User talk:Pegship/2006b

Others want to work on the list as well
User:Kevinalewis wants to work on this list; I suggest that you open the list up to the relevant wikiprojects. (trust me there is more than enough work for all!!!)--- Regardless I pointed Kevinalewis to the list.
 * In addition, don't worry about sorting the list... I will sort and reorder the list every 5 days or so... (put everything back into groups of 10. ect).

Eagle (talk) (desk) 19:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for archiving... your talk page was getting long!!!

Do this if you don't want to post on my page every mistake
WikiProject Novels/NovelsWithoutInfobox, look at this page's system for reporting errors... also designed and maintained by me.Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed your page
Clicking edit now opens up the correct section. (remember my bug report to you??)

What you did was title here

The correct format is

== title here ==

Hope what I did is ok with you!!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a bug
The Black Windmill, Cape Fear (1962 film), Cape Fear (1991 film) - article mentions source novel for which there is no article
 * These articles are right to be pulled up by the regex. They need to have the relevent article created as a stub... Like this this book was written by . This book was used to create the plot of the movie.

--Eagle (talk) (desk) 22:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That is more than enough to justify creating a stub... please go ahead and do that while you are doing all this other work... seems to me the simplist plan, else it will need to be split later.

Hello Pegship
I hear you are helping to split novel/film articles apart. This might be one you missed:

Mildred Pierce

Cheers! --P-Chan 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Millennium
Why did you remove the Category:Films based on short fiction category? I've read the short story (that came first and that I noted in the talk page), the book and seen the movie. If I recall correctly, the short story and movie might be more closely connected, though it has been a rather long time since I studied the situation. By the way, the fact that it is based on a short story expanded into a book is why I left the Category: Films based on science fiction books when I added the short story category. MikeBriggs 19:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I readded the short fiction category and added something about the short story into the article. MikeBriggs 19:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Film and Novel Splits
I see your work spliting out Films and Novels is moving on apace. However the last two you did including "Fail-Safe" don't appear to have or  type references in their heads to link the various articles together. No references appear to disambiguation pages either. Is this just an oversight for these two or have these not been added. Or am I missing something here. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  06:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry
Thanks for the tip! I added a section to my page and able to find MOST of the elements of my ancestry. Thanks again! :) --Brian1979 01:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see the compromise proposed
Hi! Please see my reasoning and act accordingly. Thanks Fra nkB 19:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...
It has been a while since I have written to you. Thank you for taking over the Films based on books project. I am seriously thinking of taking my name off the list since I haven't contributed in so long. As for why I haven't been around...well, I was losing to many battles, and my baby was getting away from me. I needed to take some time away before I got into a flame war with someone. I am glad that you have found more people to help. Are you having fun with it? Hope so. Lady Aleena 03:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * When I said my baby, I meant the project. The project was becoming like an errant and wild child that I could no longer control. I had to step back before I let it really start to get to me. Sometimes when I think about it, my blood still heats up that I had to fight for the bloody apostrope in the category names. So I let myself fade away so that it could grow, then come back to look in a few months to see how things were progressing. I am not back to it yet as other wiki items have snagged my attention, but I still feel a warm glow about the FBoB project. I hope everything is going well with it. Lady Aleena 04:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I might when I get a few more things done to the current list on which I am working. I was becoming excessively possesive about FBoB. I had to keep reminding myself that I wasn't the one with the originating idea. You were the one who came up with the concept in the first place if I remember correctly. I may have created the project and built a bit of the foundation, but that doesn't give me lease to become dictatorial on what should and shouldn't be added. That is why I faded away, I realized that I was starting to show my tyrannical side, and I didn't want it to become a problem. My need to control every aspect of a project is a major problem of mine. So, keep up the good work. Drop me a line when you need me to come in and crack heads or something. :) Lady Aleena 04:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again!
 * I put up some answers for you Cfd:ebooks. Fra nkB 06:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Organization of the Lists category page
If you're going to change the layout of this page (did you check the Talk page?) you might as well change the paragraph that describes said organization too. --JeffW 21:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting your edits. I'm not really happy with the way that page looks, but I think it's less confusing if the subject-oriented and other-oriented types of lists aren't mixed up.  How do you feel about the idea of putting adding Category:Lists by subject, Category:Lists of things (for People and Books).  I think several more of the top-level categories could go under Category:Lists by form.  DO you think that is workable?  --JeffW 21:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, you have me completely baffled by this, "I think the term Cat:Lists by form is too vague. When I saw that I originally thought it meant the form of the list, not the item(s) listed." It does mean the form of the list, doesn't it?  At least timelines, tables, and calendars are different forms of lists.  Do you think that Topic lists and Lists of lists don't belong?  --JeffW 06:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Update to User:Eagle 101/films that are also novels list
I thought I'd let you know, 3 new categories, they are children films, and 2 sub cats of the children films. Please have a good look for instructions I left you, mainly putting what stubs templates and book categories to what, you will see...Eagle talk 07:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A Watcher in the Woods
I saw you created a page for this novel. It seems to be based heavily on the synopsis I wrote for The Watcher in the Woods. I just wanted you to know that I haven't read the novel, so I don't know if what I wrote applies to Florence Engel Randall's book. Also, if you could discuss your changes to the The Watcher in the Woods page I'd appreciate it. Guermantes 15:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

