Misplaced Pages

Speedily delete it!

By the 7th criterion of the General section in the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, you are free to delete both File:ThemeofLuBu~DWFireMix.ogg and File:SWDestiny.ogg. Just wait until the weekend. There are some things that must be done before we can erase them from Misplaced Pages. -BlueCaper (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC

Hi, as someone who previously commented on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/John Wilkes Booth, you may wish to revisit this page, as the FAC has been restarted and additional content to meet the concerns expressed has been added.  JGHowes  23:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

eo:Ritaj murdoj de Toa Payoh

Dear Jappalang,

I'd just like to let you know that I've completed the Esperanto translation of your fascinating article about Toa Payoh ritual murders. It should now be promoted to featured status within a week or so in our own Misplaced Pages. I really enjoyed working on it and I hope you'll keep up the great work !

Best wishes, Thomas Guibal (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick

Thanks for your helpful comments on Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, I hope I have addressed the issues to your satisfaction. Please feel free also to weigh in on the Featured Article nomination. Lampman (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nico Ditch

Hi there. I have managed to link directly to the relevant area on the old map, as requested, and have updated the url in the image. Try it now, it should work fine, although it will default to the earliest map on the site. I don't yet know how to link to a particular year. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Project Sylpheed Composer Edits

Ok, what is your criteria for notable composers? If it is a greater work ratio, then your listing is off. Takahiro Nishi was the game's sound director and, along with Kenichiro Fukui, composed and arranged more than half the soundtrack. Junya Nakano and Kumi Tanioka should not be included, as they did not contribute enough to be 'worthwhile' by your definition. I'm going to remove both of them and add Nishi as per the guidelines 'you' enforced. Consider doing some actual research beforehand.Raizen1984 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3

Image license question

Hi Jappalang. I'm doing a GA review of Polaris expedition, and I have an image question that goes into a gray area beyond my ken. Image:Polaris Expedition route.jpg uses a base map from The Atlas of Canada, which encourages public use but asks that commercial users get written permission before using. Does that make the base map not usable on Misplaced Pages, or is it OK to license it as PD-Canada (or something else) even though it has this restriction? I'd appreciate any advice you can give. Finetooth (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your clear and thorough explanation. This will be most helpful in the present case of the Polaris article and also in future cases. I'm trying to identify as many image license problems as I can at PR and elsewhere and suggesting fixes before they gum up the works at GAN or FAC. Finetooth (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick

Hi, thanks for your comments on the FAC of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick! I've tried to address your issues, please feel free to have another look. Lampman (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix images

Would you care to do some of the swapping out. I am not sure what the proper way is to license some of the images that need to be uploaded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you close to supporting Saxbe at FAC yet?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I removed the Edward Oliver Wolcott, but since you are an image expert, you might be able to reinsert an image for him.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack Kemp

Do you know how to find us a new main image for Jack Kemp?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi

I responded to your comments about the Lord of the Rings section of the article, and I plan to deal with the fair use issues. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

• I updated the rationales and responded to your comments about the images. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
  • I think the problem was that the wrong page number was listed. The quote from Beck's book appears on 154, rather than 155 (where the box office info is stated). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

• Your statement that the article looks "like an apologetic endorsement of the filmmaker" makes you seem like the kind of person who believes everything they read. Ask John Lennon's friends and family what they think of Albert Goldman's The Lives of John Lennon. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

• Furthermore, The Rough Guide to The Lord of the Rings is very poorly researched. It's sourced largely from unverifiable Internet sources. It looks like the author ran through selected reviews on the Internet Movie Database rather than actually going through the time to look up real information on the film. And it's biased towards the Jackson films! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

• I'd also like to add that articles reviewing the works of Peter Jackson are never put under this kind of scrutiny! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

• Okay, let's just clear all of this up: I never said that The Lord of the Rings was a "big hit" that deserved a sequel, or wrote that in the article. The article states the facts, and it's pretty clear that regardless of the obvious fact that it made money, it never resulted in a sequel. Throughout history, even minor financial successes have been followed by sequels. Take the recent Pink Panther reboot. That wasn't a "big hit" by any definition, but it produced income, and a sequel followed. MGM would not have produced a sequel if the film had not made money. Likewise, whenever a film makes money, and there's more of a story to be told, it would be assumed that a sequel would be followed. In this case, J.R.R. Tolkien wrote a book. United Artists produced an adaptation of a condensed version of half of it, but did not follow through on the other half in spite of the film producing income. Now, you assume that the $4 million listed budget doesn't cover the cost of marketing. But Fritz the Cat cost only $850,000 to produce. It would be safe to assume that Bakshi had gained experience of how to keep films under budget through his past efforts, and put this knowledge to use on this film. And I never dismissed any sources for criticizing the film. Please do not assume bias on my part when I merely want to present an unbiased view of the film. It's not accurate to present it in such a negative light when its reception was not as poor as you imply. It was a financial success with mixed reviews, simply put. And the history presenting production problems such as Bakshi's disagreements with the studio should explain to viewers why any perceived flaws with the film may have occurred. I'm not saying that the film is not flawed, but that I don't want to present a direct opinion when the general consensus is extremely different from the way it is viewed by fans of Peter Jackson's films, who are largely responsible for the misconception that the film was a despised box office bomb -- which it wasn't.

About the Cinefantastique article — I don't know which article you refer to, or how to find it, but if you had checked the current revision, you would see that I had taken all of the fair use images out of the article, and placed a public domain image in the section referring to Bakshi's fantasy films -- the patent drawing for the rotoscoping technique - which properly illustrates the section without the need for a fair use image or a rationale for such images. I intend on looking over the article to see which fair use images I can place in the article that would illustrate the content without appearing to be merely decorative, if any are needed. The article is currently under peer review, so the next FA nomination should not be as chaotic as this one. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

• I added David Denby's opinion of the film. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

• I work in the film industry. I do not need you to tell me how the financial aspects of the industry work. (Ibaranoff24 (talk))

• That's not what I said and my comment wasn't intended as an attack. I'm sorry if you perceived it this way. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

Image reviews

Jappalang, Thanks so much for all the excellent reviews. Is there any chance of you hitting these before the weekend? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your work, Jappalang; are images set yet at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Alexander Cameron Rutherford  ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Image cleanup

Hi, I noticed the work you did cleaning up the image I uploaded, File:Richard Neville.jpg, it's much improved. If you find the time, would you mind having a look at another image, File:Guy de Beauchamp.jpg, that's in even worse shape? I'm currently trying to get the article up to GA level, and a slightly better looking picture would help with the visual appeal of the article. Cheers! Lampman (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, whatever you can manage - without altering the original too drastically - is highly appreciated. Lampman (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the work. It's certainly clearer than the original, but maybe a bit too much; it's very harsh and naked. Do you think there is a middle way, perhaps by increasing the contrast without going entirely black/white? Anyway, here's the article if you want to see how it looks in context: Guy de Beauchamp, 10th Earl of Warwick. Lampman (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's better, thanks. And it just passed as a GA. Lampman (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your image work

I disagree with some of the approaches that you take on images, but I can respect them; I certainly don't think your behaviour is totally inappropriate, or anything. It's really just a question of what assumptions we're prepared to make. In the early 1900s, governments obviously didn't take as many photographs as they do today, and those that they took they generally took for the purpose of using. Finding a photograph that we have no reason to believe is a government work and refraining from using it because it might be, even if it seems nearly certain that the photograph would have been published prior to 1958 strikes me as being too cautious, especially given that the doctrine of fair use almost certainly applies to what we're doing anyway. But that's jut my opinion, just as your belief that it's important to be almost completely sure is just your opinion. Sometimes I find your approach frustrating, but I need to bear in mind that it's no less legitimate than mine. Fundamentally, you're obviously doing very good work, and I don't have any problem with you. Does that clear things up? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Giants Unofficial Link

Hi! Nah I've no objection to readding it if consensus exists, I just habitually remove unofficial links from articles. Sorry for screwing up! Thanks! Fin©™ 07:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Images query

I have been doing some heavy work on Agrippina (opera) with a view to a possible FAC. Apart from one, the images were in place when I took the article up. Could you possibly visit, and let me know any problems with these images, so that I can deal with them (there aren't many)? I would be most grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now responded to your very helpful image review on the article's PR page. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

VRoma images

The director of Vroma gave me permission to use the images you referenced 3 years ago - I don't know if she was aware they could be used elsewhere (At the time, I don't believe there was an image use statement on their website). I can try e-mailing her again. LaurenCole (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Peer review

Jeez, I try to move beyond video games (not that Star Trek is too far beyond it) and I still get pegged :P I'll try and do comments at the beginning of the week, I'll be traveling tomorrow. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 23:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Barnet peer review

I will be glad to take a look at it, but it may take me a few days. Ruhrfisch _><>° 03:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but my schedule is too full just now to take on additional work. I wish you well with the article! Scartol • Tok 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Wolters

Do you think you could give this article an image review? It is all I think it is waiting for for promotion to FA. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Toa Payoh ritual murders

This is a new category that is being populated by ListasBot. It's pages that are on the list of Biography articles without listas parameter, but where ListasBot can't find the WPBiography tag in the page. It's basically a list of pages that need some human attention to figure out why they're on the list, but don't have the WPBiography tag. In this case, yes, it may have something to do with the fact that Adrian Lim redirects to Toa Payoh ritual murders. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barnet

I have left comments on the first couple of sections, on the PR page. I wonder, could I ask you to do a small thing for me? Could you go to Aurora's drift, look at the lead, and see if you can come up with a reformulation of the first sentence that doesn't contain the toxic "refers to", and doesn't repeat the word "drift". I've been trying for days without success - perhaps a fresh mind can crack it? Would you have a try? Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your Aurora efforts - most helpful. I must apologise for the delay in getting back to the Battle of Barnet, but I am being occupied by some bother on the talkpage of my current FAC Agrippina (opera). I hope it doesn't turn into an edit war.I will return to Barnet when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for copyedit/review, or payback is a bitch

Take you pick. Either run through all 11,470 words of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, or review that sad and lonesome Uru: Ages Beyond Myst at FAC. :P I've got spotty internet for whatever reason right now, so I'll get back to the PR probably Wednesday, unless I have lots of homework in which case I'll probably finish the peer review due to inherent desire to not do homework. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 02:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Aye aye, PR set up whenever you can get around to it. By the way, think about archiving some old talk threads here :P --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 03:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'm kinda loathe to remove info, but I certainly see how you would consider some bits trivia. I'm probably not going have time to get through everything until the next Month (and hopefully the rest of my sources will have arrived by then), but I guess I'll try and solicit more feedback about what could be trimmed on the films project page or elsewhere. Pretty sure you can't buy an eight-foot long model of the Enterprise, but I've got a four-foot model I made out of cardboard for art school if you want that instead :P --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barnet

This looks great, the maps are wonderful! I'm quite busy right now, but hopefully I'll get a chance to have a better look at it some time soon. Lampman (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

612th Tank Destroyer Battalion

Please see my answer on Talk:612th Tank Destroyer Battalion. The source was written by active duty soldiers, the source content is public domain. -- btphelps 13:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Barnet

• ... that that despite being one of the most important battles of the Wars of the Roses, the Battle of Barnet (pictured) had only one surviving chronicle based on an eyewitness account?

• ALT1:... that in the Battle of Barnet (pictured), Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick was fighting for Henry VI, whom he formerly deposed, and against Edward IV, whom he had helped to gain the throne?

• ALT2:... that the House of York won the Battle of Barnet (pictured) on 14 April 1471, partly due to a case of friendly fire by the House of Lancaster?

• ALT3:... that Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick (pictured), did not deliver a speech on his death in the Battle of Barnet as depicted by Shakespeare, but was stabbed in the neck and robbed of his armour?

ALT1 was selected without picture. Jappalang (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Noel Coward

Hello, and thanks for the message. I do not have access to that image. Maybe Tim does? However, I think the image of Coward in the sharp suit is equally iconic, and it is even taken by a famous photographer. It shows Coward's determination and ambition as well as his keen sense of style. The Hirschfeld image already has him in a dressing gown, so the suit gives more variety, IMO. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help on the Noel Coward article. Your efforts have really helped us improve it! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for the dedication you've shown to FAC. It's only recently that I've started reading through the majority of the FAC nominations, and your name is consistently popping out. I've been impressed that you are able to keep your cool and discuss the image issues civilly with nominators who might perhaps be confused as to why this is even important. You've also done an excellent job providing enough information to hopefully educate those users so they don't make the same mistakes next time. Your work is very much appreciated :) Karanacs (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this OK?

First, I'd like to associate myself with what is written above. Your work in reviewing images and your constructive comments—in sharp contrast to those of some others—provide wonderful examples of the cooperative approach to article building. I have learned a great deal from your reviews, and from those of Elcobbola before you. One thing I try to do is to get image issues settled before rather than during FACs. With this in mind, can you advise me whether Image:Endurance trapped in pack ice.jpg is PD? It certainly is for Australia, but does that cover Misplaced Pages? I have a feeling that something like this arose a few months ago and was declared OK, but I can't remember the details. I hope to include the image in Aurora's drift (for which you provided the first line, remember?); I am pretty sure all the other images are OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information on Image:Endurance trapped in pack ice.jpg. I will probably go with it, and do as you suggest if it is challenged at FAC. On Image:Aurora.jpg, I must have read dozens of accounts of Shackleton's expedition, and none have given details of who took the Aurora picture. It wasn't the Ross Sea party photographer, Arnold Spencer-Smith, because he died in the Antarctic. It may have been taken by one of the crew who experienced the drift, it may have been a newspaper photograph, or taken by a passer-by. Since it was published in Shackleton's "South" in US and UK in 1919, I have never doubted its PD status - nor that of any other images in Shackleton's book, all reproduced in the Project Gutenberg edition. Brianboulton (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies over Tchaikovsky

Thank you for your continued efforts over this article, and please accept my apologies for overreacing to your comments. I was having a couple of bad days over unrelated issues and reacted instead of thinking things through. Additional comments on at least some of the photos in question, gleaned from searching through Warrack, are on the FAC talk page. Jonyungk (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Doublechecking ... my understanding is that all questionable images were removed, but talk page discussion continues at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky to see which can be re-added. Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses

Regarding your comments in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to point out that one of the core features of any proposed replacement for the current autoformatting was that unregistered ("anon") users see a consistent format within any given article. That feature was actually implemented in several different patches and demo systems that were created over the past few months of discussion, so it's entirely possible to have autoformatting that doesn't result in a mix of formats. --Sapphic (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you took offense to my message here. I wasn't trying to change your mind, I was trying to get you to make your reasons for opposition as clear as possible. As originally stated, they simply weren't applicable and left open the possibility of your opposition !vote being discounted as "confused" about the situation. And a demo system was working, and tested by several users at MOSNUM, before the developer (UC_Bill) threw a fit elsewhere (unrelated to date issues) and quit the project. It was available for download from his site for a while, and somebody may still have a copy.. but in any case, it wasn't that hard to develop, and it should be easy to reproduce, if the community decides they want that. Cheers, --Sapphic (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)