P64

Wow, I'd forgotten about that page! I cleared my watchlist a month or so ago, as it had gotten too long.

Erm, to be honest, there isn't much of an answer to your question. I'm personally not a fan of continuously sending the talk to the right hand side of the page, for the reasons that you note - as long as two comments arn't at the same indentation one after the other, it shouldn't be too confusing. There certainly isn't a given number of colons that I stop at, however, and I'm sure I could find occaisions where I have indented. Therefore, the best probable explanation is that I couldn't be bothered to type half a dozen colons before my text! --Robdurbar 18:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whilst I'm here, I'll give you the standard welcome message. It has a number of links detailing policies or procedures. As it says, if you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Welcome!

Hello, P64, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Robdurbar 18:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

From your question at Wikipedia talk:Five pillars, anyone may archive old discussions and archives should not be altered. New matters related to something in the archive should be brought up on the main talk page. If you have any other questions about this or something else on Wikipedia, I would be happy to answer. —Centrx→talk • 20:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Centrx, Thanks for sectioning this talk and for clear instructi-suggestions on your own talk page about how to talk.

No further questions at the moment, as I did find the instructi-suggestions about archiving. --P64 01:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Talk pages

The way around that dilemma is to do an archive of the talk page, rather than deleting stuff, which somebody might yelp about. Wahkeenah 03:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you did absolutely fine. Bear in mind that you don't have to always enter such a full edit summary if you don't want to 'reverting vandalism by 69.115' would suffice; or even 'rv vandle to Smackbot', if you really want to save time. The reason you see such a full edit summary a lot is because administrators and some other users with fancy technology have tools that allow them to immediatly revert an edit, leaving an automated summary.

You are also correct that that was the user's only contribution. If you want, you could add a test template to his/her user talk page - these can be found at Template:TestTemplates. For an edit such as this user's - simply adding nonesense, first edit, no personal attacks etc. - then either '{{subst:Template:Verror2}}' or '{{subst:test1-n|Origins of Baseball}} ' would work best. However, there is no obligation on your part to add such a message; it does help flag up for future users that this person has already vandalised, however. --Robdurbar 21:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{WikiProject United States}}. It appears that you have been a regular editor at WikiProject U.S. counties and I thought that project might be interested in doing this. I am going to contact some of the other members of the project as well. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --
unsigned by User:Kumioko 06:08, 29 November 2010

Have made edits to spellings of names in article List of bridge books and magazines/Encyclopedic bibliographies and left message on dicussion page of Official Encyclopedia of Bridge. Thanks. Newwhist (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I like your test addition of 'location' and 'edition' parameters in the 'cite book' template. All six editions should be done likewise and should be made the universal cut and paste master in a new Wikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridge section. Newwhist (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Man, that's a whole thing, isn't it? Did they ever decide whether to split off all the former-franchise articles, or do "History of" or whatever?

Anyway, I do not know how to find all of the instances. I know I've dabbed a lot of BRS --> Braves links over the past few weeks. I'd be happy to help work a list if it can be generated. Cheers .... Woodshed (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw your post on the discussion page of the Yankees-Giants rivalry page. I brought up a related issue on the Template:Subway Series discussion page. If you could help address it I know it would help. Thanks! Arnabdas (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Board and table games for a Signpost article to be published in May. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

My interest is in Contract bridge quite specifically so the interview is not for me. I am interested to note that Chess is excluded from Board and table games in some sense.--P64 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article National Association as a major league has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

In the course of its five year history (ironically, the same length of time the NA itself survived) this article has attracted fewer edits than the National Association had teams (this PROD is edit #21 by my count). No salvageable content here whatsoever. Terribly written, no sources, text has absolutely nothing to do with the page title (most of the text is a semi-coherent explanation about how baseball encyclopedias, shockingly enough, collect statistics - surely a revelation for the ages), and the real kicker is that the topic is already covered much more thoroughly in the main National Association article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Badger Drink (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Newwhist (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Newwhist (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Newwhist (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

talkback (4)

I am regularly contributing in spanish wiki, where, among others, I am making all the bridge pages (around 400). As there is missing bridge material and small errors in the english version I just wanted to contribute here. Thanks for the advices for newcomers. I will introduce some new stuff from 7th edition if you are interested.

I can also make some improuvements here and there if no one objects, but I do not want to bother anybody.

Kindly, --John plaut (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are being very kind. I appreciate your help a lot. Will try to follow suit. --John plaut (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I can not find the following needed contract bridge templates

• BridgeSuitNWS
• BridgeSuitNES
• BridgeSuitWE
• BridgeSuitNWE

The use of the corresponding BridgeHand templates spend too much space.

Thanks --John plaut (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I created the Byzantine Blackwood convention page but it does not appear in the project's contribution list. Why?

Comments: (1) Wikilinks on talk pages are useful. Beside the link for navigation, they also provide spell check. (Compare Byzantine Blackwood Convention, which is a redlink because mis-spelled.) The lowercase "c" is appropriate, and it's a correction that I made to your text when I added the wikilink.

I have added the WPCB banner. See Talk: Byzantine Blackwood convention.

"contributions list"? Do you mean the classified list of Newest Articles Created or Substantially Improved at (note the shortcut title) WP:WPCB#Articles requiring attention? That must be updated manually. Ideally the article creator does it. As far as I know, the project banner does not help track new articles systematically.

Cant use appropiately the &thsp; operator to separate suit symbols from cards. It simply remains unrecognized. Any hint?

Ask User:Newwhist. I think I recall some thin-space editorial work on my watchlist recently. He is also the most likely knowledgeable active editor regarding the templates for suits, hands, deals, and auctions, too. --P64 (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

tks --John plaut (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Upon seeing the various modifications you made to the various articles on the novels within the Dragonriders of Pern line, I have unfortunately made the decision to revert them. The various modifications you made, including lengthy references which seem to have nothing to do with the page, adding in HTML linebreaks (<br> tags), and placing a separation for a list of "Awards" in the lede of the page most definitely violate the various manuals of style we have set forth on this project. Rather than going through all of the articles to try to fix your massive errors, which has included omitting the title of the book from the infobox, leaving it blank, I have reverted all of your changes and restored the articles to the state they were sometime before your modifications in October. As such a long standing contributor like myself, I would think that you would have some sort of knowledge of our internal style guides.

I would request that you try to fix these massive errors in style before making any more articles resemble this.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

In fact, several of your article modifications are highly out of line with the internal guidelines we have set forth throughout WP:Manual of style. I request that you please read them before you do massive formatting changes to articles, again.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

[ User: mccojr02#Dragonriders of Pern ]

Thanks for contacting me about modifications! I'm happy to see that someone else is interested in improving the pages. I haven't made any serious modifications in several years and have only just gotten back into it. In the past, I've had to clean up what I will call "hit-and-run modifications", so I'm very happy to collaborate. I hope none of my modifications were insulting, and I won't take any offense to yours. Cheers! mccojr02 23:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Let me note to myself, at least, that I will get back to McCaffrey by the end of this month. --P64 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

You asked me to have a look at these following recent changes.

Ryulong and I agree that the articles need to be brought in line with conventional Wikipedia style. The latest versions can be the basis for these further changes, as long as they happen. I have updated Dragonflight as I think is necessary. I hope we can continue to work together to improve Anne's articles and I suggest we proceed as follows:

• you should restore the book titles to any infoboxes where they are missing
• you should normalise section heading spacing in all the articles with one blank line and no br tag before and no blank line after
• if there are other articles with awards details in the lead, please create a separate awards section (see Dragonflight)
• please take a fresh look at a few featured articles and recent changes to Anne McCaffrey and Dragonflight to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's conventions regarding source and presentation.
• please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia Manual of Style if you have not already done so (I'm not suggesting learning it by heart, I certainly have not, but make sure you know what is covered and where to find the details if you need them).