List_of_fictional_universes#Motion_to_Revise
Hi- your wisdom and experience are needed, this article is chaotic at best: List_of_fictional_universes, Thanks Fra nkB 14:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

HI!
 * re: talk:ebook&mdash;and I hold you directly responsible for alerting me about the talk needed there! (could be worse) Don't think I alerted you on the changes I made (Friday?) to the ebooks article&mdash; at least they are all self consistant, and looks like the ebook references are about equal to eBook references, so any move will take a lot of work. 'SeventyThree' apparently is volunteering  since he disagrees on the 'work' quantity. (I think I'll have to try this AWB thing one day soon).
 * 1) Sorry to suck you into that Fictional universes thing, but your points are as cogent there as I'm coming to expect. Kudos! The whole darn scope of that is daunting. Trouble is things fit more than one place, and you beat me to the table suggestion, inasmuch as I had to run to the doctors office. (Fun, fun, fun! 6' camera up my anal canal&mdash;the real fun was last night drinking the gallon of laxitives&mdash;yummmm. Ahem. NOT! But at least I didn't let them drug me up&mdash; I can still drive myself and stayed a mininum amount of time at the hospital&mdash;have to go play taxi Dad in a few moments, so I had a plan and a reason. (Comforting, no matter how trivial and prosaic!)
 * 2) This looks (eBooks revisisted) inconclusive, what's your crystal ball suggest will happen? Since I can live with the original 'rename' motion, should I strike out my disagree, despite the archive state?
 * 3) I do have a life &mdash; thanks for the unexpected chuckle. (re '3's comments', belated thanks.) Got to get gas and drive kids. Later! Fra nkB 21:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me Milieu was Hi-Jacked
I just had a 'disruptive' experience. Please see This and discuss/vote! I can also use a little help in Many Worlds Interpretation (See reverts) on dumbing down intro, but my talk edit is under this one. So give me an hour more. Strikeout and revise: ??? don't know I'll go back today, lost too much time yesterday, so see next Monday or Tuesday. Fra nkB

Thanks! Fra nkB 19:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Lofu' below is List of fictional universes, belatedly defined per request with a chuckle, Dudette! Fra nkB


 * Was actually a distruption in the midst of a string of forced disruptions&mdash;Quiddity, who answered for you below (@After seeing your talk:milieu), seems unaware that his strange behavior (?stalking? See the thread end and email vice the long long top.) total bollixed * me up yesterday, big time, so the 'hour more' edit in the MWI talk edit-in-progress also became vaporware, and the others I'd figured to contact on 'milieu'&mdash;never got a post B4 you dealt with it (and tossed the cold water!)&mdash;but I'll just have to go with your judgment and find a different word, as the literary uses I've linked are still too buried therein, IMHO. A lot of text for a disambig page. On further mature reflection, I'll think I'll just delink it and keep using it, but the 'extensiveness' of one did seem to be part of the distinction needed between something suitable for 'Lofu' and a stand-alone novel, as I'd started saying in the talk edit I'd been editing in 'Lofu' with a bottom post supporting your (our? <g>) table suggestion&mdash; now also lost, thanks to Quiddity's obsessions. (i.e. I was checking the link contents from the Lofu talk add when I discovered the redirect to environment.) What a FUBAR day!


