User talk:Carbon Caryatid/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Richard Halliburton

I don't know if the article is still on your watchpage, but if you still have any interest in Richard Halliburton, I'd appreciate your eye over my recent changes.BrainyBabe (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I'm not using a watchlist these days. But I'll take a look. Thanks for pinging me. - Jmabel | Talk 18:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I did some copy editing. Otherwise, it looks good to me. It could be further expanded, but I think that for its current length it's more or less the right article on Halliburton. - Jmabel | Talk 18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting people know of your changes, which are very good ones. I made some small changes also. Bigturtle (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheryl Chase

I undid your revision on the Cheryl Chase article, and wanted to explain why. There is no limit to the number of categories an article can have. It is also not necessary that a category on a person be something that they are well known for (see WP:CAT). For instance, you probably don't think about Robert DeNiro being a New York Democrat or Oprah Winfrey as an American of Native American descent. Since the categories are accurate, I have retained them. Best, Queerudite (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your reversion. I stand by my edits, though. I will move this discussion to the article talk page. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject UK

Hello. I confess to not knowing much about the UK WikiProject or its standards of inclusion and grading, but I could recognise that you had transcluded the whole UK Wikipedian's noticeboard on the talk page instead of the project banner listed on the noticeboard's page. Anyway, see this. You're welcome. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I know I was trying to add the project banner, and when I previewed, I saw the whole noticeboard, which obviously wasn't what I wanted, so that's when I went to the project page to ask for help. I thought I had NOT saved what was clearly an erroneous addition -- thanks for correcting my slip! BrainyBabe (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Round about a pound a week

Excellent! My copy is, sadly, at the other end of the country right now, but I'll see what I can do. I suppose we need to find some secondary sources :) Skittle (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a little surprised that the whole text of Round About a Pound a Week is not online; it should be, and perhaps I have not looked hard enough. Part is available through Amazon, and the modern introductions to editions are valuable sources. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your message at the Pump

Re [1]: I have suggestions about controlling wikipediholism. If you're still interested, let me know by reply e.g. here or by email. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am still interested. The two solutions that were offered were too drastic for me -- either an enforced break (of days or weeks, presumably) or just clearing out one's computer and account and going cold turkey that way. What else can you suggest? Thanks! BrainyBabe (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Moye W. Stephens

Yeh, that really needs work. I'll get to it when I can. I just started moving pages to plane.spottingworld, & it's a bigger job than I thought... You can help! Just search to see if the article's there use "go", & you'll get an immediate notice if the page is created yet), then cut & paste... BTw, welcome (even if I can't convert you to planespotting... =D). Trekphiler (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Stuff & nonsense

Added some stuff I find useful to your userpage. Hope it's useful to you, too. (The vandal warning signs you can post when {not if, alas!} you find it; just change the page ID from "attack on Pearl Harbor".) Ciao. Trekphiler (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible

To be brainy and a babe --86.140.232.221 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

No offense meant. You're right, I should have asked. Trekphiler (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to join the WikiProject: Sex worker issues?

Hi,

I noticed that you made some corrections on the sex worker page and I was wondering if you would be interested in joining a WikiProject that I am proposing. Here is the link if you want to learn more and/or sign up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Sex_worker_issues

Feel free also to talk to me directly on my talk page. NoMonaLisa (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have replied earlier. Thanks for the invitation, but I fear I lack the knowledge, and access to the sources, that would be useful for this project. Good luck anyway! BrainyBabe (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Psychogeography

Thanks for your work on this article. I have been banging away at it, on and off, for awhile, but it really needs work. I am afraid that anyone who is unfamiliar, or only vaguely familiar, with the term will come away from that article more confused than aided by it. But, we do what we can, as we can, yes? At any rate, thanks again. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Prisoner of Zenda

I like your rewrites to The Prisoner of Zenda but was there a reason you removed "Double Star" and "The Zenda Vendetta" from the literary retellings section? Sbowers3 (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought the connection too tenuous and have moved them to political decoy, which I have also tidied up just now. But I suspect I may be wrong about at least one of them. Do please move it back; it would be really helpful if you could flesh out the description a little. Thanks for the praise! BrainyBabe (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Hope

OK, I did my best from a couple of quick google searches. There should definitely be more sources used, so that the article does not depend almost completely on two sources. Happy Editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, especially the photo and the style editing. Two sources is two more than the article had this time yesterday! BrainyBabe (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Coleridge

Done! Sorry for the delay. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Saladin's wife

I'm not sure what else happened, but I do know where I might find more info, so I'll see what else I can dig up! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tada - Ismat ad-Din Khatun! Needs more work but it's a start. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done! I've given it a friendly tweak by the tail. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I wonder about the courtiers too but I suspect it may be lost to history... Adam Bishop (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Article importance scale for WikiProject Equine

Hello. WikiProject Equine is discussing an article importance scale here. Your POV would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. --Una Smith (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Skaay or Ghandl?

Just saw your recent edit to Robert Bringhurst, the change from Ghandl to Skaay re Nine Visits to the Mythworld. According to the bibliography farther down the page in "Translation" this book is about Ghandl, not Skaay. I've never seen it so maybe you know different.Skookum1 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I'll fix it on the page, now I've found a better reference. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who added the links in the first place

Black Loyalists in reference to the settlers of Sierra Leone is false. The African American settlers of Sierra Leone were called Nova Scotians. John Marrant was not referred to as a black loyalist so that category does not fit him. Neither does it fit some of the other people I removed the links on.

