User talk:Red Sunset/Archive 3

Service award
Service award - self explanatory. Snowman (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Snowman; I hadn't been counting! --Red Su ns et    21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice one and well done. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Anita Loos
Many thanks for all the tweaking, I think I was so tired after writing the thing I got a little sloppy towards the end. The editing is welcome. EraserGirl (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem EraserGirl, we're all guilty of being enthusiastic about what we are doing and find it difficult to tear ourselves away when it's getting late! --Red Su ns et    08:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. I may have undone some of your hard work. This was my first article and I was self conscious about its length. I put back all the original material I had removed. I needed to replace the material, I am presently going through other references to cross check the data and add more citations. Sorry, isn't that always the way? the more you do, the less content you are with the earlier work?  Thanks EraserGirl (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I quite agree EG, it's often the case that we become discontent with earlier work; I suppose it's something to do with learning as we go along and cleaning up our act. Never mind, I'll give Anita another whirl around the dance-floor to check out her new steps! BTW, I like the photo on your user page; do you know of any good book repairers to help sort out those page edges? (he said, tongue in cheek! Lol) --Red Su ns et    18:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

under construction
I feel awkward both you and Snowmanradio are doing style tweaking on Lenore Coffee and I am still researching her for a rewrite. I have 3 citable works on my desk, but I am still waiting for a copy of her autobiography to come in before I start seriously writing. If I accidentally undo any of your work I will apologize. Should I be using the tag when I start fiddling with an article? EraserGirl (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The "under construction" signpost might put off some constructive edits and it is only used when someone is working on a page intensively and in the process of active editing. It is to prevent edit conflicts, I think. My edits were very quick, some done with semi-automatically with wiki software tools. I usually look forward to other editors making improvements to pages I have edited, and I like to see the pages evolve. Almost everyone on the wiki is used to changes being made to their own edits. See "Wikipedia:Be bold" Snowman (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Snowman, if EraserGirl is looking in then your comments will answer her question. The article is at a very early stage and doubtless will evolve dramatically once the additional sources come into play, so there is every reason to expect changes to our edits and no need to apologise, especially where the change is an improvement or to correct an error! --Red Su ns et    18:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of COURSE I would want folks to look in and fix grammer(sic), typos, broken wikis, formatting or whatever I may screw up. I just wanted to warn you that I may not tread lightly when I start putting content up and may carelessly stomp on any fragile tweakage. I have to stop screwing around about things I haven't gotten to and finish the things I have started.  I have had a Jay Presson Allen bio  unfinished on my desktop for 4 days now. There was almost nothing to work with, the woman never gave interviews.
 * Regarding the under construction tag, I wouldn't have though to use it as I work offline and only put up the article when nearly complete. Thanks all. EraserGirl (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