The changes to separate article contents, notes, references and citations involve some "high technology". Since your aspiration is to include a lot of detail in the articles, you really need to learn (if I may say so) how to do this properly. If you carry on as at present, your additions must be reworked substantially and some may be removed as irrelevant or unmaintainable. So please also start reorganising the articles using Dragonflight, as it evolves, as an example. If anything is not clear, please ask. I suggest take one article at a time and we can discuss progress with it. The aim will be that you are able to add content which will survive more-or-less unaltered as the articles evolve further. I will in parallel also update other articles, also one at a time. I will probably go over all the articles with one or two "little scripts" to make some boring mechanical changes. We can do any final polishing once the main changes have been made to all the articles. --Mirokado (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

You mention changes that must be made to conform with style guidelines, and mention "final polishing" as if it might be imminent. What time horizon do you have in mind here? These were stubs and starts that Ryu felt moved to protect. Half of the references and external links that s/he angrily restored were home pages of complex websites (eg, pernhome.com, pern.nl) and half were URLs without linknames (http://www.blahblah...). --I exaggerate; not quite half and half

(I have noted privately that one of the Pern book articles was graded C by some project. I recall that it was Dragonflight but the record shows that I am wrong, altho it may be the one that deserved that grade.) I admit that Dragonflight deserves special attention (importance=Mid, selected for six several foreign language pedia). It may be prudent to improve this one in giant steps rather than quite so piecemeal as I have attempted but I feel bad that you are suddenly working hard here. The content probably isn't yet worth that.

Your edit summaries are super. Thanks.

P.S. I have a copy of Dragonholder again. Tomorrow I'll have it in hand. --P64 (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Glad you like the edit summaries

It is clear from what you say that you have lots more content you are intending to add or update. Good!! I think though you should mostly wait until you are reasonably confident that what you write will not have to be reorganised (as a massive extra effort rather than just in the course of normal article evolution). Otherwise a lot of what you do is a waste of your time, mine or anybody else's who works on the articles. Apart from new content, I see several dimensions of changes needed:

• easily identified, systematic changes to all the articles (removing extra br tags for example)
• changes which are best done one article at a time

Combining both means that other editors will see some progress across the board, and one article after another reaching our current quality goal. By "final polishing" I meant something like editing five articles a time in a tabbed browser and going back and forth between them until they are all really nice and consistent. No timetable for that, we will know when it is time for that sort of tidying up.

There is "no timetable" for Wikipedia, but I think we should try to demonstrate regular progress with these articles. I, and no doubt you, have other things to do as well but will try to devote "a few" editing sessions per week until I'm happy with them. I hope you can also do something similar, both so that you can create conventionally-styled content without anybody else looking over your shoulder and because as I have already said I don't want to "spoil your fun".

Once articles are formatted nicely I would propose generally to leave further content addition to yourself or others, although I may join in from time to time. --Mirokado (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have more-or-less finished initial edits for Dragonflight, Dragonquest and The White Dragon. I have started with another seven, see your watchlist, more edits to come for those. --Mirokado (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, very few template documentation pages have talk pages, and the few that do exist aren't watched much. Pretty much all discussion takes place on the talk page of the template itself. Accordingly, I've moved this thread from Template talk:Sfn/doc to Template talk:Sfn.

On a side issue: you may find the template {{tlx}} useful. This allows you to show how a template is used, without actually invoking the template itself. So, by using that, I can do this: {{sfn|Smith|1960|loc=Acknowledgements}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

A page recently got added into the mainspace and it is in dire, desperate need of attention. I'm not too savvy about the world of sports or some of the people who talk about it, so I thought I'd direct it to someone who is more familiar with sports in general. The page is for Alex Akita and it's currently a mess. Most of the links are from Akita's various pages and the various sections are full of non-notable and obviously not neutral material. Since a lot of the unencyclopedic edits happened by various IPs very quickly, I'm trying to get it semi-protected for the time being. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79Reply

Hi, T.

The {{neutrality}} tag is appropriate. I have replaced {{sources}} with three tags at top, top of References, and bottom: {{blp sources}}, {{primary sources}}, {{improve categories}}. You may be interested to visit those templates and skim their documentation including "See also" sections.

I don't know about handling gross "unencyclopedic edits" except deletion, as I have done the last three paragraphs. Perhaps you can learn more about procedures.

There is something else to do about articles on living people. I don't work on that but I'll take a quick look and make a second edit if I think that it will be helpful.

I know little about sports talk radio and less about facebook. Until I read "Dawgs" in this article, I didn't know that Washington Huskies were dogs. I can't afford to watch. Good luck with that. --P64 (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello from a "talk page stalker". I have added the WP Bio template to the talk page, which is what we need for a biography, with living=Yes for a living person. --Mirokado (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks! I definitely need to brush up on my tags. I'm getting more savvy but so far I'm at a definite novice level. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79Reply

See another BELOW

"Karl wrote science fictions for children and young adults". Is "science fictions" normal American usage? It is incorrect in British usage, where we would say something like "science fiction stories". --Mirokado (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It would be unusual, spoken. I read it somewhere else and thought it clear. I doubt that it's incorrect. ("Mystery fiction" rather than mysteries would be unusual, spoken.) ... The NYT obituary does say "science-fiction novels", which is more specific hence worth saying. For some Americans, everything in NYT is correct, by definition, even preferable, but I will not use their hyphenated adjective.

Rereading that obituary after visiting Simon & Schuster online yesterday, I realize that those two sources are clear about the full name of the imprint "Atheneum B.f.Y.R." in 1961 and forty years later, so I can improve the article in another way. (but not tonight)

Thanks. --P64 (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

P.S. My barnstar should recognize "competitions articles" rather than "competition articles"! That work probably warps my judgment. -P64

Hi! I saw this article come up on AfC, but it wasn't nearly ready enough to go to the mainspace. I was just wondering if you wanted to take a look at the article and see if there's anything here that would merit an article. I know fizz all about sports, so I'm definitely not the right person to edit it. I did notice that the person creating the article appeared to be his son (through the name of the editor), so if the guy is notable enough then someone would definitely have to help him out. I noticed that the guy hadn't come back on since October, so I'm not sure how much help he'd be. I did do a bit of searching through google, but all I found was an article about his death and a few articles stating that Gavin should be put in the Hall of Fame for boxing. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Al Gavin, Boxing Cutman and Trainer I'm afraid that I'm just not knowledgeable enough to know if he passes WP:NSPORT or not. It looks like he might, but I'm not too familiar with all of this to know for certain.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79Reply

• I have a feeling that if there are other sources to be found, they'll probably be print sources rather than online sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79Reply

Hi, Toke(?)

No, I must decline. Boxing experts or enthusiasts Wikipedia:BOXING must attend to this one. If Al Gavin is any legitimate, even if remote, candidate for the boxing HOF, they should welcome notification.

Do articles come to your attention through WP:Sports? Or do you skim generally (such as AfC) for sports content?

Two or three generations ago, boxing and horse racing may have been national sports in USA (where I am), but no longer --three or four generations ago, if you are as young as the "girl" suggests. --P64 (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Generally all I do with AfC is go down through the list and pick at random. Sometimes I'll go for the ones that have the most awkward titles (like this one) because they always surprise me somehow. Either they're woefully underdone or surprisingly interesting. I'll go and recommend this to the boxing crowd- I didn't know that group existed! Thanks!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)toyogirl79Reply

Hi P64, I took a quick spin on the discussion page for categories listed for renaming. I actually never read over the category naming protocols so my head's now hurting from all that metadata.... Oww! Still, the situation isn't as bad as having a new category deleted completely, which I have undergone. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks.

Ha ha (below): One of our automated rivals doesn't like my National Book Awards work so much. Now I need to earn this icon. --P64 (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi again P64: I saw your note on the editing of article lede/lead sections and wanted to comment on the process. A bit of caution is occasionally used when editing the lede section so as to not overwhelm it with details which should ordinarily reside in the article's main body. As noted in Wikipedia's Manual Of Style, the lede should normally "stand alone as a concise overview". In that context, if the most significant event in an individual's story was the person's award of a book prize, then it would be fair to include its details in his or her lede section. In the case of M. Saint-Exupery, he experienced a life chock full of highly notable occurrences, which included the winning of two major literary prizes in France (as well as a second level prize plus other minor literary awards). Listing all those details, as well as his three French medals which are probably of equal importance, would very likely overload his lede section, making it significantly too long. Since details of his French literary prizes weren't included in the lede it would only make sense to omit details of the U.S. National Book Award in that introductory section, i.m.h.o. Anyways, please keep up your good work! -its a delight to see you helping to flesh out this massive body of knowledge with incredible detail that is finely cited. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. I agree with your A dSE because this book is mentioned in the article (and the award bears mention in the America section for another reason, unique to his being non-American). It was some kind of mistake by me to put the details in the lead; I try not to replicate them for anyone. --and try to put the details in one place, although AdSE makes that difficult with the book discussed here and the visit to NYC discussed there.