Noel Billing template

I removed the "homophobia" category from this article since it's an article featured in the 'Aviation Portal'. It's a bit of a trendy conceit to look for traces of homophobia or homophilia in every topic these days, but the term didn't even exist in the 1930s, and it's irrelevant to an aviation topic where the quest is for enlightenment on aeronautics, not sexual preferences. If it's OK with you, I'd still like to remove it since the inclusion of peripheral categories like this tends to trivialize an otherwise useful article. Bushcutter (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to this, but as you know, I replaced the Category:Homophobia on the Noel Pemberton Billing article a week ago. See the discussion here as to why: Talk:Noel Pemberton Billing. He was known for two things, and aviation was only one of them. Campaigning against anything gay was the other, and this is well referenced, as the article shows. The article isn't an aviation topic - it is the biography of a person. The article may have been started by aviation historians, but other Wikipedians have added other, well-sourced, information, thus fleshing out the biography. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion of bringing homophobia or homophilia into an article in WikiProject Aviation. Perhaps it feels honourable to look for homophobia in every corner, but it lowers the encyclopedic quality of the content. I'd like to remove the link. Homophobia, or orientation, is as irrelevant to WikiProject Aviation as race or colour of hair. Bushcutter (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your account is a new one, and would encourage you to read around the various policies. Thank you for discussing this here on the talkpage. I will do my best to lay out the reasons why I think this category eminently appropriate.

Articles can legitimately be, and often or usually are, within the scope of multiple wikiprojects. Those are the words usually used. An article is not owned by a project, but falls within its remit. You will see, for example, that Amelia Earhart and NASA are both given the templates of three wikiprojects, only one of which is the aviation project. For a more extreme example of an article falling within the scope of multiple projects, see that Renaissance man, Leonardo da Vinci. I am sure that you can well understand why many groups of Wikipedia editors, from different backgrounds, would have an interest in such a fascinating man, and in keeping his article as good as it can possibly be. Likewise with the lesser known but in a way equally fascinating Billing. It is not only the historians of aviation who are interested in him. He was a politician who contributed to a climate of persecution of gay men and lesbians. This was not a trivial aside for him, but a burning passion.

Categories work in a similar way. They are meant to lead readers to articles they might not have heard of before, and as such Category:Homophobia serves as a useful tool to researchers. Someone who starts by reading about Buju Banton or Fred Phelps can use the categories to find Billing, which places all of those people in a historical worldwide context. I hope you see the value of both multiple projects and categories. If anything needs clarifying, please ask again. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think, then, that we should start categorizing aviators by their social attitudes? I'm thinking that the famous aviator Beryl Markham might be a place to start since she loved men (many) and was notably hostile to lesbians? Is that a useful direction? Will it help the story of Beryl Markham? Bushcutter (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Any biography on Wikipedia deserves to have full and verifiable information. A biography of a politician must be especially complete and sourced. This is. If Beryl Markham advocated polyamory in her publications, or if her "notable hostility" (I know little about her) led to persecution and indeed prosecution of lesbians, then yes, I would deem it notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for asking so many questions, but each question seems to lead to another. I'm not sure where hostility toward lesbians led to prosecution of lesbians, but I'll take your word for it. I'm an engineer, not a sex therapist. We're mostly concerned with the aircraft manufacturing industry here. But back to my question:"Is persecution or prosecution of homosexuals by a subject of an article a required precursor to mentioning that subject's attitude toward homosexuals in Wikipedia?" Does the subject have to be a participant in the prosecution? Or is it only necessary that some speculative link is established? What if the subject is only concerned with the spread of disease by homosexuals, for example, and this results in restrictions on homosexual behaviour by diseased people? I'm thinking of criminal restrictions on the sexual behaviour of HIV carriers in Canada. Is this an example of "persecution" of homosexuals? Some states regard the wrongful transmission of a sexually transmitted disease as a legitimate basis for a lawsuit demanding compensation. Is this an example of "persecution"? Since editors of aerospace articles are primarily concerned with aeronautical engineering, I am trying to figure out how to contribute to articles without getting roped into extended discussions of homosexual behaviour. Is it possible to create parallel articles with only aeronautical content, sidestepping the homosexual swamp, so to speak? I've noticed that Wikipedia does seem to harbour obsessions with scandal and degenerate behaviour (look at the Elvis Presley article for a good example of obsessive editing), and most of us engineers try to avoid that sort of content in our academic work (outside issues are an unneeded distraction). I also observe your interest in inserting homosexual content into articles on other topics. Thus you and I are now bogged down in discussions of how to avoid your interest in homosexuality instead of contributing my knowledge in aeronautics. Bushcutter (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> I welcome your questions, asked in good faith, and I in turn must ask your excuses for not having noticed your latest response until now. I will try to answer them, but I can only give my opinion and understanding of Wikipedia policy. If you want a more comprehensive view (or rather, a collection of views) with links to specific policies, I suggest you re-ask these questions at the relevant talk page. To start with the central issue, the article about Noel Pemberton Billing is not an "aerospace article"; it is the biography of a person, and his interest in aeronautical issues was only one part of his life, albeit an important one -- as was his campaigning against homosexuality. Those are the two things which history remembers him for, and which historians have extensively documented, and therefore they both deserve significant coverage in the article about him. (Note, I do not say equal space -- I am not an expert and cannot judge the best balance, but clearly both are important.) So much for the specific case. Onto the more general points. I would warn you -- in the cautionary sense, not the disciplinary one -- of falling into the trap of thinking you own an article. You state "We're mostly concerned with the aircraft manufacturing industry". I don't know who your "we" is, but no one article, or category, belongs to one individual or group of individuals, be they aeronautical engineers, historians of sexuality, experts, passionate amateurs, or whomever. This is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia.

