User talk:Thomprod/Archive 3 (24 Dec 2008 to 3 Feb 2009)

Little Shop

Thanks for the message. At the musicals project, we usually add that category if the film does not have its own article. If it has its own article, then the film article gets that category. That way, when you look at the category, you find the film article, rather than the musical, which makes more sense, right? Regarding the lack of citations in the new section that you added, I have no doubt that what you said is all true - indeed I know it to be true - but we need a published source that says so. I bet there is an article or book somewhere that talks about the Little shop puppets (did you google it?). The fact that you can rent the puppets - if you can't find an article that refers to that fact, then, I guess it would be OK to cite one of the commercial links (just say, in the footnote, "see, e.g., [cite]"). This is an article that deserves to be improved at least to GA status, and we can't do that without citations. Thanks for helping with the article. The Musicals project is pretty quiet lately, so if you like musicals, we could certainly use you. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it makes more sense to add the "musical film" category to the film article. The guideline (as written) doesn't cover that option, though. Perhaps we should say, "If the musical was made into a musical film, and there is not already a separate article about the film, paste the text [[Category:Musical films]] into the musical article". The reason I added the section on Audrey II puppets was that it was given as an example here. I will search for more citable articles. Thanks for your help. Thomprod (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice job. BTW, I took a quick look at your new stuff at Peter Pan, which is great. Please note, however, that the ref tag goes *after* the punctuation so that in the displayed text the little number in brackets immediately follows the period or comma, and there is no punctuation after the little number. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I added "Note: put footnote after punctuation, per standard procedure at WP:REFPUNCT." to my list of templates for edit summaries. --Thomprod (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter Pan looks sharp! Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice job

The message was correct! Keep up the good work...

ROGERCHOCODILES has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

ROGERCHOCODILES 15:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Musicals project

Hello, Thomprod. When you start a new article about a musical, please put this tag on the discussion page: {{musicals-project|class= }} Thanks! Hope your holidays are nice. Happy New Year! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ssilvers, I went to do that but found that you beat me to it <g>. Thanks. Thomprod (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie (munch). Also, thanks for helping to get the guideline updated. I'm glad you've joined the musicals project, which has been very quiet lately. Unfortunately I am not able to devote much time to it, because I am the primary caretaker of the Gilbert and Sullivan project. But I have quite a bit of history with the musicals project and remember most of the big discussions, and I helped with putting together the guidelines. But that was a few years ago, so if you see more of our guidelines that you think are out of date or no longer advisable, we could work to improve them. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2008 Newsletter

The December 2008 issue of the Films 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mackinac Bridge article

This is in reference to my changes posted to the subject article from IP 68.249.81.38.

I am a regular user of Wiki, but am not interested in creating an account. The IP is a public/corporate one.

The changes I posted to the subject article are valid, NOT vandalism, and should NOT be reverted. I am a licensed structural engineer, and certified FHWA bridge inspector. The correction is important to ensure the proper understanding of the geometry of the bridge. I will continue to post the change until it stops being reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.249.81.38 (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

68.249.81.38, thank you for the explanation. I respect your credentials, but I do want to point out that your use of the word "depth" here (rather than "width") disagrees with the description given at [1] and referenced in the article as footnote 3. Even though you may be correct, Wikipedia discourages original research. If you can provide a better reference for the use of "depth", it would likely improve the accuracy of the article. --Thomprod (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Above thread copied to User talk:68.249.81.38 to keep the thread together.--Thomprod (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In engineering, the vertical dimension of any structural member, either composite (as in a truss), or homogeneneous (as in a girder) is given as "depth", to denote it's orientation in the structural system. This is not "research", it is simple clarification of syntax. The MDOT screed was probably written by a PR person or historian who didn't know any better.

Suspension bridge superstructures are rather complex, and the Mackinac is stiffened both laterally and torsionally, both of which functions are structurally and physically distinct from those of the members in the vertical plane which are colloquially termed the "stiffening trusses". The edit is to make that distinction implicit in the article. 68.249.81.38 (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a note on the article talk page to that effect would be helpful. --Thomprod (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

new WP:RDREG userbox

This user is a Reference desk regular.