Some of these authors have mere Stubs, others very stale Starts. Unless s/he grabs my interest, I then try to deposit the facts and make a quick getaway. --P64 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there - appreciate the updates to various Earthsea novels. You have added a note to about 4 novel pages, linking to the Internet Speculative Fiction Database for detail on the Earthsea sequence and stories; however there is already a wikilink to Earthsea just prior to your note on every novel page. The Wikipedia Earthsea page describes everything in your note, so it seem superfluous to link to an external source. Can you think of a way to make it more apparent there is a dedicated Wikipedia page for the series? I am open to rewording, etc - obviously it escaped your notice so it is probably the same for other readers? Regards Npd2983 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am on vacation for a few days so here is a "short" reply only. In the article on a series book, I think it is always appropriate to give an outside Reference for bibliographic details about its publication history or details, or to place it briefly in the context of its series. Probably you agree that ISFDB is a good choice for that.

I think so even if we do have an article about the series whose title suggests that it must provide bibliographic information. (Such as the Dragonriders of Pern, The Chronicles of Prydain, The Chronicles of Narnia. See for example Reference[1] at Dragongirl, a stub I created this fall. In contrast I disagree with providing no reference or note as at The Silver Chair, which I first visited just now. And even there, ISFDB is one External link.)

For LeGuin's Earthsea Cycle, as ISFDB calls it, we do not have a series article. We have a world article, akin to Pern and Narnia (world) (and several more specialized Narnia articles). For Prydain, on the other hand, we have only the series article; Prydain leads to the series article (and to Britain and Wales). Our articles on the Prydain books (see The High King, which I have edited but not heavily) do rely on a lead-sentence wikilink to the series article rather than provide any reference or note. That works better than it would for Earthsea, but I expect to change it.

Should there also be a distinct Note (as Note[a] at Dragongirl) or a Note with some explanation in place of a Reference (as Note[a] at The Farthest Shore)? Commonly I use Note whenever I have anything to say beyond giving a source for what is in the text, yet that material doesn't seem to belong in the text.

...

I have gone on much too long with a slow computer or slow connection and an operating system that I don't know. For how I hope this gives you something to think about and some encouragement.

P.S. Has there been much discussion or collaboration on our coverage of Earthsea? --P64 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

TALKBACK

Thanks for your messages.

1) I don't know of any thing off the top of my head regarding the speculative fiction question.

2) Regarding authority control, I don't think people have generally been citing the authority databases in footnotes; I think it's assumed that the link is the reference, since it takes you directly to LC or DNB or whatever.

Regarding the templates: see Template:Chris Ware and Template:Art Spiegelman for other examples where the authority info is included in the template; in other words, there is precedent. --FeanorStar7 (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

TALKBACK

I have no preference either way about its format. Maybe a table would be nice. Thanks for taking an interest in the CYRM awards. Einbierbitte (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

TALKBACK

I was specifically working on cleaning up Category:American architecture at the time, so the particular batch run I was doing at the time only looked for duplication within that particular category, and not for other categorization issues. But I've gone back and manually removed two more unnecessary categories (including the "Media museums in the US" one) just now. It's not a software issue as such, except for the fact that you can really only automate one task per batch and then have to create a new batch for the next task. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

TALKBACK

As discussed, I have checked all pages (articles and other pages) that link to Bermuda Bowl.

Bermuda Bowl has these anchors (the "span id" defines anchor "40th" using html):

{{anchor|1950s–1970s}}
{{anchor|1980s–2000s}}
{{anchor|zonal}}
<span id=40th>[http://www.worldbridge.org/tourn/Veldhoven.11/Veldhoven.htm 40th World Team Championships] ...</span>

There are 348 pages currently linking to Bermuda Bowl, but none of them link to a section in that article! That is, there are no pages containing wikitext like [[Bermuda Bowl#xxx]] (and none with spaces before the "#").

The article itself does use some of the anchors, with this wikitext:

• [[#zonal|Zones as well as nations]]
• [[#40th|40th World Teams]] (twice)

I suggest you delete the unused anchors (1950s and 1980s) using an edit summary like "delete anchors because no page links to them". Or, if you want to keep them, delete the range (just call them "1950s" and "1980s"). Or, replace the dash with "to". Using a hyphen is just going to cause trouble with future people who "fix" them, and using en dashes is hopeless as anyone wanting to use them would probably not know how (a copy/paste would work, but they might try typing it). Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

TALKBACK

Yes, I translated some English articles on bridge championships to Chinese wikipedia.

Yan Lu (盧燕 or 卢燕, first name "Yan" and last name "Lu") and Ru Yan (阎茹, first name "Ru" and last name "Yan") are different players. Please note: Chinese people always say last name (surname, family name) first and first name last.

I am living at Nonantum and hope to meet you in person. My email is Ke_Lu@yahoo.com, cell phone is 781-296-7519.--Nonantum (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

TALKBACK

See another ABOVE

I don't know anything about the Munson name. I did some quick looking in the pay version of worldcat earlier today - there are books listed under R.W. Munson, but they seem to be science, not Science Fiction. I don't think the LC Authority record has this info. I have requested a copy of an item by R W Munson that's available in my library consortium - hopefully it will give some idea. That's the only real thought I've got now for ready confirmation on it.

LazyLizaJane (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

TALKBACK

Sorry to get back so late. Actually, I couldn't find these probabilities anywhere online myself, so out of interest I wrote a piece of code to calculate them for me. I don't know how to cite this as a source unfortunately... I've put the code here, if that's of any help. --90.192.243.101 (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

TALKBACK

Hi. Thanks for your message. Regarding your question about the authority control template, I do it manually (by eye).

Also, thanks for the heads up about the spacing issue; I was trying to save space on the servers; if the bot is adding spaces that's fine. I will let it all go and just focus on the content.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the authority control numbers: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Congress_Control_Number

under the section Format. 2001 and later years use the four digits so for example:

n2012094994

so the number should be broken up like this:

n/2012/94994

if you do it the other way; the WorldCat link doesn't work.

Regarding the space and format issue: I refer to what I said above about content; I wasn't aware of all the complexities.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please note the most recent comment from Jack Blackbourne at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#See_also_navbox. If you elect to take your suggestion to RfC then please let me know so I can add my 2 cents. (I am monitoring your talk page, so you can let me know here.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

TALKBACK

... archived at User talk:ChrisGualtieri/Archive 1#Replacing Dagger; and dagger;

You are invited to comment on the following probability-related RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

your comments here, at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, about Category:Astrid Lindgren, make perfect sense to me (i put back all the relevant categories, just to cause trouble :)). Eponymous categories are ONLY useful to bibliographic nerds, and should not be a substitute for real categories, ESPECIALLY by some sort of policy of NOT categorizing categories which happen to also be articles. I hope that enough of us can get this issue cleared up. its just weird to me, to have this parallel structure, with the administrative one becoming the one that readers are expected to use. cats for Apple, IBM, GM, John Lennon, all with parent cats. this is really strange to me, especially since we have huge areas of WP where the epocat structure is not used, like for every city in the US except 3.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I have just created Sky Dragons and run around in little circles fixing matters arising. Of course you are welcome to update it... I will add a scan of the US first edition cover "soon" (it is in the post). I've also created a category Category:Novels by Todd McCaffrey. --Mirokado (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notice. I haven't read it. During a big storm here a few days ago, I read Crystal Singer (1974) for the first time. Despite some notable flaws it grabbed me (at age 50+). I think I'll get back to AM and TM this month (November). --P64 (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Happy children join me in extending the best possible Season's Greetings to you and your loved ones at this time of year, and if you don't celebrate the usual holidays (Diwali, Xmas, Hanukkah, Eid, Kwanzaa, etc....), then we will still wish you a Happy Festivus. All the best: HarryZilber (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

The first paragraph of I Am the Cheese doesn't make any grammatical sense after your edit, and I can't figure out what you meant! Could you fix that? --70.194.80.111 (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I did the best I could to explain. You may also be interested in joining the WikiProject. We could use a bit of help. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible --at a remote Windows machine, perhaps using some tool external to wikpedia-- to search hidden comments specifically? or to search page code for specific strings?

--not using Advanced search, iiuc, for its scope is all pages as rendered, by namespace. --P64 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, this is possible by using the Mediawiki API[1]. Bjelleklang - talk 08:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi P64,

Sorry for not replying sooner - I set your message aside to reply to and then things kept intervening! A couple of replies:

• WorldCat's "links" to Wikipedia aren't actually links - they just plug the author's name into the search function, which is why Robert O'Brien goes to the redirect Robert C. O'Brien and then to the disambiguation page. I don't know why they're not pulling the one out of VIAF, which does have Robert O'Brien (author).

