User talk:Anna Frodesiak

If I started a thread on your talk page, I am watching. Please reply there. To leave me a message click here.

List of Dogs

By the way, I plan on having a look at the article List of Dogs tonight. I wonder if you could think of a better title. Chrisrus (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From List of dogs Of the dogs who would not leave their dead owner, some have articles and others do not. Have:

1. Greyfriars Bobby

2. Hachiko

3. Old Shep

Don't have

1. Fido (Does have a fine article on the Italian Wikipedia)

2. Heidi

3. Squeek

4. Waghaya

5. Leao

6. Hawkeye

7. The Yellow Dog of Lao Pan

Chrisrus (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list name is barebones, but that may be best. I can't thing of anything better.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might interest you to compare List of Dogs with List of apes, List of cats, List of pigs, List of horses and any others you might find and care to give a glance. There are some differences, and I think you will agree that List of dogs isn't the best. Many of these individual animals should have articles. Chrisrus (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC) List of elephants.[reply]

I assume the reason that my first thought, that they should be called "List of notable (animals)", was not settled upon might lie in the fact that every article on Wikipedia has to be notable, so it goes without saying. But still, "beagle boxer pug" is also a list of dogs, as is "Snoopy Rin Tin Tin Lassie", so the title is just not as descriptive as it could be. So I still prefer "list of famous animals" to "list of animals".

Each individual animal without an article should get a redirect to its place on the list, don't you think? Is there a bot for that? Chrisrus (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I typed "List of notable" in the little search box there on the left and found many articles that start with those exact words. Chrisrus (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too concerned with the presence of the word "notable". If you are, you can pursue it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fido (cane)

I like the idea of making some of the "Don't have" items into articles. I will read up. Thanks for drawing my attention to this. These are the things I like. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to work on Fido (dog) tonight. I'm just tonight going to swipe it directly from the Italian Wikipedia, here: [1]. I think I'll just go make it on the talk page of that article, which doesn't seem to be watched but if it is maybe I'll find some help. I was hoping you'd like to stop by sometime. I'm just planning to run a Google translate tonight and then work on cleaning up the machine translation there as I can. What's the best one, Google Translate is what I always use, but maybe there's a better machine translator. Chrisrus (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My browser translates, and I use Babel. I don't know of others. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All replies here

I'm looking at the different lists. I'm not sure I know what you mean. How is List of dogs so different?

I thought List of Pigs was different. By the way, where is List of elephants? Chrisrus (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Hey, look at this: List of birds!! Chrisrus (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because the list would be too short? I will see how many notable elephants there are. I can only think of Dumbo at the moment. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is List of historical elephants. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fido will be a great article for sure.

I'm glad you agree. Should we put it in the mainspace yet? Chrisrus (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think that would be a good idea. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of making red or blacklink items redirect to the lists. I don't know that a bot is necessary. Just a few macros and a bit of commons sense. If you want to give me a list, I can do it in 5 minutes. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand: They are lists, so what kind of list would you need? Chrisrus (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to "...Each individual animal without an article should get a redirect to its place on the list...". So, yes, "...making red or blacklink items redirect to the lists..." is a good idea. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy#Help finding Fido looking for an image. Maybe we'll get luck. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor recently told me that responding by interjecting comments anywhere is wrong -- that all replies should come in a group at the bottom. I don't know if that's right, but it sounds wrong. From what I understand, if it's below a signature, it's fine. But, I know that splitting up others' posts by inserting comments within is a no-no. Melonbarmonster pointed that out to me ages ago. In this case I don't mind because: 1) it's helpful, and 2) we're friends. But, others may strongly object if you do it on their talk pages. If that happens, just plead insanity, vandalize the talk page of an article you created with "this article is tripe!", and trout your own page. The complainant will usually back off after that. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More template questions

Hi Anna, I noticed that an IP-address editor a few days ago changed the seashell template by putting it into the class "plainlist" which removed the pale background. Any idea why that might have seemed like a good idea? To me it looks uglier now. Should that edit be rolled back, or what?

Also, since you know more about templates that I do, can I ask you about this template on National Lampoon stuff? A few weeks ago it much smaller, with maybe one third as many links, but in that time I have added about 40 new stubs that fall under this topic. There are a few more to add that I have not done yet. My main question: is this template way too big now? Does it needs splitting into two or more templates?

