User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2009/January

ATENTION

I'm tired to change for 1 milion times that point and you can report me for 100 times because i don't vandalise the page I simply want everytime when I visit that page to view a correct information ,that information is not correct and that's why I edit it.If you don't want to put correct information you can better delete the page because i don't wanna see that bullshit. And I also want other pearson to say if something is wrong or not. Not you because you are making me nervous with your argues... I will continue to edit that height until it will be letted the correct one . I tried to discuss the problem but you and another user disagree. I want someone alse who I can talk and agree with him. NOT YOU. Karim Abdul Rashid (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Karim Abdul RashidKarim Abdul Rashid (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is at least one other user who has formed this consensus. It is not just me and you arguing. I didn't disagree with another user, we both disagreed with you. --Ged UK (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

...Yes the other user is Sillyfolkboy and I said you and another user disagree, not only you.I think you are friends because you are very similar in your argues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim Abdul Rashid (talk • contribs) 15:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We're not friends, just because we happen to agree with each other. --Ged UK (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (December 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 22:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Agger

Hi there. After the discussion, which you were involved in, around the expat footballers category, the decision was upmerge. A bot came to this page and did the job. Then you reverted it. I reverted your reversion, twice. You said if i didn't want a category i should ask for it to be nominated. The decision has already been made. I apologise if i've misunderstood the outcome, but if i did, i am only replicating the bot's actions, in which case it's done that across hundreds of articles. --Ged UK (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

the cat page the bot removed a link to his page from was the now deleted Category:Danish expatriate footballers in England. I've added him to Category:Danish expatriate footballers and Category:Danish expatriates in the United Kingdom, which obviously do exist and were not part of the discussion concerning 'Cat:Danish expat footballers in Eng.' Mayumashu (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK I see. Sorry. Those categories always seem to confuse me! My bad. --Ged UK (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

they certainly don t seem to the footy project team's favourite (cat page links). no prob Mayumashu (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Danny Pacheco

I've declined the speedy you put on this. The article that was deleted under AFD was about someone else, so it doesn't qualify for a G4 deletion.- Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, There is some confusion here. The Dani Pacheco article that was deleted was about the Liverpool Footballer, that this current Danny Pacheco article is now about, with the Dani Pacheco article redirecting to it. Dani Pacecho (footballer) was deleted because he failed WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played in the Premier League yet. I believe that the Danny Pacheco that this article was about this time was a musician of some sort. I think the article was recreated about the footballer to stop the musician article being created in its place again. However, he (the footballer) is still not notable enough for his own article. I didn't realise this till after I tagged it. At the very least, it's the wrong way round as it stands, because the footballer's name is Dani, not Danny.

Not sure of the best way to take this forward! --Ged UK (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Quite simple: If the footballer should exist, then it should be moved to the proper location. I'm unaware that there was a prior article about the footballer in its place. If you retag it (and explain the retagging in your edit summary for the convenience for other admins) I won't remove the tag. You might want to point them to my subpage User:MacGyverMagic/WIP/Danny Pacheco. I put the history of the original page in my copy after the closing admin for the musician AFD did a copy-paste move, while I was unaware of the previous article. So any history for the footballer would have ended up there. I could do a selective deletion and move the relevant history to Dani Pacheco, but if it can be avoided at all, I'd prefer it. -- Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I've doublechecked and I haven't found any relevant history, it probably resides at the alternately spelled title. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

James Cagney

And, after months of only working on it in fits and starts, I've pretty well finished the James Cagney article. I've added the personal and political life sections which hopefully give a bit more insight into the man. I've also updated all the references to the standard wiki templates. I'd really appreciate your comments on it, and what you think might be needed to improve it further. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for asking for my opinion about this, and I am very happy to comment as I think the article is outstanding. I think it more than meets the criteria for good article, and is well on the way to being of featured article standard. It has a very detailed and comprehensive narrative, and I think it is very even in the way it moves through his story. The sources are cited to a high standard, and the information is relevant and presented well. It flows smoothly, and the writing style is engaging. I congratulate you. Now rather than just shower you with praise, hopefully some criticism will also be useful. ;-)

1. There are some phrases and words here and there that give a little bit of a point of view (I don't mean "POV" like we see bandied about here so often, but rather a sense of the personality of the writer). I don't mean this as a major criticism as it is very minor, but it could be a little more detached. Colloquial phrases create a less formal tone, and some minor words such as "unsurprisingly" offer a viewpoint. It's minor but it subtly takes the point from a fact to a commentary.

Examples :

"Unsurprisingly, the whole of Hollywood (everyone?) watched the case closely for hints of how future contracts might be handled."

"Cagney's earlier insistence on not filming with live ammunition came to good during the filming of Angels with Dirty Faces"

"While the critics did not take to Penny Arcade, Cagney and Blondell were both highly praised."