 * 'Post traumatic' <g>, errr..., anyway, 'the days effects': Quiddity's been warned by an admin I asked for advice, not action yet, by email (yours is 'off', and I didn't want the visibility of AN/I either.), so I'm likely to be loosing a lot of today from the spin-off emails from that by others too. Amazing how wikipedia can let one guy loose to wreck so much havoc&mdash;and how sensible he seemed at first! Thanks for the assists. (2) The 'eBook' seems to be still outstanding. The cats unchanged, indicating no one's processed it yet.


 * Oh, new biz- do you know of a MOS type guideline that deals with articles on fiction specifically? Or failing that (I've looked and seen none) a good article you think is an appropriate example? I have a couple of FA examples, but a guide or a few others to contrast would be good too!

ttfn <B>Fra</B> nkB 15:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)  *  &mdash; Interesting trivia&mdash;a word with two common 'correct' spellings (re: Dictionary.com)<g> <B>Fra</B> nkB

btw- I'd a nice complimentary post all ready to land here, and went off to check T:Lofu, and got turned aside. By the time I backed down to the edit page it'd become vaporware. Irrc, I was teasingly complimentary on the table suggestion&mdash;teasing as I'd had the same thought but didn't know how to get wiki to make a columnar organized table like that. Great job! <B>Fra</B> nkB 19:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * yesterday


 * After seeing your talk:milieu
 * Thanks for looking into that (Milieu V. Environment). I'm puzzled. Neither fine arts, nor literature mention one another. Is literature no longer a fine art in Liberal Arts Institutional dogma? <B>Fra</B> nkB 00:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They are both considered subcatagories of Humanities :) -Quiddity 02:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look, it's about books
Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_1 has concluded with a strange result IMHO (no consensus). Or? feydey 21:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If it helps, my vote can be changed to support the renaming. <B>Fra</B> nkB  07:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also thanks for the book tips! Time to get some shuteye. Above posted to User Talk:Feydey. If you two agree this breaks the logjam, I'm willing to follow the tree and help move articles into the renamed Category. I'll likely be back ca. 14:00 hrs (UTC) if that'll help, maybe somewhat sooner. Best! <B>Fra</B> nkB 08:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have suggested to F. a contact with the closing admin, User:TexasAndroid. feydey 08:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Your Question on Milieu
Woops! Almost missed this, good thing I archived: ''In what context are you using "milieu"? I admit to some annoyance about that disambig page; it's really too big to be a disambig....''