• For your first case, Avi, it's probably best to create the Avi Wortis link as a redirect, just in case :)

• The ones we want to know about are the cases like Sorenson (two clusters not matched together) or Vanderpool (messed up VIAF-Worldcat links). It'd definitely be useful to know about these, or - especially - about any cases where the VIAF page links to the wrong Wikipedia entry (or vice versa). You can leave these notes at Wikipedia:VIAF/errors (which I am finally going to tidy up sometime soon...)

Thanks for looking into these - it's good to know that we have reliable data for a set of major authors! Andrew Gray (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think these are okay to leave as is; usually, the main record will contain a note of all the pseudonyms in the 500 field, but the "major" ones often have seperate entries. See here for an example of what an original record might look like. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:MOSDAB#Individual entries, specifically: "Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary."

It seems quite likely to me that, for example, someone who's seeking to read about the racehorse named The Trump will be able to tell by the link that says The Trump (horse) whether that's the article they're seeking. I really don't think it's necessary to include the horse's birthday. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

My revised descriptions fit well with those illustrated at WP:MOSDAB and those on its recommended pages E (disambiguation) and Mercury (disambiguation). Several of those you restored were not. --P64 (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're correct that in illustrating some other points, the MOS includes examples that don't really meet this particular point. Perhaps that should be corrected. I would nevertheless argue that where the MOS offers a clear rule that specifically addresses this point, that rule would take precedence over other examples that are not addressing this point. To be more specific, when we are discussing whether a disambiguation page should use excessive description, and the MOS says "Don't use excessive description", the fact that other parts of the MOS have examples that, in talking about something completely different, happen to use excessive description, does not mean that a) we should use excessive description or b) that it is wrong to not use excessive description. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your Jan 31, 2013 edit to List of winners of the National Book Award added the ref names "nba1980s" and "nba1970s" but without any text for those refs. Would you please revisit the article and add the sources you intended? Thanks. - Salamurai (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I still hope for replies to my technical questions before the tag {underconstruction expires in 2-1/2 days!

They are defined in the References section and called in the body of the article. See refs 3 and 22. The question is how to call them from explanatory footnotes.

I have asked a mentor who (formerly?) visits almost daily and notified, or implicitly asked, the other frequent maintainer of the List. Now I'll expand notice to the List talk.

--P64 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

okay, didn't see the underconstruction tag, as it was posted late in the article. I moved it to the top of the article where it will be seen. I also didn't see the "nba1970/1980" when I searched the code. It appears the real problem is the placement of <ref> code within the "efn" code, as you note above, and which I don't know how to fix offhand. I don't have much time to spend here tonight; if it hasn't been resolved by the next time I can visit I'll make sure to see what I can do to help. Thanks for your reply! - Salamurai (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

By the way, did you find this problem using a general tool or hidden category for such pages? I placed the tag where this station (my browser and user preferences) displays red notices such as Cite error: [ref] tag with name "nba1970s" defined in [references] is not used in prior text; see the help page. --supposing that visitors would experience the problem only by reading at that point. --P64 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I frequently visit the hidden category Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and fix pages that have ref errors, if I can figure them out. It's good editing practice, tho the list keeps getting long (vandals, carelessness, etc). Also it's something to do if I'm not actively working on an article or project. Those "Cite error" messages are why they appear on the Category. - Salamurai (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

(copied from above)

... Now I'll expand notice to the List talk.

--P64 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done promptly and one day later, "yesterday" broadly, I crafted a long illustration of the alternative approach. Talk:List of winners of the National Book Award#Split awards

We expect a major blizzard here where I sit and i may not be back here where I write for days. --P64 (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

(1) Hi P64. I finally had a block of time I could use to look at the ref errors and figure them out. Another user has commented them out a couple of days ago, making them invisible, which I find to be a "sweep under the rug" approach. I'm going to see if I can actually repair them, and will report again with what worked. - Salamurai (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

(2) okay, it doens't appear to be the cite code in the EFN at all. There are supposed to be six cites for "split74" but only 3 (edit: no, it's 7, I'm looking at the wrong line.) are showing up. - Salamurai (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

(3) Inexplicably, it turns out that placing the actual notes in the {{notelist}} as one would expect, but also with <ref></ref> code, causes the code to read the citation one extra time. But sometimes the extra read doesn't work and that trips the cite error, because it's incorrectly expecting 2 but only getting 1. The only way I could prevent it is to move the EFN's out of the Notelist and place them at their occurrences. It's annoying. But, it's repaired now. - Salamurai (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've rescued it. It's too bad that people can just blank articles like that. I wonder how much information has been lost from this encyclopedia because of nasty acts like that. I hope that the bots wouldn't allow that sort of thing to happen today. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

[2]. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello P64! Thanks for your constructive edits to the Jules Verne article, especially the very enlightening research about Verne's place at the Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame. Now that we have a "Monuments and tributes" section in the article, I've gone ahead and moved the SFFHoF information into that section. Please do let me know if you have any questions or concerns.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi P64. Please see WT:CRIC re your question. Best wishes. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you please revisit Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fictional_characters#Template:Jack.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

initiated at User talk:Quentin X (as bulleted)

• I have no orphan for you!
• What is the historical accuracy preserved here?

[3]

• --P64 (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Aha, I wondered if I'd ever be asked this question. There is nothing to aid the accuracy in that particular article,

interjection. I suppose you mean no aid because they were knighted before they received this lifetime achievement award. --P64 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely Quentin X (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

but it aids finding historical inaccuracies in other articles linked to someone who has been knighted. There are a fair few articles that call someone "Sir" even though the date in the article is before they were knighted. Be redirecting all the Sir links, it helps in finding articles that call someone "Sir" or "Dame" or "Lord" incorrectly. Yes, I am that anal. Quentin X (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

In your recent edit at S. E. Hinton you added 'screenplays' to genres in the infobox. 'Screenplays' seem, to me, a literary form destined for another medium and not, as such, a genre. Neonorange (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's hard to know exactly what you objected to that would cause you to revert an edit that brought the article in question into line with a number of guidelines. I'm reinstating the edit, although I'll scrutinise it and try to guess what on earth the issue is. A note on the talk page explaining your action would have been preferable. Better still, a manual partial revert. Tony (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here are some links to pertinent useful recent discussion

1. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Script-assisted conversion of Retrieved YYYY-MM-DD -09-06
2. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlink overdone -09-06
3. Template talk:Infobox person#Influences/influenced -09-29

3b. See also Template talk:Infobox writer#"Influences" and "Influenced". {Infobox writer} is the particular template I have used but {infobox person} is its parent and most of the discussion is there. --including all, so far, that concerns zealous deletion.

Regarding the first I will hereafter specify "abuse of MOS:NUM" in the edit summary. Manual restoration is appropriate sometimes when the changes are few in number --as for OhC at The Lantern Bearers a month ago (history). But note the link stripped from historical novel, the second theme here --where I can't say you have gone so far (unlinking science fiction, for example) as OhC has done.

Regarding the third, how do you imagine that deletion of influences/influenced data is covered by NUM, CAPS, and LINK? Ironically, users Quiddity and Michael Bednarek evidently supposed that those data are secure from deletion, and should be, at the same time you were underway citing those three MOS topics as justification.

--P64 (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your work on those articles is appreciated. (I don't have answers about the book lists, I'm afraid.) The judicious use of wikilinking is well-established on the English Wikipedia and is supported by wide community consensus and the guidelines. There are, occasionally, grey areas, yes. Generally links should be as specific as possible, if they need to be used at all. This reinforces the functionality of the linking system. You might have noticed how undisciplined and random linking is on many other Wikipedias (the French and Italians seem to link anything and everything). It greatly weakens the navigational system and makes their pages look pretty messy. Thanks. Tony (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious about this edit. Why did you use a comment instead of using an inline reference? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 22:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

One answer is that I don't create formal references because there was no reply, nor related change to the main page, when I asked about citing authority databases last March, Wikipedia talk:Authority control#Citation. No doubt a longer comment is helpful to some other editors --such as !--immed. source is Ext link LCCN-->, as for Victor Martinez (author) last hour (diff), where I added only the middle initial but LCCN is one immediate source for birth/deathdate too. I was lazier for Pete Hautman.

Sometime last year another editor chimed in about using the pages of catalog databases without formal references but I don't find that or any other more recent such discussion at WP:Authority control (above), or at Template talk:Authority control including its three archives. Maybe there has been discussion on one of the {{worldcat}} talk pages --but there is more than one WorldCat template.