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaminglawyer^c 07:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Mileposts vs. exit #s

To see how the articles should look, take a look at the U.S. Route 31 in Michigan article. The fact that myself or other editors haven't gotten around to computing the mileposts from the MDOT sources doesn't mean that we won't, or that they can't be added. Also, while Michigan does use mileage to number its exits, they aren't a 1 to 1 relationship. I-96's exits 1A and 1B are at the 0 mile marker, before the 1 MM. MDOT typically rounds up, not down. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see why the Exit List in U.S. Route 31 in Michigan needs a separate column for "mile" between Red Arrow Highway and M-45 east, but is it necessary to show the actual mileage of the other exits to the nearest tenth? In the case of Interstate 69 in Michigan and Interstate 75 in Michigan where the exits are within +/- 0.6 mile of the actual mileposts, I think one column is sufficient for most readers. According to WP:ELG#Standard, if the road uses a distance-based exit numbering system, then the "mile" column can be left out in favor of the "exit number" column. --Thomprod (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dated cleanup tags

On February 7, 2008, SmackBot left a {{Nofootnotes|date=February 2008}} notice at Amahl and the Night Visitors. The article now has 15 citations from seven sources. I think the notice asking for more inline citations can be removed. What is the procedure for following up on such a notice? --Thomprod (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC) (copied from Farmbrough to keep the entire thread in one place)

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 16:54 7 January 2009 (UTC).

P.S., yuou can remove the tag if the issue has been addressed. Rich Farmbrough, 16:55 7 January 2009 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich. I have found the editor who originally left the {{moresources}} tag and asked if she had any objection to removing it. --Thomprod (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A contest you may be interested in

Hello, Thomprod. There is a new contest for U.S. and Canada roads that you may be interested in. To sign up or for more information, please visit User:Rschen7754/USRDCRWPCup. The contest begins Saturday at 00:00 UTC. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 01:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

90

Of course, many live TV shows of the 1950s do not exist. Pepso2 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true. I was just stating what the guideline suggests. The same useage of the present tense is also used at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure#Introduction & infobox (before TOC), so it seems to be the accepted practice here. --Thomprod (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of “Tom McAlpin”

“Tom McAlpin”, an article that you have significantly edited, has been nominated for deletion, in the belief that it does not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. An explanation may be found at the start of the “Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom McAlpin”. So long as you are not otherwise subject to a block or ban, your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you and others are quite allowed to continue editing the article to address these concerns. (In some cases, such edits may persuade those participating in discussion that the article should be kept.) —SlamDiego_←T 12:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking my opinion. I have responded here. --Thomprod (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes

Hi. I didnt think it made sense to cite the footnote twice with respect to the same song in the same row of the table. It's not controversial information, is it? And since it gives information regarding the song's authors, it makes sense to give the footnote once, after the name of the song. Footnotes should not be intrusive. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I appreciate your guidance. Thanks. --Thomprod (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Found a complete song listing with authors! I removed the previous footnotes on four individual songs and replaced it with one footnote for the whole section. I don't like what the footnote does to the line under the heading text, though. Is there a better way to do this? --Thomprod (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Howzzat? Also, check out the note that I left on the article's talk page. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you fixed the problem by adding a bit of text and moving the footnote after it. Much better. Thanks. --Thomprod (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Cookie

Thanks

TomCat4680 (talk) has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

TomCat4680 (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: WSCP-CA request for expert attention

Being that I made that in 2007 on a previous (though confirmed) account, I honestly haven't the slightest clue why I put it there....but it was probably a good reason. Let me give the page a once-over and see if it still requires that template. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 23, 2009 @ 17:56

After giving the page a serious once over, I removed the tag as unnecessary as the page has been sufficiently updated since I added the tag back in '07. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • January 23, 2009 @ 18:02

NeutralHomer • Talk • January 23, 2009 @ 18:31 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

- Thanks! :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 23, 2009 @ 18:31

Copyediting request

Hi. I saw your name at the Guild of Copyeditors, and I was wondering if you would be interested in copyediting the article The Return of Dr. Octagon? It is currently a good article nominee, and I may nominate it as a FAC soon. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

I'll be happy to take a look at it. Thanks for selecting me. --Thomprod (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I notice related to copyediting is the lead sentence in the Production section: It says, "Proceeding the release of the album..." and I beleive it should be "Preceding...". --Thomprod (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Cinderella

Hi Thomprod, Outstanding work. I'm really impressed with the way in which you have developed the article. It's been awhile since I worked on it but I seem to remember that this was a complex article to work on simply because there are so many versions. My only comment would be to think about how to "center" the article. In other words, while the Julie Andrews version was the first, is it the definitive version as indicated through the infobox on the page? Or should the page balance towards all three versions? I'm not certain what the answer is, but it is a point to keep in mind if you are planning to push this article towards GAN. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Best of luck! -Classicfilms (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films 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 and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)