Ans: Try most anything listed on talk:1632 series (unofficial 'project page'&mdash; see one screen down, list of articles), I've already defanged one or two, substituting a link to Parallel universe (fiction) which has the virtue of not needing that link elsewhere. Lot's of work. Series is growing one book or so per three months,and this is not my normal 'Patrol', but I love the series premise&mdash;best is covered in 1634: The Ram Rebellion, for now... too much flux in others to say what is recommendable as a snap-shot today. I've been off on my normal geological/history/technical patrol too much the last couple of weeks. I also have to defang work (fine arts) references all over now. Is there a similar 'high-brow sounding' <g> term for works of literature? Thanks for the tips. I'll look those over while fresh tomarrow morning, or as soon after ASAP. Don't for get to (register and ) vote talk:ebook!!!<g> <B>Fra</B> nkB 01:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Fourth Protocol (film)
I didn't say it was vandalism, but when you just copy and paste the text from an article, it doesn't preserve the history of it, which is required for the GFDL license that Wikipedia is under. An admin will probably move it to the correct title when they delete the page, otherwise you can just move it there yourself after it's deleted with the little "move" tag at the top of the page. --Rory096 04:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You can edit the to include a note asking them to move the other page there, if you'd like. --Rory096 04:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wonder if you can find this
Seeing you've got a library and all at hand to reference, please follow and see if you can identify this original author (Freeman), and if possible, have some reference indexing (TOC) what ole JB has in the 3rd Ed. Also, same question on wikisource! Have a great day! Best, <B>Fra</B> nkB 16:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Many thanks &mdash; exactly what I was looking for. My researching skills need a severe upgrade. I can find my way around a library floor, but all too often don't even think to look on the web until someone hits me over the head with it! Sad, as I was an early PC pioneer from pre-IBMPCs up through the early internet days... but tired of it all by the time WYSYWIG became common. Shrug+sigh!
 * 2) See the 3 numbers on Saxony. Would you interpret those as dates? Iirc, such would be well after the Angles-Saxon-Jutes set up shop in Brittania, but also after Charlemange split his Empire between his three sons. So, as dates they ring no bells for me. Any ideas? I suppose the real question is whether there has ever been any authoritative work tracking Germanic tribes and their evolution over time, from the onset of the Dark Ages (now, I guess, in the early middle-ages0  onwards. I've become interested in the various Saxonies thanks to the Duchy of Saxony vs. Old Saxony vs Tacitus' 'Saxony', versus todays... sort of like an itch I can't scratch.<g> I need some better maps, for sarters, one where I can see the rivers because it isn't so busy!  <B>Fra</B> nkB  04:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OK teach, what'd I do wrong: Entered 'The Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd, 1926.' as search string -- 500 result! Similarly, tried A) deleting the period, B) dropping the Date C) Title only D) Author only... none seem to give me anything that looks totally promising, many were oddball like sheet music collections, entirely far afield. Oh -- and quoted title. One such quoted gave a mere two links, I think the quoted authors name. Perhaps an email with the tricks of the trade? <G> <B>Fra</B> nkB 07:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mapp and Lucia
Hi Pegship. I just want to let you know I've removed the "Split" tag you put on Mapp and Lucia because nobody was discussing the suggested split. Cheers, --A bit iffy 06:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ace Books
Hi; just stopped by to say thank you for the categorizing on Ace. I appreciate it. Mike Christie 05:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Movie to Film cfrs
I think I found every category out there that still has movie in its title. If there are any more left, they are well hidden. *grins* There are a few more that I just put up after you supported the previous batch. Thanks! We might need to have a long chat about the Marvel Comics one. There are other cases where a proper name is followed by the same word as a normal noun. Lady Aleena 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Series of books subcategories
You appear to be re-alphabetizing a lot of the subcategories of Category:Series of books by sticking an asterisk before the first letter. May I ask why? This results in the subcategory being alphabetized under "*" instead of the first letter. MakeRocketGoNow 22:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It was very considerate of you
Thanks much for kindly notifying me, I wasn't aware of this commotion. I have replied there. Yours, ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What would you advise
re: Too much bold? This TOC (untag section and top when you're done!)<g> Best! <B>Fra</B> nkB 13:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