You ask "Is persecution or prosecution of homosexuals by a subject of an article a required precursor to mentioning that subject's attitude toward homosexuals in Wikipedia? Does the subject have to be a participant in the prosecution? Or is it only necessary that some speculative link is established?" My understanding is that Wikipedia will mention a person's attitude towards homosexuality if that attitude, or the actions it leads to, are notable. Let me invent a comparison: a fantastic builder of airports, a white man recently deceased, whose biographer has found, amongst his private correspondence, some blatantly racist remarks. If John Smith is objecting to his daughter marrying a black man because of his race, that is one thing: distasteful at the very least, but arguably a private matter. If, on the other hand, the attitudes he expressed in private can then be given as the cause of why he never promoted black members of staff, and stole the credit for achievement XYZ from his deputy James Jones, who happened to be black, that then casts a light on the main action of his life for which he is notable, his airport building. If, going further, he ran for office (even unsuccessfully) as a candidate for a racist party such as the British National Party, that is very firmly part of the public man and thus should be documented in the historical record, including his Wikipedia biography. So no, speculative links are not enough; the person must normally be an actor on the public stage, although that can have different meanings, which are legitimate areas for Wikipedia editors to debate. The knowing transmission of disease is an interesting case, but of course is not solely linked to gay men; I don't really know what to say about the cases you raise, except to suggest that you open up the discussion on the talk pages of relevant articles.

Finally, "Is it possible to create parallel articles with only aeronautical content, sidestepping the homosexual swamp, so to speak?" Here I have good news for you. It is indeed possible to create a new article on, for example, NPB's aeronautical activities. You will need to thoroughly review the procedure at Wikipedia:Summary style, ensuring that you have sufficient material to justify such a daughter article, and that you are not inadvertently creating a "POV fork", i.e. an article that exists solely to promote one point of view. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome

I've mentioned it on WP:ANI. Corvus cornix_talk 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Mitford nicknames

The Mitfords used a complex system of nicknames. Each daughter had a "general nickname" used by all the family - Jessica was Decca, Unity was Bobo, Deborah was Debo, etc. But some of the sisters also had nicknames they called each other, and which no-one else used. Jessica and Unity called each other Boud, while Jessica and Nancy called each other Susan. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I only knew of the former, more usual sort of nicknames, so thanks for this. I suppose the latter is idiosyncratic enough to reflect on their family life, and thus --arguably, just barely -- merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. If you can reference to a book page, then we can un-hide it on Jessica Mitford. But the nickname isn't vastly important. -- Oh, and thanks for pinging me, but this really belongs on the article talkpage. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(So I'll copy it there, which I should have done the other day. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Blown away

Dear Brainybabe, thank you. Am blown away and deeply honoured by the star and your thoughtful text, a souvenir of your talent. It's the fun that keeps me coming back to the refdesk – any tips on bargepole rental places? ~ :-) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fun the refdesk can be, if we approach it as such, and you help me do so; see my latest at misc, an attempt at pomo hoho. As for bargepole hire, anytime you are in Pomland, ping me and I will find you a veritable forest of them! (Well, a grove at least.) BrainyBabe (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good take, BB. Wrap them in theory like a good postmodernist! the best ever way to take on chaos while keeping yourself entertained. A grove should be heaps, and thanks for keeping it handy. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I came here to say that your latest gave me a titter. :) --Sean 15:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It pleases me to know that my efforts raised a giggle, Sean. Thanks for saying so. BrainyBabe (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Brighton/London

Ah, good old Haywards Heath... what I meant to say was that I split my time between both... Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, pomo hoho in the comments above is one of the best phrases ever. Nice work. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is very kind of you to say so, Esq. (I am all in favour of esquires and pages and escutcheons and destriers and parfit gentil knights, so welcome again to this merrie, very round and egalitarian, table. Chivalry and courtesy are much valued here, and there are dragons to be slain.) I coined the phrase on the spur of the moment; it does have a ring, doesn't it? Now I am wondering how I can lay real-word claim to its creation. BrainyBabe (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Was about to let you know how I liked it too as well as it morphing into "porno hoho" and worse when my eyes are tired! Julia Rossi (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, the same thought occurred to me, although I wish it hadn't. I started this a couple of days ago and encourage you to post it there, or I will and then everyone will think it was me! (Although I may in fact have beaten you to it by a day, it doesn't count till it's written down.) And thanks for the praise. My cat purrs appreciatively. Metaphorically. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