2. The lead section is, in my opinion, the only area that needs work. I think it doesn't summarize the article, which is the intention per WP:LEAD. A lot of articles about film performers seem to have lead sections that describe them in terms of how much praise or acclaim they received and although I think this one is better than most, it still focusses almost entirely on his legacy. The trick is to imagine the lead section standing by itself - imagine a CD version of Wikipedia that is made up of nothing but lead sections. Does this one summarize the article, or say everything that is needed for a quick understanding of Cagney's life and career. I think by using quotes it places undue weight on the opinions of selected people. Not that Stanley Kubrick, Orson Welles or Jack Warner are not qualified to speak about Cagney, but are their comments the most important aspects of the article? I think a "legacy" section would be great, and would allow not only their comments, but the comments of other significant people as well as the general impact he had on films. I think the lead section in Anna May Wong is excellent, and the article is a fairly recent addition to the list of film-related featured articles. It also has a "Legacy" section. Bette Davis has a similar lead and similar Legacy (comments) section. I think the way it's handled in the Wong article is better, but this is just to give you a general idea of what I mean. My suggestion for the lead would be paragraph 1. - a brief "who this person is" summary that establishes Cagney's place in cinematic history, paragraphs 2, 3 (and maybe 4) - following his life and career in chronological sequence, and mentioning acclaim only when it occurs, and then a concluding paragraph that places Cagney within a broader context of his impact and legacy.

The logical progression should be to get this article listed as a good article, and then work it up to featured article level. It's on the right track, and I think it's very close. You've done an excellent job with it so far. Rossrs (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very very much for your comments! I knew the lead section needed some work, I've barely done anything with it, so I will work on that next. I will also attempt to make it more detached from me, as it were, though I suspect that that may be difficult for me to achieve! I've been on Wiki over a year now, and this is the only article I've worked on with anything like this level (though I have several others planned!), so I don't really know the processes for getting it listed somewhere for assessment. What are the actual practical steps? --Ged UK (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the way you're approaching it is very good. You could add a section to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers inviting comments, but don't be surprised if you don't get a strong reaction. Despite the number of people editing film biographies, very little seems to happen at the project page. It's helpful if at least a couple of other editors go through and copyedit it at some point to pick up on anything that you may not be seeing. From my own experience, after I've read through something a few dozen times, I'm not reading it as much as remembering what is written and that makes it more difficult to see things that perhaps should be changed. Peer Review was once a helpful exercise, but I've found that it doesn't attract as many people for comment as it once did. It seems to have been superseded by WP:GA. It's not mandatory to go via "good article" but that will be a good chance to have it looked at independently before it's nominated for WP:FA. I think reading through a few good articles, and especially featured articles is a good idea and it gives something to measure against, but sometimes the featured article nomination discussion is even more relevant. The Anna May Wong discussion is a good one. Don't let it scare you off, but it's lengthy and the nominator was put through the mill. Sometimes objections can be very contentious and over seemingly minor points. I'm happy to help you, so let me know. What are the "several others" you have planned? If they're as good as this one, they will be something to look forward to . Rossrs (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll have a proper look at that one later. I got a Margaret Rutherford bio for Christmas, so probably her next, as well as having a stab at sorting out the mess that is Valentino Rossi. Alex Guiness needs some attention too, and I've also got Will Geer on my list, though no sources for him as yet. --Ged UK (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a very eclectic group. I don't know much about Rossi but the article looks a mess, while the articles for Rutherford, Guiness and Geer would benefit greatly from some attention. Rossrs (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Robbie Keane

While I can see why you reverted my edits to Robbie Keane, I have to disagree. If you look at one of his team-mates pages, e.g. Álvaro Arbeloa you can see a single paragraph intro. We don't need to know, on Robbie's intro, that he began his career at Wolves because this is mentioned just 4 lines below. I feel this information past the basic facts better serves in the club career section. Do you agree? Cloudz679 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, no. Arbeloa's is lacking, rather than being a good template! Have a look at WP:LEAD for guidelines. Essentially, the lead should allow the reader a solid introduction that stands on its own. Hope that helps! --Ged UK (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Walter Koenig in Columbo episode "Fade in to Murder".

You deleted the reference claiming he was not important to this episode. Well, neither is Jamie Lee Curtis in "The Bye-Bye Sky High IQ Murder Case". More to the point, considering Koenig's and Shatner's shared history, the fact that the two appeared in the same episode of another tv show (albeit not in the same scene) is certainly noteworthy to both Star Trek and Columbo fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulbul (talk • contribs) 23:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, i agree, Jamie Lee Curtis isn't important either; the whole section is way over the top and needs a good prune. Two actors who went onto (or came from) another show and didn't share a scene really isn't important. And Shatner was a star in the episode, Keonig wasn't. --Ged UK (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:New Page Patrolling

Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Tinu Cherian - 03:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

David Jason

Thanks for the info I am just starting to edit and try only to make minor, uncontroversial changes. Once I get more confident I will do more! I have checked the rules etc but it is not always entirely clear what one should do. Could you maybe help I just fixed a link from Dennis Norden to Denis Norden-- both pages work (via a redirect) but I fixed it in the same way i.e. put the old page name first then the real name after, for visual purposes. Should I direct straight to the real name?

Thanks

S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 13:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:New Page Patrolling

Hi Ged UK ! Thanks for the advice. I apologize if i'm doing anything wrong as i'm taking my first footsteps here at wiki EN. Thanks again, Carlos28 (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)