(Recently for American writer biographies I add a traditional External link to Library of Congress Authorities, which displays another arrangement of much info at the LCCN target including the notes on vital data such as fullnames and birthdates.)

--P64 (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Update. On work by Pete Hautman as Peter Murray. There are 88 such LC catalog records, mainly short science books for the schools market. I added another catalog Ext link and now a talk page notice, Talk:Pete Hautman#Science writer. --P64 (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

initiated at User talk:Mercurywoodrose#Copyright restriction of best lists (viz. 100 Best)

The Wikipedia policy i could find is Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use, which includes recreations of "top 100" lists that have been selected creatively. lists based on objective sales, date of appearance, etc. would be ok to recreate.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

initiated at User:DragonflySixtyseven#Talk page review

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

About the trilogy article and its talk, Talk:His Dark Materials

I've left the following on the HDM talk page, but am copying it to your talk page in case you don't return to HDM:

Well it's nice to no longer be talking to myself on the HDM pages! I appreciate the advise re: the table, and had already intended to cover the matter in prose. Put at its most succinct it would be that Will's World appears to be our own in the decades immediately prior to the writing of the book, but despite (cited)references/allusions to events & dates in the books, it isn't possible to come to any conclusions with regard to dates in other worlds. I apologise for putting my new sections out of order, however the other sections seemed to be on matters which had long since been resolved. I've also toned down my own section heading. Unfortunately, this is only one of a myriad of speculative/irrelevant/confusing or inappropriate parts of the coverage across all the HDM pages, also unfortunately other editors seem to have lost interest in the content.

Thankyou for the advisePincrete (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, I've only just understood that you were probably referring to the inappropriates of a table on the TALK page of HDM, rather than in the article. I was using the talk page as as a temporary 'clipboard' in order that others could respond to its removal, probably an inappropriate use. The table has now gone!Pincrete (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

That is a reasonable use of Talk when the removed material is not too long (as yours was not) and you consider its removal worth discussion--or simply worth notice beyond the scope of the edit summary.

I did mean the table of alternatives in the article; that the article should cover the allusions in prose. Skimming the talk page yesterday I noticed that another editor approved the table of alternatives at least as a general approach: User:Old Moonraker 14:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC) in section Talk:His Dark Materials#Parallels with real floods in C20 Britain.

--P64 (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

initiated at User talk:Bearcat#American young adult novelists

I'm aware of the Category:American young adult novelists category; it was one of the things I put into the new category. Although there is some obvious overlap, the two aren't strictly the same thing, as not all young adult literature is necessarily "novels" — some of it is short stories, some of it is non-fiction, and on and so forth. AWB also doesn't offer me a way to evaluate whether somebody should have gone into the novels category instead of the more general one — the only thing I can do in AWB is a straight one-to-one "if Category:Writers of young adult literature, then Category:American writers of young adult literature" move, not a situational "if A, B and C then D, but if A, F and J then Q" move. So if there are articles I moved that could be further moved into the novelists category instead, or if you'd rather delete the novelists subcategory and move everybody up to the more general one instead, then by all means the categories can be further refined as needed — it's just not possible for me to have done so while processing an AWB batch. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

The shortlists were just announced here I made a very quick entry on both those pages. They'll need cleanup. Can you take another look at them? Thanks! Einbierbitte (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Done We have Clare Morpurgo. I'm not sure we should, but I'll add some basic ID data to that page.   Done

I see that CILIP has a new or improved or restored longlist that we should at least note in section 2 of these articles, Carnegie Medal (literary award) and Greenaway Medal. --nothing done during March

Maybe I'll soon get around to specifying the 2007 press releases that are cited collectively in section 5. Here's one.[4] --nothing done during March

--P64 (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

P.S. The biennial Hans Christian Andersen Award is next Monday; its shortlists were announced yesterday.[5] The annual Astrid Lindgren Award is next Tuesday.[6] --updates   Done

--P64 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

clarify, markup, update the preceding --P64 (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

A year ago, you were the 805th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 805 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please, with respect to that portion of your 19 November 2013 edit [7] reading "These people may be considered winners of the prize…," how did you determine that they may be considered winners of a prize awarded to organizations not to individuals? Thank you. JohnValeron (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

See also Pulitzer Prize-winning newspapers, whose first sentence is false, and Category talk:Pulitzer Prize-winning newspapers.

I didn't make any determination that it is appropriate to consider these people PPrize winners, only the observation that it is common, and the qualifications. No doubt, wikipeditors have credited numerous people with Pulitzer Prizes relying on (a) claims by those people or their agents, such as the official websites of those people; (b) coverage by their newspaper-employers; (c) coverage by their current employers.

I don't know whether the Pulitzer organization consider even those people named in its short citations for the Public Service PPrize to be "Winners" of that prize. (Eg, see the burbs for 2008 to 2010, which name five people, four in boldface.) Nor do I know whether the Pulitzer organization authorizes those people to call themselves Pulitzer-Prize winners, nor whether it habitually looks the other way. I think I know that it doesn't enforce the prohibition at all strictly, if there is one.

By the way, last year I moved down into the subcategories of Pulitzer Prize winners for journalism about 90% of the supposed biographies of journalists that were in that category and its parent Pulitzer Prize winners. Commonly I relied on our biography rather than check it. Offhand I suppose that I moved 200 biographies into journalism-Pulitzer subcategories (a few of which I created); relying on our biography alone for about 100; confirming and supporting with formal references about 100.

--P64 (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your prompt response. Since the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service is awarded to news organizations, not to individuals, and since you cite no authority for listing individuals within either Pulitzer Prize for Public Service winners or Pulitzer Prize-winning newspapers, I have taken the liberty to revise those category pages accordingly. If you disagree with my edits, I hope we may discuss this further on the Talk page of each Category. JohnValeron (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't know whether we should call any people winners of the Public Service PPrize, but I haven't read on the official website or in print any of the general material that I would read if I were serious about the prose sections of our PP pages in general.

I don't know either whether we should call any newspapers winners of the other PPrizes, which are awarded to people rather than to their employers. Same qualification: I haven't read any of the general material.

Your short prefaces have the major problem that they don't explain what pages are in the categories. Focusing on the newspapers for illustration because I guess you missed that point, Category:Pulitzer Prize-winning newspapers does not actually comprise those newspapers that have won the Public Service PPrize. It comprises those 52/53 newspapers plus 36/37 others that may be (whether or not they should be) called Pulitzer Prize-winning newspapers as publishers/employers of Pulitzer-Prize winning people.

I do watch these category talk pages and many others where I have provided some explanation of or accounting for the category coverage. --P64 (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again for your prompt response. Please let me respond to a couple of your points.

• "I don't know whether we should call any people winners of the Public Service PPrize," you write. The official citation reads: "For a distinguished example of meritorious public service by a newspaper or news site through the use of its journalistic resources, including the use of stories, editorials, cartoons, photographs, graphics, videos, databases, multimedia or interactive presentations or other visual material, a gold medal."[8] Since the prize is not awarded to individuals, Wikipedia should not single out any person as winner of this particular honor.
• "Category:Pulitzer Prize-winning newspapers does not actually comprise those newspapers that have won the Public Service PPrize." Thank you for clarifying that, which I definitely misunderstood. Accordingly, I have deleted the preface, "These newspapers have won or shared the American Pulitzer Prize for Public Service (1922–present)," and encourage you to substitute a concise explanation of what this category does include.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnValeron (talk • contribs) 15:49, 23 April 2014‎ (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Phoenix Books and Audio requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ursula Vernon is an American and so the WP:STRONGNAT date format that should be used is MDY not YMD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The international styles DMY and MDY (not YMD) pertain here to prose, infobox, and publication dates. YMD is appropriate for archive and retrieve dates regardless of the other style. --not only appropriate but extraordinarily common, fwiw.

FYI future, I commonly use "script-assisted abuse of WP:MOSNUM" in the revert summary, when the given summary claims script-assisted application of MOSNUM.