May I take your "real-word" slip with me when I go there? Awa-ay... Julia Rossi (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't spot that fumble-finger till you pointed it out just now! Freudian slip or just unco-ordinated digits? By all means use "real-word", but credit where credit is due... (and cash when they really get anxious). BrainyBabe (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Worry not BrainyBabe. Start a list of BBlogisms which you will turn into a snappy little pop-culture book parked near the cash register of your local chain bookstore with your name on it! Ta-chinnng! : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Troll-lah, troll-lay

• sigh* they do come in waves these creatures. No, not signing off (still here), but signing them off with a quote from a kindy song I once heard and am looking for the source of even now. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Kindy" song? Kinky? Kindly? Kinda? And you've bitten too. Maybe we are just too nice. (Not something I am usually accused of.) BTW in the spirit of niceness, did you know that your talkpage ToC displays all supermodel long and skinny in Firefox 2.0.something that I'm running. Oh what a gift the whatsits gie us, to see ourselves as other browsers perceive our layout. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No! Agh! Am running there right away > > > Julia Rossi (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No luck, how do I find this? I've only got Safari. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC)You flatter my omniscience in thinking that someone who doesn't know the suffix of her own browser would be able to fix yours. I am only omniscient about those things that I already know a lot about. Try asking at, dare I say, the computer refdesk? Or failing that, one of the village pumps maybe? Good luck! I will tell you when your size zero waif has regained normal proportions. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw, you might be interested in this on the Refdesk talk page here[2]. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Yes. Thanks for pointing that out. I don't feel I have the authoridah - or the energy and grasp of WP:JARGON & policies -- to risk picking up my knightly lance. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. I'm questioning the use of it to troll etc and awaiting feedback on that. Meanwhile the tip is to stay cool esp with this poster. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Relatedly, do you know if there is a way to identify whether someone posting anonymously, and thus with an identifiable IP, and then posting in the same style shortly after but under a newly created username, can be identified as the same person? (Maybe admins can associate the two pieces of info.) Where would I ask? BrainyBabe (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Who are you comparing at the moment? If you need an admin go to WP:ADMIN where there's a link to list of admins or the long way (much backlog) to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to look at a conversation in WP:ANI, and found that it seems admins do not have the ability to check a person's IP. Only checkusers can. See WP:Checkuser, followed by a list of Wikipedians with checkuser access. Neal (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

Size relief

No, Firefox it is, I'm relieved to say. My size 0 should return to 5'4" in the next archive. : )) (Learn something every day the wiki way) Julia Rossi (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Commendations

One at least, for your awareness about not feeding the T's. There's a wave happening of them and people rescuing them and I'm off to real life as it calls until later. Bon courage. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ak-shown

Looking the right body mass index on Safari, so because I don't know what you're looking it, it might best if you ask at computers desk so that a fire-foxy type can help. ; ) whoops Julia Rossi (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC) <where's that lazy sineofabot when you depend on it>

Axed the box. Hope it helps. Let me know if it's normal again. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No more cake for Alice! Thanks BBabe, : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy sun

Hello, BrainyBabe. I added the new location of the moved question "Why does the sun make people happy" (diff). I simply included it in your signed post, and now suddenly remembered that this is sometimes frowned upon, to the point that one regular contributor even left the desks! (See here) I thought it would look more elegant than having me add another extra post, signed with my moniker, just for pointing out the new location, but I apologize for "putting words in your mouth", and I sincerely hope you don't decide to leave the desks over this ;-). Best wishes. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I take completely the opposite tack: I thank you for your courtesy, firstly for informing me of it here, and also for the change itself. It is true that in general it is not a good thing to alter other people's quotes, but it wasn't as if I had said anything in particular. If I had said anything substantive and it had been changed, even unambiguously improved, I might have thought it odd, but all I had done was move material (as requested in the text) and, frankly, would have included the link myself had I thought of it. It is best to err on the side of super-sensitivity, I guess, and I thank you for that, but my post is all the better for your eagle eye on it. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Only a matter of time...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		To User:BrainyBabe I hereby award the prestigious Barnstar of Diligence for sweeping questions from the wrong desk to the right desk with unfailing, deft wrist motions and alacrity thereby saving the rest of us our time and hair pulling, clearing the refdesks of clutter and restoring their precision, so improving Wikipedia. With thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And, re your answer to pomo revo[3], it rang of Scoop and there you are in the history! Cheers,  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mutual ad soc? :Not at all. I call it as I see it. As I came to one after the other, realised you were on a mission – truly worthwhile. Salut, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, apols (addn: didn't mean to seem so dry). I only just saw your post at the refdesk talk page so have the picture now and put a comment there. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing from work

Y'see, I shouldn't be on wikipedia while I'm supposed to be working. My works IP changes periodically: a whois won't identify my workplace. If I log in to make changes, I leave a bigger trail. So if I have to make a change from work, I don't log in. JustIgnoreMe (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge Scoop/SCOOP

I notice you've suggested merging Scoop (software) and SCOOP (software); seeing as the former is a content-management system written in Perl and the latter is a concurrency model for the Eiffel programming language, I'm trying to figure out why they ought to merge into one article... Ubernostrum (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, if I got it wrong I'm glad to be told so quickly, but it strikes me as confusing to have two software articles called scoop. Can the titles be better disambiguated? BrainyBabe (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for a useful disambiguation, a better pair of titles might be "Scoop (content management system)" and "SCOOP (concurrency model)". Ubernostrum (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! Could you do that? I'd be grateful. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nootka Island