ebook naming confusion!
Hi Frank - have you posted a link to this at Naming conventions (books)? Cheers, &hearts; Her Pegship &hearts; 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cryptic post! YAWG!!! I gather you just found it yourself, and why forsooth, need I be the one to post it? I'm trying to get SlimVirgin to mediate the matter and do a formal vote! I presume you refer to 'This is a naming conventions guideline for the naming of wikipedia articles about books, which includes printed books and e-books. (In which the 'academic flavored' 'e-book'' jumps right out, does a dance, hits one in the eye, plays the tuba and the drums concurrently, and casually beats one around one's head and shoulders with baseball bats, N'est pas?)
 * Having given it a quick read, I see little else that has any bearing on the issue at hand at talk:ebook, or am I missing something blatant and obvious in all the verbage?
 * In sum, what 'this' were you referencing? (btw- like the heart graphic thingy in your new signature! But why no Talk link too?<g>)
 * Puzzled //<B>Fra</B> nkB 20:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Me thimks you need a life, LOL. Watching 'Avidly', eh?
 * Well, it's the only line that spoke LOUDLY to me! <g> I seem to be in compliance with the rest of it. (Discounting the article 'The' in two book titles in my charge, and I can't say those are wrong either, such didn't register. I guess I'll need to reread it :
 * Mel's not answering his phone. (email) Can you move two misnamed (spelt) cats? Catgegory somehow misses<g>? If so, see my contribs, though I placed a {db| misspelled} note in one, but whoever did the Csd didn't see the imbedded note to just move it instead. (i.e. I think it's gone missing now.) See my contribs if you can get the second. 3 Cats, 2 of three misspelt. Some days I can't win!
 * Question (somewhat) above on The Grantville Gazette-- was: 'Too much bold in TOC???' (If I'm asking, the answer's probably Yes, Frank, you doddering old idiot., or some such.)
 * Got to play taxi Dad. These cats to match commons. TTFN
 * Thanks, //<B>Fra</B> nkB 21:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Frank, you person of indeterminate age, IQ, and mobile stability ... I believe I said that on the talk page. Unfortunately I can't move cats (well, not the WP kind, just the feline kind) as I'm not an admin, but you can nominate them for renaming. Which are they? I didn't see them in your contribs. Cheers, &hearts; Her Pegship &hearts; 21:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you please mind which 'this' and 'that'es you may think I think I know you're probably referring too!?
 * How'd you miss: 20:06, 24 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Catgegory :Early Middle Ages (refactor + fix typo)? The Cfd wouldn't work, as is in Main space, not Category space, which is the rub.
 * But imho, that's eclipsed by: 18:28, 24 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Cagegory: High Middle Ages (Genesis - Subcategorize per standard historical epoch.), which is now vaporware, as Mel is having a life tonight evidently, and so someone listened to my {db|...} and speedied it. Dang, another 'deleted' in the edit counter.
 * Had you confused with an admin, probably 'cause of the great competance outside the feline realms, which I hadn't know about. But we're sliming your talk page with chit-chat. Back to the WikiSaltMines. <B>Fra</B> nkB 01:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

French Connection image
Hi Her Pegship, First, thanks for the dab page. Second, can you explain the rationale for minifying the image on The French Connection (aerobatics)? I realize some people with a slow connection take longer to download bigger images, but IMO in this case the details of the image, specifically being able to appreciate the closeness of the formation, are very important to the substance of the article. I realize the full image is one click away, but some may not realize it, plus I think the now tiny image as background to the article reduces the original 'shocking' effect. Looking forward to your comments. Thanks again, Crum375 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

With your consent I reverted the image to full size. Thanks for all your hard work - it is much appreciated. Crum375 22:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Eagle 101/films that are also novels list
Thanks for putting a new pending category up, though if you would do me a favor, can you put up more than one? If the category you have up is very short I may 'only' be able to give you 30 or so articles... I am amazed at how fast and effecient you are with this! Let me know if you need help getting data for any other lists. I would be honored to help you. Eagle talk 20:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Subtitles
You are assumming my program automatically does that... no I put it in word by word... not:-) Good guess:-)

Back to the point, I will change it, but I want to keep the message in bold about inserting the commented out line. Is that ok? I will do the next 'batch(more than one... get the drift...) this weekend or early next week:-) Please respond and tell me what you think on both of these. Eagle talk 01:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay
Though Without your help, there would be no point, so don't give me all the credit... that is why I gave you that barnstar... to remind you of that fact:-). I will make any changes in my program that you or others working on that list want me to make, so don't hesitate to ask! Though it may take two or three weeks, I will change what ever it is you want:-)Eagle talk 03:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick Lady
I see you beat me to 'it'! <g>. <B>Fra</B> nkB 02:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Request Formal Vote Oversight
And they say I'm 'drifty'...<g>
 * You asked for speed... Administrators%27_noticeboard, hope you're happy! (Hint: See all links) <g> <B>Fra</B> nkB 03:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