--P64 (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I updated both the Carnegie and Greenaway pages for the 2014 awards. Jon Klassen won the Greenaway for This Is Not My Hat - it also won the 2013 Caldecott. The first time one book won both. I also updated the Caldecott page. Can you please go through and proofread them please? Thanks Einbierbitte (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

above #2014 Shortlists for the Carnegie and Greenaway Medals -P64

Thanks for checking the article. I read that she attended Columbia University from Columbia from a Chinese website[9]. I'm not a WBF player and I can not find any English source to support the information, either. --Huang Jinghai (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

What is your justification for the ymd dates, as far as "restoring" them? Super ugly.— TAnthony^Talk 03:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

1. Source MOS:DATEUNIFY. That is a reasonable shortcut link, new to me, which I'll try to use in future edit summaries.

YMD reference dates were previously[10] nearly uniform, the only exception being one instance of "Accessed December 9, 2007". That editor was not the earliest to choose a retrieval-date format (2007-11-02). I didn't check the history to see whether either of those two editors made major contributions to the article, which is an important criterion at least in case of dispute (and I don't know we one). Checking now, I don't believe either one of them did; the first provided only the ref and the second[11] only a sometime residence, a 500-byte contribution only because--well, see the inanity for yourself!

I didn't restore the NYT obituary publication date "Fox, Margalit (2010-04-15)" because YMD is permitted only for archival and retrieval dates.

2. No source except advice from one very experienced editor when I became a heavy editor ~4 years ago.

Altho you didn't ask, I restored the substance of old dates because I don't believe we update retrieval dates whenever we re-access, only perhaps when we re-use the source in the article, which I presumed you did not. And I changed Oct 28 and Oct 30 to 2014-10-31 as you revised the page only on the latter date. Where you found a new source at the Internet Archive (thanks), I didn't notice that it was new, but presumed that you had fixed a {{dead link}} and retained 2014-10-31 because I believe the current date correct in such a case--whenever a reference is revised to target a new page/eddress.

3. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder and "super ugly" should be avoided simply. For what it's worth, YMD in lead parens is ugly to me, eg "Fox, Margalit (2010-04-15)". That isn't permitted, either, and I wasn't paying attention when I didn't fix that as well as the MDY retrieval date 20 months ago [when I also gave "2012-02-15" as a typo for 2013].

Along with many others, I like YMD for its clear contrast with DMY and MDY in substantial senses, and also for its scan-ability at the end of references paragraphs (unless quotations or freeform instructions follow).

4. I do consider those Archived and Retrieved sentences a misuse of space, so much clutter. I would prefer retrieval dates given in succinct small notes (perhaps archival data also small, but I don't illustrate that here).

Heilemann, Michael (September 18, 2010). "George Lucas stole Chewbacca, but it's Okay". Binary Bonsai (binarybonsai.com/blog). 20101110. Archived 2013-08-08. 20141031.

That substance is from the Schoenherr biography as revised just now. Those are two retrieval dates, one preferably noting at once when the reference was completed and when the source was used in the article, and the other noting when the dead link was fixed by substitution of a current page/eddress.

If one uses a complete sentence concerning the archive, which I hate but many love, still YMD retrieval dates.

... 20101110. Archived at the Wayback Machine on August 8, 2013. 20141031.

5. I would also prefer reference layout with quotations or instructions in a separate paragraph so that retrieval dates terminate reference paragraphs more uniformly. I quit doing that because I learned that it would often be undone quickly (but Schoenherr now includes one).

--P64 (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Concerning current ref#5, my rationale is that 'Dune Universe' is the series or super-series name used by ISFDB. This series name is unofficial, as most are. Referring to that ISFDB Dune Universe page now, I see that 'Dune' is its name for the fiction by Frank Herbert; 'Dune Universe' includes non-fiction by Herbert and others, and fiction by others (indeed, named fiction series by others). --P64 (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help on VIAF, I see you work on sports articles. I have been adding the Library of Congress images of tennis, polo, and rowing. Do you work on the Flickr Commons LOC Project each Friday? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

re template {{VIAF}} partly -P64 2015-03-01

No. I have done next to nothing with images but add and improve captions in EN.wiki articles. I don't know of FCLC and haven't visited anything Flickr afaik; maybe someone else has the same or similar username.

I have done next to nothing with Library of Congress except [a] add links to LCCatalog(ue) and WorldCat using {LCAuth} and {Authority control} external links templates; [b] add biog. and bibliog. data to writer biographies and book articles using LCNAF and LCCat as sources.

Re sports my top user page is a misleading collection of notes for which I have not created a subpage or used pencil and paper. The subpages indicate where I have done a lot of EN.wiki editing. And I have added "|sports-work-group=yes |sports-priority=" [usually Low] to template {{WPBIO}} on at least hundreds of biography talk pages.

--P64 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your note and the headsup about the template. Excellent work on the glossary - keep it up! I'll try to add a few bits and pieces if I can. W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

re: Glossary of contract bridge terms and its dedicated template {{gcb}} -P64 2015-03-01

TALKBACK

initiated at User talk:Green Cardamom/3#WorldCat footer links and continued with my explanation there -P64

You've got WorldCat listed twice. Second in Authority control. That is the purpose of Authority control to aggregate library resources. However you are free to have two instances if that is what you want. -- GreenC 21:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

re templates {{worldcat id}} and {{authority control}} -P64 2015-03-01

Greetings, I added the 2015 shortlists for the Carnegie and Greenaway awards. Can you please take a look? Thanks! Einbierbitte (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

above #2014 Shortlists for the Carnegie and Greenaway Medals; #2014 Carnegie and Greenaway announced -P64

basics   Done

The annual Astrid Lindgren Award is next Tuesday, 2015-03-31 [12]. --P64 (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Re Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions, tech. [[d:Special:Permalink/171768343]] -P64

FYI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please see "From Time to TIME". If you'd like to respond, of course please do so; but please do so there. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The CYRM winners were announced May 1. I updated the list. can you proofread it please? Thanks Einbierbitte (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ebb, I'll take a look, probably not yet today. --P64 (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done. Except the homepage, every reference (all to official pages) needed a URL update and some needed a title update. I did that, and augmented some of the refs with annotations concerning their scope. I did not check that any source still supports what we say where we reference it --except "[1][4]" at the end of section 2, which is my change, whose need I noticed at a glance. --P64 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, P64 – Just curious as I haven't seen anyone add interwiki links to anything for a long time as you did to the Gédéon Naudet redirect, nor have I ever seen the authority control used on redirects before. Are those needed? Aren't the IWs handled by Wikidata now, and isn't the auth control in the target article? – Paine  01:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Paine. Briefly, yes, no, and no.

On the first two points, Wikidata ignores WP:redirects (although it retains items created by resort to, and statements imported from, Wikipedia articles subsequently converted to redirects).

On the last point, two user-space references: Last fortnight User:Gymel persuaded me to go ahead, User talk:Gymel#Moving AC templates to redirects from people, to be completed mid-May, perhaps today[^]. : User talk:T.seppelt#Author with Multiple Pseudonyms, 3 VIAF numbers shows that T.seppelt aka Kasparbot has been persuaded too. For background, mainly if not wholly archived, see WT:Authority control and Template talk:Authority control.

To be continued after I am done[^] diffusing and commenting Category:Redirects from people where H, M, S and W remain. --P64 (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay then – thank you very much for that update! – Paine  16:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Paine, I finished diffusing all and commenting many pages in Category:Redirects from people. That is, diffusing all that belong afaik in one of the subcats (joint biographies, members, relatives, spouses, writers). And deleting either "from person" or subcat(s), as appropriate, so that none of the subcats overlaps with the "from person" pages--that is, completing the diffusions by other editors.

(to be continued. only time for a few notes to self at the moment) Members: correct obvious mistakes only, usually by re-class from members as from subtopic   Done A-F and T-Z. This subcat includes many duplicates and some that are without mention in the target, which I will not uncover. (sorry, i ran out of time without returning to the interwiki point) --P64 (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps half of the remaining {R from people} are victims of spree killings, primarily school shootings. Should there be a subcat for them? Otherwise the 50 remaining {R from people}, not diffused into a subcat, include numerous • actor to film, • participant to TV series, • founder to organization, • policeman to altercation --or so I have approximately described them using 'e' parameters. --P64 (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for all this good work and for learning the Redr template so well! I helped out with the Miscellaneous redirects cat. – Paine  02:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I believe that Talk:Kingdom of Hungary needs a table of contents, as most talk pages do. Skimming the code I did not find a magic word (with "__" if i understand correctly) that now suppresses it, nor did I find where in Wikipedia space to ask for help with magic words or TOCs. So I cry out here. --P64 (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

P64, it's just __TOC__. I've added it to the page, so hopefully it should be easier to navigate around that huge discussion. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I put in the 2015 Carnegie and Greenaway winners if you can check them. Einbierbitte (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Category:Articles about multiple fictional characters appears to be tagged as a container (subcats only), but Fictional old Etonians was categorized directly there. Looking at the cat subcats, it seems the intent was to exclusively categorize "groups" of characters (e.g. duo, trio, etc.), but the cat name is arguably misleading. I'm unsure whether the container tag should be removed, or the article re-categorized, or the cat name be put into question, so thought I'd leave you a message. Slivicon (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

For this case I tweaked the redirect name Fictional Old Etonians and moved it from that multiples cat to other evidently appropriate cats (2).