New wikiproject
WikiProject Coventry just got started today. The project page is new and basic. Snowman (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Snowman; I see there is an unwanted visitor already! --Red Su ns et    20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay Presson Allen
Finally finished my first draft of Jay Presson Allen, I am asking you and Snowmanradio to be my guest to shred it. Beware I was smoking crack pretty heavily when I wrote it, so there may be small sections of gibberish mixed in. I can fix small things but if you think it needs extensive revision, I have to step away for a few days. I am going back to correct the citations on Anita Loos and add some more. I am still waiting for that damn Lenore Coffee autobiography to come in. EraserGirl (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks EraserGirl, I'm sure Snow and I won't need to shred it. Being on the "good stuff" might make it all the more "creative"...got any to spare? (LOL) )--Red Su ns et    17:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are both joking. It is not good stuff; it is very bad stuff.  Having made that clear, some of the headings are creative. Snowman (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did realise that. --Red Su ns et    18:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I supposed to be insulted or amused?...that took 2 weeks.EraserGirl (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No insult intended EraserGirl, Snowman was referring to crack being very bad, not the article. --Red Su ns et    19:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I get it. I have heard not all jokes travel well. EraserGirl (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Crack is not good stuff; it is very bad stuff. Snowman (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know we have all seen the Winehouse video. I am sorry this isn't a joking issue for you. Basically I have no bounds, everything is funny to me in a certain light. However I misread Red Sunset's first joke and didn't know that the 'good stuff' meant you know what. Silly me, I thought it was an allusion to my work. Again I thank you guys for cleaning up my mistakes. EraserGirl (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need for you to be sorry about my clarity of the inappropriateness of these jokes, and I have not seen the Winehouse video. I think that both of your jokes were too flippant and might be mistaken for collusion by people who take drugs. Snowman (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you can let this go now. I have apologize enough.EraserGirl (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Struck comments to prevent misunderstanding by others. --Red Su ns et    18:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * McGilligan. 1986 - I think that page numbers are going to be added, because it is a book. Snowman (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, the cites can be altered accordingly, but I'll continue to tidy for now. --Red Su ns et    22:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed that it looks like it is a chapter in a book, so one page range will probably do for all the citations. I think that you have done the right edits. Snowman (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Snowman, let's hope so. --Red Su ns et    22:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Both the McGilligan and the Crist have ONE chapter each on Allen. And will someone tell me how to do what you just did with the citation abridgement?  EraserGirl (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I LOVE the method to concatenate citations. I guess I learned my new thing for the day. Thanks EraserGirl (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Clara Beranger
I think Clara is ready for the public. I am sure there are a ton of things you will correct. I didn't have much to work with - just what I could glean online. I will try to find more print sources; I think my best bet would be the society columns in the L.A. Times. EraserGirl (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowman has already been through it and consequently I didn't find a great deal that needed changing. I know that various members of the DeMille family preferred to use either "de Mille" or "De Mille", but for consistency within the article I stayed with "DeMille". BTW, looks like you've got the hang of providing nice tidy references now, and what are "continuities" in this context? --Red Su ns et    21:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the DeMille change. Half my references have it one way or the other, but we should stick with what WP is using. Continuities are like scenarios, in the early silents, the scripts were sometimes minimal, consisting of perhaps a shot list with the intertitles. I'd let it go, if someone is reading up on her, they will likely know what it is. EraserGirl (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it would probably seem like a silly question to those interested in film-related articles, but it's completely new to me and I like to fully understand what I'm working on. Every now and then I find it beneficial to contribute to articles on unfamiliar topics to help broaden my understanding of wiki editing (and to gain knowledge of course!) Cheers --Red Su ns et    21:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. Right now I am reading a history of Gray's Anatomy Don't know anything about medicine, but the history of the book looks fascinating. WP finally gives me a place to use all this useless knowledge. EraserGirl (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to see how the "Clara Beranger" page is independently rated. Is it ready for an assessment by WP Autobiography? Snowman (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not been seeing dual ratings, usually I only have one rating regardless of how many projects claim interest. But start class is fine. There's not as much available about her as there is for other subjects. I just stumbled on her one day while look up something else and figured instead of throwing a 'stub' up, I'd give her something to tide her over until I found something substantive. Basically once she married the boss, she just joined the social registere and didn't have as much impact on film. EraserGirl (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Statistics
How does one find out how many edits they have made? I keep looking around but I can't find user stats. EraserGirl (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You can either:


 * Click on "my preferences" at the top of the screen where your edit count is given under "User profile".
 * Use Kate's Tool --Red Su ns et    22:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (747 just then!)
 * Thanks! WOW, glad I am not doing this from work, I'd be fired for doing all this on company time 8) EraserGirl (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thank you for the barnstar, though I hardly think I deserve it quite yet. So much still to do!EraserGirl (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

opinion
Try as I might I couldn't find a proper formatting for awards, I looked at 3 or 4 articles and found all different methods. I tinkered with a table. User:EraserGirl/Women_Screenwriters Can you give me any opinion? Perhaps you can tell me where to FIND a proper formatting? Thanks. EraserGirl (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but by the time you looked I had moved the table. The one that is there is just one I play with. Since I was going to ask you to look at Fay Kanin anyway, you can see it there. Thanks. EraserGirl (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Who is trotting back to Dorothy Kingsley, as I just found an interview.

English
Where in Scotland do you live? --Creamy3 (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep my personal details confidential, but I will go as far as to say that I live in the Dumfries & Galloway region. --Red Su ns et    22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dorothy & Clara
Dorothy Kingsley is ready for a debut. I don't have any more material to add at the moment, but things could change. I just added more material to Clara Beranger. They aren't as elaborate as our previous collaborations. Thanks for anything you can improve. EraserGirl (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

general thanks
I love this, I write and you correct all my mistakes. I wish I could get you to do that for all my other work as well!. EraserGirl (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice to be appreciated! --Red Su ns et    23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We did it!! With your help I made three Userboxes for other people to use! Thank you so very much. EraserGirl (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I'm glad it all worked! --Red Su ns et    18:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * you can delete these, i just wanted you to see them. EraserGirl (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Helen Gibson
Sweetie, you know I love you, and sincerely appreciate you fixing all my typos and grammatical mistakes. It makes me feel slothful that I couldn't see those errors myself. I don't even mind when you change my American idioms to English ones. But a 2-reel picture is never referred to as a two-reel picture. 2-reeler and 5-reelers have the number as part of the appellation, it isn't just a reference to the length of the film. Aside from that I am happy that you are giving Helen the once over, she deserves it. Thanks. EraserGirl (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting me in the "picture" LOL, I'm always glad to be pointed in the right direction. I hadn't realised I was anglicising the language, I suppose it's just an unconscious automatic thing, and I'll revert my reel numbers straight away! BTW, the userbox colours are well suited to the subject. --Red Su ns et    17:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No toe treading at all. You are finding spots in my narrative that are unclear forcing me to be more specific in my wording. I am indifferent about giving a more formal sound to my naturally conversational English. I will only correct the correction when it is out of character with the tenor of the piece - such as calling Hoot Gibson Edmund, as unpleasant a person as he was he is never referred to as anything but Hoot. I will have another one in a few days, I am taking a break and cropping photos on wikicommons for relaxation.  EraserGirl (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yakima Canutt
I have finished the first draft of Yakima Canutt, though I am still waiting for some reference books from the library. I doubt I will add much new material, most likely more citations for what is already there. I would rather not depend on Canutt's autobiography for final accuracy. If you could give him a once over whenever you get around to it I'd appreciate it. There is no rush, I won't get more material for a few days. Thanks. I love working with dead people they are so patient. EraserGirl (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I know what you mean! Tied up for a couple of nights but I will pay him a visit shortly. --Red Su ns et    19:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The images are far from duplicates, look closer, in the 1st he has just transfered from a horse to the lead team (1), 2 seconds later he drops underneath the lead team (2) this is ridiculously dangerous there is less than 3 feet between the horses. Though the captions were replicated,  I am still working on the wording.   I have another book in hand with more detailed itemization of the innovations he brought to the industry, so I should be able to clarify more of the technical details. thanks. EraserGirl (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks EG, I just happened to notice the two identical captions whilst on the edit page and removed what I thought was a duplicate image without actually seeing it. I've just taken a look at the images and they are quite different as you say. Sorry; my mistake but you can understand how it happened, and I'll try not to let it happen again!  Canutt's innovations will make an interesting addition to the article, especially if you can include diagrams as well as descriptions.  Perhaps you can clear up a small point EG; in the "Ramrod" section there is a quote from a 1970 work by Gilbert, but the title of the book referred to is different to that listed in the bibliography(?).
 * I'm still amazed at the courage and skill exhibited by the likes of Gibson and Canutt in pioneering and developing tricks and stunts; even today with all the precautions and modern safety measures in place, their exploits would be breathtaking! --Red Su ns et    13:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, captions look better, a third image would be the 'drag' when he gets drag underneath the horses and then lets go letting the wagon drive over him. I corrected the citation, my carelessness I just pasted what the citation generator gave me and I didn't read it. Turns out Norton reused an ISBN from 1970 on a 2003 book. (that happens more often then people realize.) I also reordered the references, another BAD habit of the citation generator is to put the ghost writer's name before the subject's name. That's what I get for trusting the machine.   I will try to describe some of his more dangerous stunts, but I would be loathe to actually ascribe specific innovations to him alone.  I am sure he is responsible for most but this data is not absolute, only reputed. These guys stole from each other all the time. EraserGirl (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes
Hi Rob, you need some more! Gutted of Melbourne :-( Nimbus227 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As you saw, 'we wuz robbed'!! Quite encouraging though, the car is quick enough. Next time. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Afraid that position has already been filled internally, it's a 'no pressure' job anyway! A few lessons to take in there, just annoyed that JB got tagged, he could have been handy. I watched it live and have been editing all day, pooped! Nimbus227 (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you see the new green trousers? Got to start wearing them soon, resistance is futile!!!! Only a week to the next race.Nimbus227 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You must have been wearing sunglasses! I won't be run over wearing them which is the only bonus. Diz nae make any difference to our workload, it's always the same (race team will be busy though mending JB's motor). Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am blowing wind at the moment! Trying to find a picture of the dreaded trousers, no luck but they are the same shade as the light green on the car. Hopefully we will get matching dayglo socks :-) Nimbus227 (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Button, P9 :-) Nimbus (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Still no green trousers, perhaps they are sparing us?!! Like the scrolling ref box in the F-4 article. Nimbus (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the scrolling did not last long. Why have such a great feature and not be able to use it? Nimbus (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you see it, now you don't (just like the socks)! Oh well, it looked good for a couple of minutes. --Red Su ns et    22:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Things like this can dull one's enthusiasm for the project, I have had a 'ticking off' tonight. Nimbus (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't think I've ever printed a WP article, I thought the whole idea of computers was to save paper?! Oh, well. Nimbus (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Some people are more worried about the way the facts are presented rather than the facts themselves. I think I need to get out more. My boss is French, he has the full English vocabulary and uses it frequently, a funny guy!! Nimbus (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess who's back
I won't give it away but check out Kawasaki Ki-61. Write me if you guess who it is. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

Cov
I ran a bot and got new statistics which proved that all the directories are now correct for both the WikiProject Coventry and the WikiProject Warwickshire. The statistics table now has an unasssessed category, which give extra details and explains the previously missing articles. I think that is will not make any difference if the WPCov abbreviation is used in the banner template. Snowman (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately none of the four unassessed articles are named/listed on that category page. --Red Su ns et    23:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding that. Unassessed-Class articles are different from Unassessed articles. I have fixed it of sorts by using a subcat and a redirect. There may be a better way of doing that. Snowman (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holiday
Thanks for the advice, but seriously I was actually editing the page while it was done and was thoroughly surprised when I hit "save page" to find that someone already wanted to delete something that didn't even exist yet. And all inside of 3 minutes. The whole WP experience is beginning to lose its luster. From what I have seen people compete to create the most number of pages, and compete to be the first to delete them. To me neither of those methods are particularly productive. Have a nice day. EraserGirl (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Anna May again
Sorry about stepping on your/my toes (I can't even get that straight because I did an edit entirely in one browser window in Safari and erased it in another browser window in Firefox). I have done a "sweeping up" mainly of citations and references but I have noted a few very short paragraphs and some repetitions but meanwhile, I'll wait till EraserGirl, Thegingerone and Dekkappai get a chance to revise the article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Not to worry Bill, these things happen and we have to accept the fact. I noticed the repetition myself, and was considering joining one or two short paras together, but thought precisely the same as you and confined myself mainly to small adjustments as there is more to come. Good holiday? --Red Su ns et    18:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am so not getting anywhere near this article until the very end. There are too many cooks, and I don't have time to do the proper research. You guys are good at format and editing, I CAN contribute what I am good at: I can chase down citations for orphaned facts and I can provide some cohesion in the prose.  I hate to disagree but I don't think it is particularly well written. I think the CONTENT is fine, but it reads very badly, very disjointed, skipping back and forth in time with paragraphs on certain topics just stuck in awkwardly. I guess it's the control freak in me, but I'd like to see it read like an abbreviated biography. Besides Dekkappai sounds very passionate about the research which is the most fun part and I'd hate to deprive them. EraserGirl (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we all agree that the article would benefit from a rewrite for all the reasons mentioned, but it wouldn't be a good idea to mess around with the arrangement until Dekkappai and the Thegingerone have finished adding material and the article has settled down. We'll just have to sit on this for a while until the cooks have retired from the kitchen; there's no rush. --Red Su ns et    15:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Jay Presson Allen
Thanks for watching my my work, but those typos weren't typos, they are exact quotes and I'd rather leave her vernacular intact. As for script doctor I linked it to the wikipage, I see no reason to define it within the article as well, the word is self explanatory, one who fixes sick scripts. I did fix the quotes, I just pasted in my changes and didn't think the italics were a problem. I had trouble sitting down to finish my research, but I am hoping to come up with a new article in a day or two. I will certainly want you covering my back. EraserGirl (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problems EG. You are absolutely correct that the quotes should appear intact which is why I made the comments rather than changing what appear to be typos, but I see that you have actually incorporated what I thought was inteneded: so is the quote no-longer correct as written? On the subject of quotes, I'm not sure that the use of italics rather than quotation marks is a problem as such, but just another of the multitude of style consistency issues that constantly crop up; however, if we try and stick to the recommended MoS guidelines (quotation marks in this instance) there is more chance of a successful outcome to any article being reviewed for GA and above. On a personal note, there are some style recommendations that don't always benefit articles, but that's another story!
 * I don't have a problem with "screen doctors" EG; the hidden comment must have come from another editor. Looking forward to another victim! --Red Su ns et    16:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't remember now, perhaps I did mistype. I type so much during the day, that when I type WP at night, I get all mixed up. Anyhow I did finish collecting and reading the Caspary material, I just have to make time to write. Odd how i look forward to doing the stuff I don't get paid for. EraserGirl (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Vera Caspary
Something strange is going on with the External Links section header; the formatting is wonky. Any idea what I did wrong? Many thanks as always. EraserGirl (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Will look later on; got to go just now. --Red Su ns et    16:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)o
 * I've fixed it Rob. Went to 'Cov' today (Baginton) and got loads of photos for the aircraft project. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice one Gary! --Red Su ns et    19:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * T'was wet and windy there today! The photos are helping a lot, check Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire and Rolls-Royce Spey for new photos, also a new obscure AW type is in the sandbox. Take care Nimbus227 (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mind if I sneak in here to say the Vera Caspary has landed? Mind you it is only a first draft, as I am desperately looking for more source materials. I wonder if I should submit some of my earlier articles for Peer Review as I can't seem to write anything but B-class material, and when I ask, no one advises me how to boost it to Good. 8( oh well I guess I am being greedy. Thanks for anything you can contribute.  Now I can pay some attention to that Harry Froboess bloke, now alt source material on him will be IMPOSSIBLE to find in the US. But first I have to go back to Anita Loos she is feeling slighted, I have had her memoirs for a month and haven't sourced them. EraserGirl (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft structures
I just thought I would let you know that I have pretty much finished what I can do with this article. I have fixed most of the spelling, grammar and comprehension problems, removed all the questions in it and turned them into statements, plus removed most of what I think was totally off-topic. It really doesn't leave a lot except some lists of classification possibilities.

While the article now reads better and makes a lot more sense, I am really not sure it serves any purpose. If it got into discussing the differences between a Warren truss and a "N" truss or monocoque vs semi-monocoque then it might be useful, although there are articles on those subjects already!

I am curious to have you look at it again and let me know what you think - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note - that all makes sense to me! Enjoyed your simile! - Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to have a go at this but I think it would need a lot of time in the sandbox to get it right, there is also some indecision in the project about the title, I think it is ok although it was moved from Aircraft structure a while ago I think. As the weather gets better I will spend less time on here but I will do my best. We are generally short on technical and component articles in the project but not many people are interested in Fatigue Index or Rib stitching I guess!! It is possible that this article might get nommed for AfD in the meantime which would not be a disaster. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * AfD would be merciful in this case. - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with both of you re AfD; perhaps just best to leave the current article's fate in the hands of its active contributors.
 * No sweat Nimbus, it was just a suggestion if you felt happy about it and had the time. A new technical article that covers the many aspects of (conventional) aircraft structures and related issues is a pretty big task, so it's quite understandable if it got put on the back burner with the occasional chip at it. However, should it go ahead I'd be happy to help with its readability and comprehensibility even if I don't have raw knowledge to contribute. I've been trying to come up with a suitable succinct title; maybe something along the lines of Aircraft structures (design). Food for thought at least! --Red Su ns et    18:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, a big job for sure. There are quite a few overlapping articles like Aerospace engineering and Fixed-wing aircraft, have to be careful not to duplicate anything, must do more reading than writing for a bit. I always call here first for copy edits! Cheers Nimbus (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yakima filmography
Thanks for the suggestions but I looked at about 9 other filmographies and mine is actually better than some. They are usually just lists. I will perhaps tweak it and massage it into something more than a list, but Lists are a major part of WP, and I can't see how mine diminishes WP because of its presence. Besides I can't hardly work on it if it were deleted. The people who tag new pages for deletion are to a man, a trigger happy group. I think they just delete anything they don't recognize and wait to see if anyone complains. Standard WP procedure, from my research is that if a page is too big, then sections like a filmography can be carved off into a new page. Since the article is over 24K right now and the filmography is 34K, together would make a hell of a big page. I want to add more text to the article, but that would push it towards 70K. EraserGirl (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely agree; more on your talk page. --Red Su ns et    11:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference lists
I saw the discussion re: scrolling lists on the Anna May Wong talk page and just wanted to alert you that they aren't acceptable, per WP:REF which states ''Scrolling lists, for example of references, should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers.'' Just wanted to pass that on. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wildhartlivie, but I've already been warned against using scrolling lists by another user who also highlighted discussions on the subject. Cheers anyway! --Red Su ns et    17:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)