Hi BrainyBabae; I've been watching your edits to the Nootka Sound-related pages; seems like you might be the person to try and dress up Nootka Island, which needs some work and coordination with other articles. Also a heads-up on Maquinna as there should be something there, as on other "chief" pages like Wickanninish and Xatsalanexw (August Jack Khatsahlano), about the succession of name-holders (not necessarily hereditary); there is a Maquinna living today, for example. Great work - can I suggest you migth be the person to try to write Fort San Miguel (disambg maybe to Fort San Miguel (Nootka Sound) as I think there's another one somewhere...anything you could add to the Wickanninish article would be great also. Oh great, I see that Fort San Miguel exists now...

Thanks for the kind words. I've read John R. Jewitt's A Narrative of the Adventures and Sufferings of John R. Jewitt, only survivor of the crew of the ship Boston, during a captivity of nearly three years among the savages of Nootka Sound: with an account of the manners, mode of living, and religious opinions of the natives (digital full text here}. I'm trying to integrate that, really. I don't have many other sources. BTW who are you? Can't read your sig. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Smile Time

Just to let you know your last two posts brought a smile to my face! :) SunCreator (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but which are you referring to? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you such post all the time! ;) SunCreator (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC

I'm glad that whatever I did pleased you, but I'm sorry, I really don't understand. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought you are BrainyBabe. O well, maybe you can make it out from the edit summary. :) SunCreator (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe suncreaetor was smiling at your deft swishes with the dreaded homework sections. Woman, you're a machine! Julia Rossi (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Smile Time 2

Indeed! They've certainly papered over enough when you think of it. There's even a category I like! Made my day. Quirk on,  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What category? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Linked. (see above) JR

An article, yes, but a category? As in, a Wikipedia category? I don't see it. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nuni

Hi. I'm back, bearing crab boiled in coconut milk. I've restarted your question about Nuni and Griffin on the Refdesk, having read the book. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

TKT (ELT)

Hi Brainy babe. I have just created the TKT article after finding out there wasn't one. I notice you've done a fair bit of work on TEFL articles, so I'm just letting you know in case you want to expand the stub. I plan to add bits over the next few weeks as I learn more about the exam - I may be teaching preparation courses for it soon :-) Regards Davidelit (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied on the page. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of {{main}}

I note you added {{main}} to the top of slaughter (livestock). Please consult the template documentation; this is not appropriate. There are two reasons for this: firstly, it is normally used when an article is WP:SS summarized, which is not the case in situations like this (it is quite the opposite, hence the potential for confusion). Secondly, there's really no need for this sort of link anyway, as it should be obvious from the lead if there is such a relationship between two articles (i.e. one is a subarticle of another). It is my experience that Template:Main is used very poorly in general; i.e. when the section below the template is clearly not a summary of the article linked to.

Also, you might want to archive your talk page. Richard001 (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. The article is disastrously weak but I have to focus my attention elsewhere. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me to be working; I don't see any red links. Maybe you fixed it since? Richard001 (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dolphin hunting in the Gilbert and Ellis Islands?

I assume Grimble (1952) was referring to hunting cetaceans in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. What species was he referring to? It obviously wasn't belugas, narwhals, or porpoises, none was which occur in the area. I'm guessing pilot whales? Or perhaps some other species of oceanic dolphin? Jonas Poole (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have his books. I googled for "grimble pattern islands dolphins" and found [4], which opens with a summary referring to "porpoises" (a catch-all term in British English). It might be more accurate to refer to dolphin calling, rather than hunting -- the animals beached themselves. It is my recollection that he describes other more active drives/hunts over the decades that he spent there, but it has a been a while since I read his best sellers, so that may not be correct. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

SCOOP

I've added the disambiguation links to Scoop (software) and SCOOP (software). Thanks for the suggestion. ArthurDenture (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

about writing my first Wikipedia article...

Hey BrainyBabe,

First of all thank you very much indeed for your time to have a look at my first ever Wikipedia article. I deeply appreciate it. I would like to post two thoughts on your comments. The reason I chose this place instead of the ELOCD talk page was that probably both are a bit generic, not strictly related to the article itself...

The first one is that actually I did spend considerable amount of time (2-3 hours) on reading around how a proper article should look like before I started to write. Considering the number of pages that were suggested to educate myself on this topic (and the no. of important-looking pages those articles referred to, and the no. of important-looking pages those referred articles referred to...) I certainly hardly scratched the surface only... (It would be interesting to see the statistics how many links an average Wikipedia page contains anyway... :-) The point I am trying to make is that it would probably also be valuable to provide a strictly one pager (strictly no links!) summary about the essence of writing a good article. Imagine you have 20 minutes to sum it up for a newcomer Wikipedia "journalist". Which points would you emphasize in this 20 minutes? You know the saying: too much too important information is at least as big problem as no information...

My second comment would be about how much notable a subject of an article is. Using the ELOCD as an example, I believe that it is notable since it is probably the first ever collaborative learner's dictionary where students can share their favorite word definitions/examples with each other, they can even submit drawings (that may will help in word memorization) and all of the content is under GFDL. I did search for similar dictionaries a lot but could not really find any. (That is why I created it...) However, the point is that just because I did not find something it does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. Similarly just because I believe that it is a great thing to have it does not necessarily mean that it will be for other people's interest. I do not know whether you see what I am trying to say.?. In general I just wanted to stay away from any (probably emotional) qualification of the dictionary and just wanted to describe objectively what actually it is. I particularly wanted to avoid wording like "first ever" or so that can possibly open a space for legal arguments later on just in case it turns out that someone else already had something similar before...

In terms of references yes, their importance was clearly enough emphasized in the docs, however, since the ELOCD site was just launched I certainly cannot really bring anything to the table as yet. I do not know if my promise is sufficient but I will collect references in future if/as I find anything about ELOCD.

Another particular motivator of mine was that I found a similar article OALD and just felt it fair to add information to Wikipedia about a GFDL (and collaborative) alternative as well.

All in all if you find the article insufficient I am certainly OK to remove it. I have a great respect towards Wikipedia, I also refer to it on several occasions from ELOCD. Probably not the best place but I must express that IMO (printing books), (Internet+HTML) and (Google+Wikipedia) are steps of equal importance in the history human civilization... Therefore the last thing I want is to lower its quality...

Sincerely, Triesz (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for my long absence and lack of reply. I have been on an extended wikibreak and should have noted that at the top of this page. Thank you for your long reasons above.

I'll try to keep this brief. First, yes, I agree, it would be great to have summary articles to welcome well-intentioned newcomers such as yourself. You might want to suggest that here.

Second, your article on ELOCD. I will respond on its talkpage.

BrainyBabe (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Fête nationale du Québec article

I've put in a request to change Fête nationale du Québec to Saint Jean Baptiste Day. You may wish to join the discussion at the Talk Page--soulscanner (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nuni

Thanks for the barnstar. Glad that got sorted out.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 22:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too! It was a fun challenge, and having the "team" find the answer did give a sense of achievement. Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Max Mosley

Hi - thanks for taking an interest in the Max Mosley article. I'm sorry, but I've just deleted most of your recent additions. See the talk page for the rationale, but in summary, the info, although true, interesting and colourful, doesn't seem to have anything to do with Max himself. Happy to discuss. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Polar Eskimos

Dear BrainyBabe,

Thank You very much for improving Shamanism among Eskimo peoples article. Thank You for the better categorization. and also for the copyedit. I am not native English, I speak Hungarian.

Thank You also for that Your change revealed a syntactic ambiguity in one of my sentences. Now I have fixed my former ambiguous sentence according to the reference.

Have much pleasure in Wikipedia,

Best wishes,

Physis (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm very happy to be of help. I have great respect for editors who contribute in a language that is not their own, especially when they bring a wealth of resources to the table, as you do -- in this case giving us access to journals in Eastern European languages. I take it you can read Russian? That is a great advantage for topics such as these. If you wish me to cast my eye (and my editorial blue pencil) over any other articles you have worked on, please feel free to suggest a couple. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Inuit art

The link to Masks among Eskimo peoples was removed from this page because that tradition, as far as I can tell, is exclusively Alaskan. Inuit is used to describe the inhabitants of the Canadian arctic, while Eskimo refers to the inhabitants of Alaska and the Aleutian islands. Overall Masks among Eskimo peoples is not a very good article; it is too general. It may need to become an article on Eskimo art, while the Inuit canadian elements it mentions could be moved into Inuit art. Any thoughts on that front? Lithoderm (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this to the bottom of my userpage, so that new sections flow chronologically.

I can accept the removal of Masks among Eskimo peoples from the text of Inuit art if that is necessary (I am not convinced it is, but will let it pass). However, I think it does a disservice to readers not to include it somewhere in the article, and the obvious place is the "See also" section. The use of the term "Eskimo" is fraught with historical and geographical overlap, political sensitivities, and plain inaccuracies, as I'm sure you realise. To wit, some of the sources in the Masks among Eskimo peoples article refer to Greenland, Canada, and the Inuit. (I am going only by the titles; as I've said before, I am no expert and do not have access to the books.) I'm glad you added the image of the mask in the Canadian Museum of Civilization to the Inuit art page -- strictly speaking it is Dorset, as you point out, but it fits well into a historical overview.

I don't think Masks among Eskimo peoples is a bad article, although yes it could be strengthened. It has lots of sources, for one thing. I would oppose splitting the overall subject into Inuit art and Eskimo art (which currently redirects to Inuit art); that's equivalent to imposing a US/Canada border divide on an entwined cultural history. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest we take this to the article talkpage, so others can join in or at least see this. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at Inuit#Inuit, Yupik, and First Nations People it's only the Yupik, for sure the Alaskan Yup'ik and one would assume the Siberian Yupik as well, that don't consider themselves Inuit. The Alaskan Inupiat are Inuit. For political purposes the Inuit Circumpolar Council includes the Yupik as well (ICC Alaska). If the Masks among Eskimo peoples is intended to be only about the Yupik then it might be better to move it to Masks among Yupik peoples, with a seperate page for Inuit masks (especially the Greenland mask culture) and another for Dorset culture masks, as they were neither Eskimo or Inuit. Rather curious as to why the Paleo-Eskimo link, in Masks among Eskimo peoples, goes to Thule people and not Dorset, see my comments at Talk:Ellesmere Island#dorset = paleoeskimo?. I don't think that the masks should really be included in the Inuit/Eskimo art article as they were not designed as art, but for a specific purpose. Right now Masks among Eskimo peoples is fairly small and I think would be best as is with suitable redirects. At a later time, if it gets larger, it could be split into seperate articles discussing the various groups. I also think that this section and the bit at User talk:Lithoderm#Thanks! should be copied over to Talk:Masks among Eskimo peoples. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a wiki-muddle of who said what just above, but good to see you again, CBW (and how IS the weather up there?)! I bow to the expertise of the two of you, and others, as to what role masks have in various cultures etc. My self-chosen role here is to add clarity for the layperson. Please do copy over this discussion and then let's go from there. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Copied it across. Weather's not too bad for September, at least it's not snowing yet! Just getting into the sealift season. Global warming now means we get a second company coming in from Montreal. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Nine months of winter and three months of poor skating....BrainyBabe (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Human flagpoles

Looks good. I'd never heard of that term before. The only thing I can think of that it needs is a reference for the first sentence. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt comments on my new attempt at Human flagpoles. I read the term once but can't place it now. It isn't the best title, but I can't think of another -- can you? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What about High Arctic relocation? Mindmatrix 19:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It was used here but High Arctic relocation might be better. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned at the "forced migration" statement and category application - based on my prior knowledge and hundred or so page reading today, forced would not be the term - perhaps "without fully informed consent, which would be impossible to obtain anyway due to the cultural and linguistic gulf between the peoples and the accomodating and fatalistic nature of the Inuit people"?

Also, Category:Territorial disputes of Canada? To the extent that the motivation to move the Inuit was to assert Canadian sovereignty, this would be "assertion of sovereignty" - unless you include the representations to Denmark that they should restrict the activity of Greenland Inuit on Ellesemere Island who regularly conducted subsistence activities in the same area to which Canadian Inuit were relocated to conduct subsistence activities.

And I do hope you can engage in discussion at the article talk! Regards, Franamax (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

BrainyBabe, as you requested, I took a look at your article High Arctic relocation. Sorry that it took me so long to do so. I have been traveling without internet access. I cannot claim any expertise on your topic. That said, your account sounds plausible, and you have made a good effort to present both sides of this disputed topic. Marco polo (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Arabist help sought

{{helpme}} I haven't used this HelpMe request before (I think), so I hope this is appropriate. I have tried to add template tags to Talk:Arabist. One (Languages) has worked and the other (Arab World) hasn't and I don't know why. Under the edit view all the { look OK. Obviously I don't want to experiment with the templates here, lest I add myself to the list of languages and countries -- too confusing! Please help, and explain where I went wrong. Thanks. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Brainy. This is absolutely an appropriate use of the template. I'm taking a look, be right back. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty.. you were using the wrong template. Some Wikiprojects name their talk page templates after the full name of the project, some don't. The one for WP:ARAB is {{WPARAB}}, which is the name of the shortcut to the project. If you need to find it again, the template is located here; most if not all Wikiprojects list their templates somewhere on the main project page. I've gone ahead and added {{WPARAB}} to the talk page; you can now go and edit the parameters of the template with regards to article class, importance, and so on. Cheers! Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: if you click on {{WPARAB}}, you will see all the parameters for the template. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt attention, practical help, and, best of all, clear explanation! BrainyBabe (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem! The quickness is easy; there's an IRC channel that automatically pops up links to anyone using {{helpme}} ;) The other stuff I just happened to know where to look. You seem to be a really neat person--I hope our paths cross again. Cheers! Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I am not a royalist, though I am rather fond of white chargers! Perhaps we shall meet again... BrainyBabe (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know problem

Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article bride kidnapping, and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Art LaPella (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for High Arctic relocation

On 3 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article High Arctic relocation, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wifi Problem.

I've replied to you on my talk page. Feel free to ask more. —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

RE: Africa Journeys

Thanks for your recommendation. Lotsofissues (talk) 06:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm flattered by your interest. I posted semi-regular updates while traveling here. Lotsofissues (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Inuit culture

Just to let you know, the translation is nearing completion. See User:Ratzer/Projects/Project2. Lithoderm (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I might add some links. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Template messages

I stumbled across your user page while randomly browsing around and I noticed User:Carbon Caryatid/Archive 2#Reminder to self: articles to work on and things to do (someday) which says:

• Find templates for troublesome articles, e.g. weasel words, limited scope, needs citations

It so happens that recently I created a navigation template for those: {{Wikipedia template messages}}, which looks like this:

The search link at the bottom even works sometimes, for example on this search for "weasel", which finds the entry for the aptly-named {{weasel}} template. --Teratornis (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, that looks cool. Thanks! BrainyBabe (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Queen

Haha. The Queen seems to have made a code-name for Charles recently: "future king" ! Cool bag... Julia Rossi (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