I agree with your interpretation of what the fictional multiples category now contains, namely four subcategories for duos, trios, quartets, and superhero teams. But I doubt the value of the category tree around here. And I doubt that the contents of Category:Fictional quartets are quartets, or closely related to quartets, consistently. No time to say more. --P64 (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

initiated at User talk:FeanorStar7#Multiple VIAF LCCN Authority control for one article

Hi: thanks for your message. I didn't realize what was the preferred way to handle it. I don't encounter multiple people that often; but it's good to have the information. On a different matter, I note that some of the more recent authority records (mostly no and nr type records) don't properly link to WorldCat; I get a document not found message. I will have to find some examples for you... --FeanorStar7 00:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@FeanorStar7:. For someone --or some name?-- with no LCCN, WorldCat sometimes --or always?-- provides a page with "np" --which I remember as "new person"-- or "viaf" eddress. For example, Josephine Culbertson VIAF 285591688 would be one or both of these:

• https://www.worldcat.org/identities/np-culbertson,%20josephine/
• https://www.worldcat.org/identities/viaf-285591688/

I have found some "np" replaced by "viaf", and see now that Culbertson is one of them. I suppose there is a lag after LCCN is assigned to someone with such a page, before WorldCat uses the "lccn" eddress.

I don't always check the WorldCat link displayed by template AC. Probably I have missed some even with the edit summary "add {Authority control} and thus WorldCat" or "add LCCN and thus WorldCat". --P64 (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

in this case, no and nr refer to the prefixes used by NACO institutions to submit authority records to LC. no = OCLC (no95039383 for example); nr = RLIN (nr95039383) (which no longer exists; but older authorities used the prefix and still reside in the LCNAF). -- FeanorStar7 23:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read MOS:DATE and stop edit warring over a correct date format. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

At WT:MOS:DATE see my reports and subsequent discussions under the heading " Script-assisted conversion of Retrieved YYYY-MM-DD"

• September 2013 rendition
• May 2014 rendition
• and now, October 2015 rendition (not a permanent eddress)

See also #Linking, above. --P64 (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, P64. You've been making some extremely awesome edits to pages related to Rick Riordan and Percy Jackson & the Olympians lately! I'm not really sure if this is something you enjoy, or are just trying out, but on the off chance that it's the former I wanted to invite you to work on the pages relating to Suzanne Collins's The Underland Chronicles. This is a self-contained, five novel series whose Wikipedia pages have issues similar to those you've been fixing with WP:PJTF. The first three book articles, at leat, are in fairly decent shape; Book 1's is actually up for GA review. By no means should you feel obligated to work on these, but I just wanted to let you know about them. My userpage has some information about how I'm involved with the series. Happy editing, 2ReinreB2 (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hoi, I finished adding data. I noticed that you added the current winner for the Carnegie award. I can easily add the missing winners for the Carnegie award. Do you want to do that yourself (recommended). Please let me know. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes. All winning writers should be at Wikidata now, as NO.wiki has a page for every one.

For the Carnegie Medal (literary award) winners, i believe, it is plausible that either the writer or the book must always be EN.wiki notable and I suppose that all the writers and books are Wikidata notable.

Perhaps the Nansen Refugee Award winners are all EN.wiki notable and it is plausible to me that all are welcome as wikidata items.

--P64 (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@GerardM: Today I confirmed that all of the winning writers are WD items (because NO.wiki has articles for all of them, as it does for all Hans Christian Andersen Award winners and perhaps some other children's literature awards). I created WD items for the few winning books/titles that were missing.

Some of the winning publishers are missing at WD (at least Hot Key Books for the 2013 winner Maggot Moon, D:Q21646332 item I created hours ago). So it is not yet possible to cover even the ordinary data in our table Carnegie Medal (literary award)#Winners --strictly routine contents of the four columns-- by adding statements to existing WD items.

--P64 (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@P64: You may enter missing items when they are needed to complement lists. This is one of the notability rules in Wikidata. So you can, when you want to add publishers. The minimal amount of statements is that it has at least an "instance of" "publisher". My personal approach to most awards is that at least the existing items should have been registered as winners. At this stage of Wikidata it means a significant investment in time. The point is that the awardees are linked and become significantly more relevant through this link. I often get to an award through a person I touch. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi @GerardM:. "I often get to an award through a person I touch." Do you mean that you work primarily on wikipedia biographies and "instance of" "human" WD items? I do (mainly wikipedia), and secondarily on books and book series. But it turns out that I often get to people and books through awards!

As for the Carnegie Medal, all of the biennial Hans Christian Andersen Award and annual Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award winners are WD items. NO.wiki has biographies of all the winners. (complete thru 2014. At wikidata I created one 2015 winner and I see that you created one in April. By the way you say that a minimal statement "instance of" is expected, but PRAESA does not have one.) Alerted by User:Orland i think there are other children's literature awards thus complete at NO.wiki but they are only national or Nordic in scope.

Yesterday I added award statements to several HCAAward-winning illustrators 03:00 5 December 2015. I will complete that for award received = Hans Christian Andersen Award; as = illustrator   Done. You will have a substantially qualified award for practice. I do not plan to do such WD data entry for any award so big as the Carnegie Medal.

--P64 20:42 --P64 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Things seem to have stalled. I'm troubled that we have thousands of articles from WP:WikiProject Journals, most of which are the targets of redirects from an abbreviation, tagged as {{R from abbreviation}}, yet each of those redirects incorrectly displays as a "redirect from an initialism". Was there some reason this cleanup didn't go ahead? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I concede that I have forgotten but I see that no one replied to my reports. ("Reports" because I know from re-reading that I did not intend to do the cleanup myself, but only to help provide better context for discussion.)

Both categories and redirects WikiProject talk pages are on my watchlist although I am not formally a member. I feel sure that the latter Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect is a better place to raise or remind the matter with a link to the cat talk such as you provided in the heading here. If it was raised there two years ago, which I don't recall, you should provide also provide a link to that section in one of the talk page Archives ("Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3" beside the talk page Contents. --P64 (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, P64. I've nominated The Left Hand of Darkness at FAC. As an editor who has contributed significantly to Ursula Le Guin, if you could look in on the review and leave any feedback you may have, it would be much appreciated: the review is a little low on participation right now. The review is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Left Hand of Darkness/archive1. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am returned today from three weeks off the 'net, during year 2016 of reduced EN.wiki participation. I am not sure when or whether I will catch up. --P64 (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Any comments would be appreciated, but no worries if you cannot make it. Vanamonde (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

This section moves down the page with every occasional update, which always includes at least a new timestamp. -P64

... Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. --P64 (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

This section moves down the page with every occasional update -P64

latest 2020-12-19 thru notice received 2017-07-12

New England Wikimedians notices deleted above

gleaned from multiple announcements

• our mailing list; Facebook; Twitter
• Kevin Rutherford (talk), Ktr101
• Maia Weinstock (talk), Girona7
• Phoebe (talk), Phoebe

• New England Wikimedians
• Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

CL Project Relaunch 2018-12-18

CL Newsletter February 2019-02-13

CL Newsletter March 2019-03-26

CL Newsletter April/May 2019-06-03

4 notices received Winter/Spring 2019; edited only to rearrange as indented one level here, and to strip whitespace --P64 P64 (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Census QuickFacts
• Social Capital Variables Spreadsheet for 2014, PennState College of Agricultural Sciences, Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development
• Social Capital Project: Social Capital Index Data spreadsheet accompanying the U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Social Capital Project. “The Geography of Social Capital in America.” Report prepared by the Vice Chairman’s staff, 115th Cong., 2nd Sess. (April 2018)
• Religious statistics by county
• PeakVisor, search for "X County" to find high points in a county
• ebird, gives bird species lists for each county
• Midwest Herbaria, search to generate plant species lists for each county
• Mycoportal, search to generate fungus and bryophyte species lists
• NASS QuickStats database, gives agricultural figures by county for many data points
• bestplaces.net--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Check out the revision to Dorothy Canfield Fisher Children's Book Award, and disambiguation page at Children's Book Award. --Bejnar (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notice, Bejnar.