Very best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Susan,

Seashell: I think you should revert. I can't seem to see the pale background issue. It may be my monitor. But I don't like the tiny bullets with plainlist. I like big bullets. Some editors keep shrinking them, but I like them big.

Lampoon: I've read a few things about the splitting of navboxes being good. Often, it's good. But, I think your navbox is perfectly navigable as it is, and comprehensive to boot. Because it is about a franchise, I think it should stay as one. Putting in the divider line might be a solution. It's your baby, and so, your call. I trust your judgement. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anna. I rolled back the seashell template. The National Lampoon template isn't exactly my baby. It was first created in a much shorter form by someone who was blocked after only 4 weeks on WP and who was using several sock puppets. I believe that person had been hired by the modern, post-2002 company to make their Wikipedia coverage more impressive. I tried to rescue the template by expanding it greatly to make it comprehensive. The original stuff from 1970 to 1985 was brilliant. Then the magazine was kept alive barely until 1998. When it was sold, for 15 years they just franchised the name out. And then in 2002 the modern company bought it and are making absolute drek. It's hard to know what to do with the template really, but I could not let it stand the way it was, even though I had to make 40 or 50 stubs to fix it. If you have any brilliant ideas let me know. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I took out your little bit of markup around the nowiki segment because for some reason it had prevented word-wrap on your answer and my answer.

You did a great job on the navbox and stubbing the missing topics. The navbox is big, but very nice to be able to see everything at once, in an organized way. I you're still keen on some sort of way to avoid the wall of blue, consider making background or some other subtle colour changes to show different parts. Because all info in the navbox is useful to all National Lampoon articles, splitting it probably won't make sense.

I see somebody reverted the seashell template back to the strange list form. I will take another look at both versions side by side, and see what's up.

Thanks for removing the stray code on my talk. It was just a missing < on a nonwiki. All the best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheng Aiyi

Hi Anna! I'm a NNU student, I need your help! After I made some improvements about My article "Sheng Aiyi", why the warnings still exsist? Is there still anything wrong with my article? Would you be so kind as to help me solve the problem?

Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NNU-10-03100303 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. The article needs a few other articles to link to it, and it needs a bit of clean up, but it's quite alright. I will take another look at it. Regards, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shoulder pole

Nice work on shoulder pole. Fram (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fram! :) Any view on the page move to Carrying yoke posted at talk?

Oh, now that you're here, does that wiktionary template mean move or copy? I mean does it mean that the article shouldn't be an article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the template means that whoever posted it believes that the article is nothing but a dictionary definition, and that the article should be moved to wikitionary (and removed from Wikipedia, or turned into a soft redirect). Of course, whoever placed that on the shoulder pole article was mistaken ;-) As for the move request, I looked a bit at the article and possible sources yesterday, and noted that e.g. shoulder yoke is also often used, as are other terms. I have no firm opinion on what would actually be the best term for it, it looks as if Carrying pole is even more common, and used by reliable sources as well[2]. Fram (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was sure the template said "copy" and not move. That's what confused us. We were trying to figure it out on IRC. I think nobody was sure.

I'm actually seeing the greatest number of images at commons cat [Carrying yokes. I'm not sure if that means much. Hmmmm. Oh well, it will find its home. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Little

I'm not in the habit of verifying the reliability of sources used in lists like "list of fictional birds" or of verifying that the sources demonstrate notability. Frankly I have very little knowledge of which sources would be considered reliable in this context. Thank you for adding the ref, though. That's good enough for me. If some other editor challenges the entry later on RS or WP:N grounds then it won't be by me. :) -Thibbs (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha. Thanks. :) Who really knows what a good ref for Chicken Little is? Frankly, I was a little chicken to restore it. :) What we do know is 1) He was a chicken. 2) He was little. 3) His pilot's license said "Chicken Little". Good enough for me. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copy/paste issye

Hello, being a new member here on wikipedia i was not very much aware of policies. In few of my work in did copy paste like in Government Post Graduate College Sahiwalbut it does not mean that every article i edited or wrote was copied. Sahiwal Division is one of those articles on which i have deep research and have read many books. i did not copy pasted anything these. and the information that i took from other sited i gave the reference for that. i don't know why you deleted all that part written by me. if you find any issue, you can label that article for discussion but please do not delete everything. it takes a lot of energy and time to write an article and when you delete it this way, it really discourages especially new users. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunaydAnwar (talk • contribs) 07:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archives