New book 'Biz' up your alley
Hi! See Note, me thinks needs TLC and expert knowledge. Someone was waxing sophmorically, and my hip waders seem to be needed. <B>Fra</B> nkB 05:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bay Area photos
Hi. I was thinking about things like just some cityscapes of the suburbs, city halls, maybe Pac Bell Park and the coliseum in Oakland. Thank you for the offer! I like your User page. It's much too organized. :) User:Zoe|(talk) 19:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be great. Much appreciated. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks dear...
for your help and kind words while I am in the doldrums. -- Lady Aleena  talk / contribs 18:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource:Scriptorium
Hi - Just got an answer to a post at Wikisource which lead to this debate, wherein circa April 6th someone suggested consulting with Librarians. As my current favorite person of that discription, I thought you might be interested in seeing whether a cross-wiki involvement may be good for you. This debate seems like a good place for you to snoop and see. (Just thinking of you and your cats! <g>)

What, no 'flip' (or otherwise) answers above! Shocked! <G> I even took a wikiDayOff! How am I supposed to get in my quota of wikiGrins???

Off to RL for a while. Best! // <B>Fra</B> nkB 20:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Working on revision of film series lists
Hello there...

I am working on a major revision of all of the film series lists here. Please take a look at the rough draft and tell me what you think. Just don't look to closely at the code. :) -- Lady Aleena  talk / contribs 03:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is something else that will affect our work on the film series lists, film series naming convention. -- Lady Aleena  talk / contribs 17:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So, are we going to be bold and go with (film series)? If so, I am more than willing to alter my sandbox to reflect that, before final placement in the main namespace. Believe me, it won't take long. :) -- Lady Aleena  talk / contribs 04:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

When you have a minute or three, could you go back over to my sandbox film series page and look at the duologies for which I couldn't come up with a series name? There are about 10 of them. - LA @ 09:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have just gotten a case of stage fright when it comes to the film series lists on which I have been working. For the most part they are ready to go up, but I fear that there will be an outcry against. What do you think? - LA @ 12:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is done! - LA @ 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Film Novel split talk pages
Hi Pegship, WE seem to be moving forward quite a way with this work. What I do notice though is that when novel articles get renamed you end up with a redirected talk page typically to the "film" talk page. I have just fixed "Marnie" by replacing that with the standard Novels notices. Thanks :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  07:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Psycho -> Psycho (1960 film)
I think this should (likely) be undone... the film is much more well known than the book and it doesn't deserve the main page just because it came first. The film should be at Psycho while the book should be moved to Psycho (book). What do you think? gren グレン 12:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

On ParaVote 17
See love tap <g>. Hae a gud weekend! Best! // <B>Fra</B> nkB 19:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Working on film novel splits
I will put new items up tommarrow! I have made slight changes in the regex statement, though I don't think they will help. I need to modify the program to allow two sweeps... one with the original regex statement, and a second pass through the article looking for exeptions. As a result you will still find a bunch of false hits in this next series of lists. I am sorry about that, and will fix that as soon as I have time to tinker with the program.
 * Please do keep the false hit list updated... I really do look at it, and do my best to fix!Eagle talk 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S.--- I made some sarcastic comments on your new list ordering system. (atbat, on deck, in the dugout)! Please take them as what they are, humor! (I have had little chance to express any lately and jumped at my first opertunity:-)Eagle talk 05:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

More work
As I see that fantasy films (almost put mystery novels... gah!!!) has only 223 articles, my program will make short work of this. I will put a list up in about 10-15 minutes from this post. Eagle talk 05:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Gah!!!
I just deleted the programs output... It will take approx. 10-15 minutes from this post. (about 4 minutes for the program, and about 6-11 minutes for me to run the output through another program to format the output into those prettified lists:-)Eagle talk 05:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking my time
Interesting... If by take my time you want me to slow down the programs... sorry I really can't do that... (unless I run another resource draining application... As for me, I am sipping my coffee and am about off to bed (1 AM here, I stayed up for you and kevinlewis). Really, my computer is working not me!
 * The next list has 85 items on it. Plus I am (tommarrow) going to begin working on all of the subcategries...(of Fantasy Films) (thought I should let you know so that you can add more batters... and descriptions on how where the film and book should go.