The list of CBA. on disambiguation page Children's Book Award is tiny and appears arbitrary. Some do not use "Children's Book Award" in their names, and there must be dozens that do have such names. It seems to me that the page should be shorter than it is, without any list of CBA. And it should refer more clearly to the Category page c:Children's Literary Awards, essentially urge visitors will continue to that page. Perhaps it should WP:REDIRECT to the Category page. The text of the Category page --Category preface, so to speak-- may perhaps adequately handle the explanatory burden.

Here is a first draft of a very very short version.

• Children's Book Awards may recognize picture books for reading aloud to very young children, reference books for primary schoolchildren, novels for older teenagers, or anything between. Commonly they recognize new works, annually.

What do you think? I think this represents the conclusion that there should be no article, nor disambiguation, merely a redirect to the Category with its preface. The alternative, it now seems to me offhand, is something much longer, with sections covering such as the earliest known CBA, etc. --P64 (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well, an article on awards for children's literature may be appropriate, but the real problem with such an article is that it is likely to be WP:SYNTHESIS, as I have yet find substantive works on the topic. Of course some "Kiddie Lit" textbooks will have a small section on awards, but that may not be enough. However, that is not what the disambiguation page is about. It lists the awards that either are known as "Children's Book Awards" or have "Children's Book Award" in their name. Some like the "New South Wales Premier's Children's Book Award" which is actually the "Patricia Wrightson Prize for Children's Literature" don't have an article. There are also awards known as the "West Australian Premier's Children's Book Award" and the "Queensland Premier's Children's Book Award". I do not know about Victoria and South Australia. I did add New Zealand's since it has or had "Children's Book Award" in its title. As to having no disambiguation page, that is an option, but the category listing does not provide information to help the searcher navigate. If you would like, you can open a discussion, see Wikipedia:Disambiguations for discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is Histoires ou contes du temps passé a good place for these books ?

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search/?query=Mother+Goose

24.7.56.99 (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm curious about where the LAC code in this edit comes from, because it does not appear to be recognised by the authority control template, nor is there any property called this on Wikidata. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, M

LAC is Library and Archives Canada.

At Wikidata today, when i try add statement LAC, this pops up: "Canadiana authorities ID ... obsolete identifier of Library and Archives Canada ...". I don't recall whether I knew how to find such ID at some Canada website, or whether I relied on its inclusion in some VIAF cluster.

Bruce Serafin at Wikidata currently shows statement:

• Canadiana Name Authority ID : ncf10508633 : source VIAF

--P64 (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for answering, and sorry, I have only just seen your reply! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

By the way I notice that you have a large number of {{authority control}} templates in your userspace. Just to let you know that there is a drive to remove all named parameters of this template, and in the future it will only work in mainspace or with the |qid= parameter. So you might want to import this data to Wikidata, or it will stop working at some point. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi P64. We have almost cleared out Category:Pages using authority control with parameters now and it's mainly your userpages which are left. I can replace these templates with substituted versions, if that's okay with you. Then they will continue to display properly when the template is changed to remove named parameters. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Probably that's OK with me but maybe this weekend. I don't know what this means, "replace these templates with substituted versions". Do you mean to insert all of the code that constitutes Template:Authority control into my user pages at every instance of the template?

Please show me one instance here. --P64 (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Transcluded

(Removed)

Substituted

Should I ask whether your robot can make 115 such substitutions at User:P64/FSF/Children's/Illustrators, while opening and closing the page only once? Or 115 full edits? I feel that I should ask. I will learn something from the answer, anyway. Looks like I have 500 on 15 pages. --P64 (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I can do one edit per page :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Done User:P64/FSF/Children's/Illustrators — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Please go ahead and give all User:P64 pages the same revision, whenever convenient for you. --P64 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carol Emshwiller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

What is the purpose of adding {{LCAuth}} to an article when this information is already in {{Authority control}}. Is there something extra that LCAuth provides? It seems a backward step because we are trying to move all data into Wikidata and not the other way! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Martin!

{LCAuth} provides a point of entry to all LC book records that credit a writer or illustrator; that is roughly, the person's works in LC Catalog ("Browse this term in [...] LC Catalog"); useful for all person who are writers and illustrators of book in English. (It does that by pointing to lccn.loc.gov/ rather than to id.loc.gov/authorities/names/.)

{LCAuth} target directly provides valuable bio/bibliographical data for many person who are writers and illustrators of book in English.

External links contained within the Authority control footer bar really aren't useful in the sense of section heading "External links", as "no one" knows what is to be found there. The WorldCat main page for a writer or illustrator is immensely useful to Wikipedia editors, and must be so to some visitor-readers. It's a shame, concerning those some, that it's buried in the footer bar.

to be continued (not until next fortnight?) --composed and revised 18:12, 18:56, --P64 (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Considering the most important function, now I suppose that the template message may usefully be revised such as

• George Edward Stanley at Library of Congress Authorities, with 65 catalog records

=> George Edward Stanley at Library of Congress, with 65 library catalog records

and I may well revise my habitual Edit summary such as

• + LCAuth

=> + point of entry to LC library catalog(ue)

(soon to be mainly away for a fortnight) --P64 (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see that {LCAuth} points to https://lccn.loc.gov/n85226391 but {Authority control} points to https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n85226391.html

What is the difference/advantages between these two pages? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

LCCN.loc.gov pages are points of entry to all LC book records that credit a writer or illustrator [^]; that is roughly, to coverage of a person's works in LC Catalog. Quote: Browse this term in [...] the LC Catalog

ID.loc.gov/authorities/names pages are dead ends [^^]. As such they really are not useful to encyclopedia users, or most editors. ID.loc.gov pages may be the appropriate targets of internet links from EN.wiki biography footer bars; also from Wikidata pages of writer and illustrator persons. (I don't know the appropriate criteria. Their purposes differ, of course I know, but I don't their purposes.)

[^] By "a writer or illustrator", I mean the LCCN-identified writer/illustrator personal name in the appropriate sense: may be a joint pseudonym, personal pseudonym, corporation (Inc.) name, etc. That is also what I mean by person (italic).

[^^] My information is ten years old. I don't know what interactive features LC has added to ID.loc.gov pages, mainly using internet linkage. As far as I know, US national library "authority files" do not link the library catalog records. Germany and Japan do.

--P64 (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

(Beside the main point of template {{LCAuth}} in External links section of writer/illustrator biographies. See User talk:P64#LCAuth.)
Concerning wikipedia/wikidata auto-generated links to online authority files and, in turn, to online catalogue records.

• Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (DNB) "authority file" [as EN.wiki template {authority control} link target, or as Wikidata GND ID link target] is a point of entry to German national library cat records of a person's works.
• National Diet Library of Japan (NDL) "authority file" [as target of internet links, in same two respects as above] is a point of entry to Japanese national library cat records of a person's works.
• US national library authority files do not fulfil that function (or they did not, a decade ago, and I don't know where as viewed in a webbrowser they do it now). Instead it is LCCN.loc.gov pages for identified persons that fulfil that function.
• UK national library does not belong in the discussion, as far as I know. No authority files. Also no points of entry to British Library catalogue records of someone's works, as far as I know.

Wikipedia biography footer bars. Regarding the matter under discussion, the DE.wikipedia footer bar Normdaten (Person) differs from the EN.wikipedia footer bar Authority control and thus from the Wikidata display of person items. Normdaten at the foot of a DE.wiki biography does provide points of entry to library catalogue records of a person's works in all three of the Germany, US, and Japan national libraries.
Example: "Zane Grey" biography footer at DE.wikipedia
You may know, as I recall, EN.wiki moved link targets from LCCN.loc.gov to ID.loc.gov about 10 years ago. DE.wiki did not go along.
(time's up!) --P64 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Category:Articles about multiple people in pre-Tang China has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

 Template:R fictional work has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you fix a minor bug? If there's only one record, it says "1 library catalog records", as in Homer Bigart. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Clarityfiend:   Done using Template:Plural. – Fayenatic London 15:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Re your old draft User:P64/FSF/Children's/Jones/Ursula Jones, another editor has since created Ursula Jones. I merged the categories but you may wish to contribute from your other draft material and notes. – Fayenatic London 21:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I noticed that you have done some work on Alexander novels in the past, mostly in the Westmark trilogy. I've been going through and revamping some this year. Do you have any leads or want to cooperate on any of them?

Thanks for your work! BenBeckstromBYU (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply