble). --83.208.59.118 (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Parkwood Hills

Hi Excirial. Please could you kindly take a brief glance at Parkwood Hills and let me know if I can safely remove the construction template yet, without risk of deletion? I recently re-created the page, which was previously deleted in 2007, apparently on the grounds of notability (I've informed the person who deleted it, and the Ottawa project page, but no reply).

I think I've dealt with the notability (see the page's summary section). Apart from that, my main concern has been to see that the page contains sufficient content which is specific to Parkwood Hills - not an easy task, considering I'm doing this as a favour for a Canadian friend, and know nothing about the place as I'm based in the UK. Thankfully, user:Battyoldbat has added a para or two which I could mine for google-search cross-references. The result is that most sections are now specific to the Parkwood Hills neighbourhood. The only remaining material that has been lifted straight from other Wiki pages are (1) the climate table (from Nepean, Ontario) and (2) a couple of the external links at the bottom of the page. I put together the navbox (bottom of page) myself - and I almost certainly put the neighbourhoods in all the wrong positions - but the actual list of surrounding neighbourhoods comes from the River Ward page.

It needs proper photos, so I've put an appeal for those on its discussion page. I think the above should indicate how the page stands at present. If I've forgotten something obvious - please kindly let me know.

I have friends in Ottawa who want to add to the page in the summer when they will have time to do it - but between now and then I have run out of internet research options, so leaving the construction tag up from now on would be pushing it a bit. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks excellent, to a degree that i cannot simply cite some rules to give any improvement advice. To do that i would probably have to dive into the subject and find any things that are not covered yet. In other words, i highly doubt that the article would ever be tagged for removal, let alone that any editor would vote to remove it. I made a few minor edits to it (Splitting the reflist, removing two redundant underscores in a link, and removing a stub category), but there is little else that would require change. Excellent article!.

Also, seeing you created not one, but a mass of excellent article's, and similary made some excellent improvements to excisting article's, o think its about time you received one of these baubles. Congractulations! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Woo! My first ever barnstar. Thank you - and thank you so much for your kind help with Parkwood Hills. That will take the pressure off my Ottawa friends who would definitely have contributed more if they had had time.

Just one point (on another subject, really) - you have mentioned splitting the reflist before, and I've noticed you've put a pipe and a 2 in it. I imagine it arranges the references in 2 columns, but I don't see it happening - possibly because I use Chrome browser. Which browsers does it work in? Most of my friends use Firefox now, as IE is too slow. (Not important - no need to reply if you're busy). Thanks again for your kind help.--Storye book (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The multi column reflist uses CSS3 - which is currently still a proposed standard - to split the reference list into multiple sections. Currently only Firefox and other Gecko based browsers support it. The webkit layout engine, which is used in Safari and Chrome currently has a bug which breaks the dual column reflist. IE simply never had any support for it in the first place. You might ask "Why bother using it, when only around 20% of the Internet users can see it anyway?". The answer is that using it does not cause any side effects if its not supported by a browser. Similarly, once CSS3 becomes a standard web browsers will gradually support the feature(s) we need to display two columns - and its much easier to simply place a number in advance, then to track each and every article which could use this feature once it seems worthwhile. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)