 * Thanks for working so hard on these... you have put in about 1000.999948586323409 times as much work as I have into this... my work was done when I programmed the program... About 12 hours of work. Adding the additional sweep will probably be about 2-6 hours of work, depending on how much of the logic I remember, and how much I have to 'learn' from my own comments... Any way thanks!!!Eagle talk 05:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Winter of Our Discontent
Thanks for correcting my error with the image of this novel. New one now included, I have done so many I think my fingers must be taking over. How is the Film project work going, I sometimes lend a hand at the edges when I see something I can do. Anyway, Thanks again. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  09:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How'd the name shorteners miss this one?
re: Category:Fantasy massively multiplayer online role-playing games, Yikes! (btw: Have an e-rub fer holdin' me hand so often lately! <g>) Best! // <B>Fra</B> nkB 13:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A Brittish affection?
re: Talk:Tacitus Can you lend us your experience on this niggle. Thanks // <B>Fra</B> nkB 18:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

SubHeadings
No problem, will do so tonight. On the same note, can you look into shortening the subheadings? It would be really nice if they could take up only 2-3 lines instead of 5-? lines. Thanks!!!Eagle talk 20:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't say I never gave flowers
Pretty, Huh! See the old Talk:List of fictional universes... someone wants to delete it; I was looking for Jimbo's article when I circuitously ran into the flower! <g> <B>Fra</B> nkB 20:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

List Update-WikiProject Novels/Book to novel autolist
Hi Pegship, seeing that you contributed to this list before... I am dropping you this note today to let you know that the book stubs -> novel stubs autolist has been updated today. Currently there are 37 items on this list that need to be sorted through. This is far less than the original list size.Eagle talk 04:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note this post is a semi-automated message sent with the aid of firefox tabs.

Hood Film genre
The following definition is quoted from a review by Paul Massood, critiquing the 1993 film Menace II Society.

''As with all genres of filmmaking, the hood films can be identified by certain industrial and artistic similarities: they are made by young, film-literate African-American men working with shoestring budgets (by comparison to Hollywood standards); they deal with similar narrative themes (young African-American men trying to stay alive amidst the pressures--crimes, drugs, racism--of inner city life); and they illustrate mastery of cinematic techniques. Past examples of this genre include such films as Straight Out of Brooklyn, Juice, New Jack City, and Boyz N the Hood.''

(This was in response to your "what the heck is a hood film?" question) --Pinochii, 2:11 a.m., 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Series of books sortkey
Could you explain, why in the world have you added "*" in front of the sortkeys for Category:Series of books? Is there some reason specified in the Wikipedia manual of style or guidelines, or have you just done it for the fun of it? J I P | Talk 13:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've put my 2p in on the category talk page, but I wanted to say thanks for the note on my talk page about the discussion there. SO, thanks! Percy Snoodle 08:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Darn! Forgot to bring you flowers today! Take a peek: and go in circles <g>. (Didn't get to that danged Afd either -- Oppsie!

Commons Cats versus en.WikiP's


Actually, Darling, this is a long one so meet me in the usual place Here's some flowers this time (It's been a while getting this one finished, whilst just a eye-blink to you)! // <B>Fra</B> nkB 01:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Was checking for an answer. Did I get stood up? <g> // <B>Fra</B> nkB 06:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Disorganized Crime
Hey! you changed some info by creating the headline TRIVIA, and now there are 2 headlines "TRIVIA"! Bernie

A Kid in King Arthur's Court
I don't quite understand the comment you added to A Kid in King Arthur's Court: "Split film/book article intentional - Please do not remove this comment" Is there a seperate article on a book version of the movie? Or are you referring to the A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court article? Or something else entirely? Powers 11:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This more your turf
This more your turf ... than mine. re:Category talk:Novel sequences a few weeks back (look for... see my sig. paras.) seems to be in opposition to this Novel_sequence, and this edit. (This is what I get for checking links... hand the task to Peg!<g>)


 * ''[btw-good work on the beginning evolve on 'Lofu' (Be amused, a somewhat related aside), perhaps we need a (unofficial) 'project subpage' with a check off list of tasks and who will take them on?]... see talk:1632 series (at the top four sections) for a skelaton of such... or what I mean, at least. I'll be glad to lend a hand, esp. if someone has done the 'thought work', as all my energies that way are on learning template building right now (undefined and friends, plus many more 'tools' in the template desert in the commons. OTOH, when fatigued, I can shuffle stuff around mindlessly as well as anyone!<g>]


 * Definitions


 * There is no useful, formal demarcation between novel sequences and multi-part novels. Novels that are related may or may not fall into a clear sequence. It is also debatable whether a trilogy is long enough and whether its parts are discrete enough to qualify as a novel sequence.

And someone Expert enough (Yeah, it's you in that mirror!) needs to pin this down and bring the two into agreement. I'm over in the commons for a few weeks (did you see my note there?), in what little wikitime I've got in between 'Eastcoast Monsoons' (Yard work is soooo behind, it's scary!) that I'll be mostly MIA on all wiki's while the weather is fair...

Thanks! // <B>Fra</B> nkB 16:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Film icons
Hi Pegship. You've created some nice icons for the film stubs. Could I possibly persuade you to create a similar one for Danish cinema? The material is not yet splitable, but I hope it will grow. The relevant images are Image:Nuvola apps aktion.png and Image:Flag of Denmark.svg but unfortunately, I don't know how to merge them. Best. Valentinian (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. It looks great. Valentinian (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
Brookie here - passing by - and thought I'd say Hello! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 04:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No until now - you don't know me - but you do now! - I was following some edits from somewhere and ended up on your page and so thought I'd say hello! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 14:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Novels newsletter
As a long time supporter of this project I thought I would let you have a look over the first draft of a new newsletter initiative. Could you see if there is obviously anything wrong with the concept or text, thanks for you help. I will ask one or two other stalwart editors before formally publishing the first issue. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  13:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The June 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  13:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like your take on this
I've been 'bugged' by my hot button issue of the default skin hiding categories from the user for around two months, and this related thing punched the button pretty much dead center as the same point has been nagging at me as is made by the originator. Seems to me a VP listing ought be made on both, as it were, by at least a mention 'synopsis' with link, and the common debate on kept this page. This seems preferable, as both VP:Technical and VP:policy are certainly apropo venues for a link posting, and I think we've all seen some of the bad effects of the current trend. This point made by the originator is sparse, but on point and imho, important. By keeping the discussion there, it can be similarly referenced on other BB's (Meta for one), and there are a few others. I'm much too focused on wikiEditing to keep up with all the discussion forums, so where should it go, should it be given a seperate venue (Yet another 'proposed guideline'!), or what? In sum, seems to me the 'Internal links' section with such a category template would solve both problems with minimal edit dislocation.

My confidence is high that a structural problem in presentation is present under current standards (editorial guidelines), but my crystal ball shattered some years back <g>, so I can't measure it's severity there and it's hard to gauge it's exact magnitude using anything but inductive reasoning. Personally, I rarely visit the nether regions of a web-page, and admittedly tend to attribute that to other 'oldsters' as well. I guess the key question is: If one is reading casually, what reason have they, 'our customer-readers' for looking lower down past the references? Advice? Best regards! // <B>Fra</B> nkB 15:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, its me... Eagle :)
Sorry for not being around... I hate forced wikibreaks... it's evil!

Two reasons for bothering you:
 * 1) I need you to have a look at this. Go down to 'False Hits' and look at the 1st(only) entry. Is the article supposed to be in Category:Novels. If not what category should it be in? If it is in the right category, than should the Infobox novel be attached?
 * 2) Please archive some of this page. It's getting big! I will take time to do it for you if you wish... (though when that would be I don't know...)

P.S. I will update your list(book/film split) sometime tomarrow if I can get back to wikipedia(this is my last post for today).

Thanks for reading all that crap! Eagle talk 04:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)