David Gauntlett article

Hello BrainyBabe, I've contributed to the David Gauntlett page in the past and it seems there is someone who uses anonymous IP addresses to add pointless comments, often a bit vindictive-seeming, although not brutally rude. I see you sensibly removed one of these recently, and the same anonymous person has undone your edit. Is there anything you can do about this? I just find it annoying. A WHOIS lookup shows the anonymous person works at Pearson, and they have made various edits to the Dorling Kindersley (owned by Pearson) article recently, although that's not a crime in itself... Anyway if you could keep an eye on the David Gauntlett article that would be nice ... Thank you JasonBFI (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, you've inspired me to improve the article. As for the anon editor, I've reverted their work, will add a note here, and if there's any further trouble will follow the instructions at the top of the Talk:David Gauntlett page, namely to report such edits at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nativity of Jesus in art

If you take a moment to look at your edits here you should be able to understand why I have reverted them both. Ideally you should do the thinking before the editing. Rgds Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Left you a note…

Hi,

I left you a note on my page.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference desk animals

It is a matter of interest that most of the other animals that the Anglosphere kept for food had at least two terms, one for the live beast and one for its flesh, considered as a culinary ingredient. Hence cow/beef, calf/veal, deer/venison, pig/pork, sheep/mutton. Horse does not have this . . .
Neither do lamb or any poultry. And there is an age-based distinction for beef/veal and mutton/lamb but not for the others. I wonder why. Rivertorch (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, sort of. In some dialects the living adult birds are fowl or poultry or hens or roosters (or indeed cocks), and chicken (or to a lesser extent e.g. duck, goose) refers only to the meat; see Chicken#Terminology. And piglets are another case, or, in the kitchen, whole roast suckling pig, with an apple in its mouth: think medieval banquet. Anyway, thanks for stopping by! BrainyBabe (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference desk regulars

Hello, BrainyBabe. I added your signature to this list. I hope that's alright. Happy Holidays! ---Sluzzelin talk 13:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What's it for? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair question. It has no clearly defined purpose to the encyclopedia, unlike the (pretty much defunct) WP:RDAC. Personally, I'm quite fond of the species of regular refdesk contributor in all its shapes and sizes, and often remember archived questions by someone's insightful (or otherwise remarkable) contribution. Occasionally, I've used the list to look up the name of that user with the Japanese sounding name, or the one with the long name beginning with a "k" ... There might also be instances where everyone, or a certain group, should be notified about something. Helpful, but that probably doesn't warrant a list. I guess it's more of a community than an encyclopedia thing, and some of our minds just like lists. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I just remembered, I checked whether your name was on the list, then wanted to add your name but didn't know whether there was a space in between and whether the second "B" was in caps or not. So I would have needed the list to add you to the list. Even worse with user:name123 type names. I never can remember the number suffixes (though search box improvements have made it a bit easier to find them). ---Sluzzelin talk 03:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wonder why WP:RDAC fell into disuse? BrainyBabe (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Those who already do, don't need a project, and those who never or only rarely improve content based on the refdesk won't get busier because of a project, initial euphoria notwithstanding. When in need of help, talk pages or even the desks themselves work fine enough, I guess there's no real need for the collaboration for collaboration's sake. I include myself in the bunch who far too rarely transfer information from the desks to mainspace, but on those rare occasions when I created a new article based on a question, posting it at WP:RDAC meant more work. I did tag other people's creations for a while, but kinda gave up on that one too. I still like the idea. Many projects at WP are sleeping beauties. :) ---Sluzzelin talk 12:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the phrase "sleping beauties" and you are right about initial bursts of enthusiasm. Human nature? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess so, and it's all part of the pleasure principle. Still, you got me re-thinking: I recall the project being created after several months of lengthy debates and struggles to improve the desks, including repeated questions as to how the reference desk benefits the encyclopedia. Perhaps the enthusiasm also waned with the need to justify the desks' existence, but it remains useful having this category which shows a variety of articles whose creation or improvement was inspired by something someone read at the desks. The category is very incomplete. Maybe the collaborative aspect is too much of a pipe dream, but documenting the usefulness of WP:RD seems helpful. I think I'll start tagging again. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have myself made some minor article improvements based on RefDesk activity, and I might even have noted them at the project page if I'd had any idea it existed :) Getting people together for a significant effort, organized by a project, can be problematic though. As noted, these always start with a burst of enthusiasm, then peter out - en:wiki is packed with moribund projects whose talk pages are an echoing empty space. I've often observed that article editing occurs in "flurries" which develop spontaneously - pretty hard to bottle that substance. That's certainly true on my part, I just wander happily about the wiki picking up whichever shiny gem catches my eye.

There's certainly no need to justify the RefDesks anymore: based on my watchlist, they are among the most heavily trafficked pages on the site. Nevertheless, I shall add WPP:RDAC to my watchlist and promise the same level of benign neglect I try to show everywhere :) And I'll stick in a gratuitous plug for the Resource Exchange, which always needs promotion! Franamax (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Categories

{{helpme}} I am tidying up Category:Festivals by country and want the new Category:Arts festivals by country to appear at the beginning, along with Category:Music festivals by country. How can I force it out of the alphabetical list? Thanks for any help. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that this possible. Try asking for help at the help desk. Good Luck! Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 17:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

For future reference: Wikipedia:Categorization#Category sorting. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Paired articles, Nativity of Jesus in art

Hi, and thanks for pointing out that other article. But I have not really seen those movies, so I do not know what they are like. My guess is that they are best left separate, with a "See also" item at the end of each article. It does not make sense to me to pair them too much. Cheers History2007 (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

See here. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)