User talk:Smjwalsh

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome...

Hello, Smjwalsh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Bobak 20:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects:

You can direct a page to another page if there are either multiple spellings or other reason for more than one version. All you need to do is replace the article's text with #REDIRECT [[Target article for redirect]]. I noticed the problem with Phineas F. Bresee and Phineas Bresee. --Bobak 16:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing Joseph Pomeroy Widney article

I've uprated it to 'B', cannot assess any higher as it would have to go through A-class review department or Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates. It's one of the longest articles I've ever seen, with a lot of sections from soures copied in. Would be good to create more links rather than reams of non-linked writing and, at the risk of sounding superficial would be nice to include some more pictures e.g. graphics. It would also be a good idea to make it more navigable/manageable, don't know if it would a good idea to hive-off some material into separate articles, there are also some tools for changing the way in references are presented e.g. the way it's done in David Cameron. Well done if you were the person who added all the material! Please make sure it's not original research or copyrighted. Tom 14:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smjwalsh, there are a few problems with your otherwise excellent article concerning Joseph Pomeroy Widney. The primary problem is that the article is far too long. It exceeds any other biographical article on Wikipedia by an order of magnitude. Please look over Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style for more information. The normal target size for Wikipedia articles is around 30-50K. The Joseph Pomeroy Widney article is currently 179K. Another problem is the extended bibliographies. The bibliography of Widney's works needs to be renamed "List of works" to conform with Wikipedia conventions. It should be limited to his most notable works rather than being an exhaustive list. The lists of books, etc, that are related to Widney needs to be replaced with a list consisting solely of the works used as references for the article. This section should preferably be named "References". You can also create a small list called "Additional reading" or "Further reading", but those lists are not encouraged in Wikipedia articles. I'll make a couple edits to get you started on these revisions. If you implement the suggestions above and reduce the article length significantly, I have little doubt that this could become a featured article. Let me know if you have any questions. Kaldari 22:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source citations

Thanks for all your numerous edits to Church of the Nazarene! It would make it easier on us all, though, if you added your sources as referenced rather than in-text numbered links. I can get you some info. on how to do this, if you like. Just let me know! Take care, Smjwalsh. Aepoutre (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of William Ament

A tag has been placed on William Ament requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BigDunc^Talk 20:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the speedy tag I added to give you more time to establish notability. BigDunc^Talk 21:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Ament and Mark Twain

I came across the William Ament article and was very impressed. Ament's story is part of the Boxer Rebellion story. But it seems to me that the material on Mark Twain should be a separate article. Do you have plans in this respect? Would you object? ch (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I only came across Ament's name this morning, and after seeing no WP article, believed he needed. The Mark Twain material established Ament's notability, as it is the focus of his two most vituperative anti-imperialistic articles. To remove the Twain material would almost certainly remove the need for the Ament article. I plan to at least put some reference to the Ament-Twain controversy in the main Twain article.smjwalsh (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that the article has been tagged for deletion! I'll make a quick edit which I hope will help but which you might want to edit. ch (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion tag was placed on just after I created the account and quickly removed after the creation of the first paragraph. Thanks for your edits.smjwalsh (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for creating the Ament page -- I didn't realize the history of the "delete" and am much relieved. My suggestion was NOT to delete the Twain material, but to create a new page where it would be more prominent. Obviously we would leave a brief version on the Ament page, with a link (one of the criteria for the importance of an article is the number of links).

BTW, I agree with an earlier comment that the length of Wikipedia articles should summarize knowledge for the reader, not present too much for the reader to take in. I've sometimes had to rein in my own enthusiasm as well. But the Ament article is in danger of turning into a documentary history, not a summary. So my impression is that the Ament article should be boiled down, replacing the blocks of direct quotations with a few choice quotes.

I agree with your opinion. My method seems to be to gather excess information, and then start the boiling down process (or allow others that privilege :)) I sometimes leave certain block quotes from hard to find primary sources.smjwalsh (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could put the time into new articles? For instance, I can't find an article on the "Oberlin Band," which to my mind is a more important topic.

I have other research interests that I should be pursuing, so I do not imagine I will put much more effort into this article for a little while. Another one of my methods is to let the article settle for a while, and allow me sufficient perspective to rigorously pare it down. I agree the Oberlin Band would be worth researching.smjwalsh (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I seem too forward. ch (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer direct communication, especially as it is both constructive and helpful.smjwalsh (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my comments are constructive and helpful, and appreciative too! ch (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in China

Hello Smjwalsh,

You might be interested in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Christianity in China work group. Just a friendly invite so that more folks could get involved. Thanks.Brian0324 (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. I have joined - I think. smjwalsh (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:SKHine.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SKHine.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sasikiran (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:HGTA Shea Sheet Music.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:HGTA Shea Sheet Music.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:New Century Hymnal 1995.gif

Thanks for uploading File:New Century Hymnal 1995.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of cricket

I think you should see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Cricket invented in Belgium? and take a few steps back with regard to this new "theory". It is evident from reading the cricket history articles that the Flemish involvement in early cricket had already been acknowledged. I would also refer you to this site where you will see that the author has acknowledged the "find" but has put it into its proper perspective. As he says, the jury is still out.

Thank you for your comments. I just read the relevant discussion. Of course, it was not written when I made my contribution. While the new insertion I made was no doubt too long in relation to the rest of the section, it was certainly NPOV and presents it as a theory (not definitive).(smjwalsh (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Your edits have unbalanced the history section of Cricket and, as one contributor to the project's talk page says, there is now more about this latest fad than about the whole of the 19th century or the whole of the 20th century.

I see where you are comiing from.(smjwalsh (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I am also bemused by your reversion of my edit to History of cricket to 1725. You had duplicated and even triplicated the information about Herr Gilmeister and adversely affected the readability of the article. I realise you have since made further amendments but your reversion seems to me to be a breach of WP:AGF. I think you have overstated this newspaper story and I would suggest that the proper way to treat it is in 1301 to 1700 in sports. --Orrelly Man (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised at the wholesale deletion of a section that not only included the duplication and triplication of Gilmeister, but other information that was not redundant. Easiest way was to revert and then effect the substantial changes you indicated. No disrespect was intended. You will see that revert was immediately followed by my edits to closely approximate your intention.

I'm not sure that I over-stated anything, I merely included what was reported and let Gilmeister and Eddowes speak for themselves. Perhaps they are over-stating the case, which is why it was categorised as a theory. (smjwalsh (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Image tagging for File:AstorHouseHotel1870s.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:AstorHouseHotel1870s.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Google Earth Astor.png

Thanks for uploading File:Google Earth Astor.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Astor House Logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Astor House Logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:AstorHouseDining1.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:AstorHouseDining1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Astor House Shanghai 1912.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Astor House Shanghai 1912.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Astor House 1886.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Astor House 1886.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COTN

Hey, I noticed this. Seems we reverted different bits at the same time. :-) With regards to your edit summary, I'd agree but also say that it simply wasn't necessary to remove the infobox parameter, especially without explanation. It's not as if the article is overly long. Cheers! --King of the Arverni (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to fix previous edits that left info box scrambled. I was not aware that I removed the info box parameter.(smjwalsh (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You didn't; you re-added it (from what I saw), as you should have. I was commending you. Well done. (-: --King of the Arverni (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My guess is previous editor left some unintended consequences.(smjwalsh (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I'm not sure why they felt such a need to delete the parameter in the first place, which is why I re-added it. Thanks again! --King of the Arverni (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William Howard Hoople

On August 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Howard Hoople, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gretchen Carlson and The Daily Show

You inserted the bit about The Daily Show in the Carlson article so I figured you might like to join the debate now:

Talk:Gretchen_Carlson#Jon_Stewart_comments_of_December_8.2C_2009

--Louiedog (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alma White

I formatted the two references you added to Alma White to correct the error added by User:Cathar11. In this format I need the direct quote from the long article on Godbey. I will look for it and add it when I find it, but if you find it first, please add it. Other people are against using the quote function, but this is a perfect example. User:Cathar11 claims the article says that Godbey isn't an elder, but doesn't provide a quote from the article. You add the proper quote and the question is settled. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a direct quote, but rather a summary of facts from Hamilton's book, which I accessed through Google Books in snippet form. I am a fan of the quote function. Hamilton's book is quite explicit that Godbey was both an ordained elder, and a presiding elder. Godbey had as much authority to ordain White as Wesley himself who was an ordained presbyter/priest in the Church of England, and yet ordained Coke and Asbury.(smjwalsh (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

OK, I see you removed the quote parameter, I just restored it. I will remove it again and format your comment as a note. See if you can find a quote from one of the articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that is do-able.(smjwalsh (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Are you going to contribute to the Godbey article? It is just a stub now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in time. I have ordered Hamilton's book, so will await its arrival.(smjwalsh (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:MembershipGrowth09.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:MembershipGrowth09.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astor House

Lots of neat stuff -- but far too long for just one article. Might you consider either breaking out smaller articles and wikilinking to them, or pruning some of the minutiae which are interesting enough, but not essential for the reader to know? Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I have been thinking of doing just what you are suggesting. Probably divide it into the Main Article, History of the Astor House, and then articles on Guests and Residents. As it stands, more than 50% is reference support. I need to remove duplications in the footnotes, abbreviate some of the references. I'm getting close to finishing and will start pruning and dividing after that.(smjwalsh (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I would actually prefer you do the dividing - I tend to cut a bit -- and I would like to honor your understanding of what is, and is not, important. This is not really an article where folks will pick apart the references, to be sure. In order to keep all the history intact bewteen the new articles, you might ask an admin to make copies of the page with the new names - then edit each of them down, and wikilink the new names to the article you keep with this name? Perhaops a short overview of its history and history since 1954 ("modern history"?), a broken-out "history to 1954" linked, "Notable Guests" (losing the "unconfirmed" ones as not really adding a lot to the article?) and pruning the references a bit would work? Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to do the dividing (creating new articles) as I have done previously with other long articles I have worked on. I have had communication from a WP lurker regarding some of my edits. He has thoroughly critiqued some edits. His concerns have been reasonable. Apparently he is working on a scholarly book on The Bund. Over-referencing may be a reaction to those enquiries. However, I am looking to reduce both the number, as well as their content through use of abbreviations and short reference cites. As I see it, the Main article would include all of the sections, but in summary form where there is a separate article. I am doing that with biography articles spun off from this article. As the biography article is created and fleshed out, the content in the main article is reduced commensurately. Unconfirmed guests is an attempt to respond to claims by the PR department of the hotel, and the multiplication of those claims in various media eg Lonely Planet, Frommers, newspaper articles etc. It has been interesting to me my own edits show up in other publications almost word for word.(smjwalsh (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Too heck with PR departments <g>. Let's whip this too long article into shape, right? Collect (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of last night (my time), article was just over 250K in length or just over 37,000 words (translates to 59 pages using PDF download facility), of which there was 20,000 words of content and 17,000 words of reference material. I have started dividing process. Created 2 history articles (1844-1858) and (1858-1959), and will create another (1959 onwards). Will probably need to divide 1858-1959 article into 3: (1858-1900), (1900-1922) and (1922-1959), as these represent ownership changes. I have created List of residents and guests article, and removed same from main article (reducing size by 20% of total). I believe the references can be reduced significantly and will work on them. There are more challenges and work involved than I initially expected so I would appreciate time to divide and shift material. However, I believe it would be OK to start reducing History section of main article until Pujiang Hotel/1959 and onwards section.(smjwalsh (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

History of the Astor House Hotel, Shanghai 1844 to 1858

Hi. I'm curious why this article isn't title Astor House Hotel (Shanghai)? And I think the Astor House Hotel article should be disambiguated? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Yesterday I put this very topic on the talk page. When I first encountered the WP article last year, it was named as it is currently. I will wait for a few more days and if there is no objection, will rename the article Astor House Hotel (Shanghai).(smjwalsh (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Hi Smjwalsh -- I notice you uploaded this picture a couple of months ago and give the source only as a newspaper article. Could you please provide a few more details such as (at the very least) which newspaper, date, and page number? Other details such as the name of the article and author(if known) of the article would be helpful too but are less important. As things stand, there isn't enough information there to verify the copyright status of the image. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Angle/Larry Norman

Hi Smjwalsh. While I've no problem with the changes you've recently made, the failed angle is subject of discussion. Currently there seems to be quite a lot of interest(!) in "Failed Angel". There's also some opinion differences in the current editors of the Larry Norman article. May I respectfully ask that you consider contributing to the discussion before making changes. Thanks Matthewdjb (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the discussion and am following it closely. As there was nothing remotely controversial in my changes, I acted BOLDLY and made the necessary changes.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I need to go to bed. Could you please stop editing the Stonehill section. I just lost nearly an hour of editing to two conflicts. I need to fix some issues with that section. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your request but this is a most unusual request. I'm sorry you lost your changes. I know how frustrating that can be. I have a few more changes to make before I take a break. As I am in Australia, and there are many hours time difference, I think it best for me to do what I planned, allow you to sleep, and you can edit as you see fit once I have a more settled version for you.

(smjwalsh (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks. I'm done now. Fortunately I have some tools that allow me to merge changes together, albeit external to Wikipedia. I needed to clarify the differing points of view around the end of Randy's first marriage. Larry and his biographer seem to be at odds with the first-hand accounts in Fallen Angel. I really appreciate how you're fleshing-out the rest of the section. You're a very good and dedicated editor. Feel free to add whatever information you can to other Jesus music artists. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your tireless improvement through the addition of sources and other material to the Larry Norman article. Please keep up the good work! Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collective noun having singular form of verb

I noticed you recently edited Little Anthony and the Imperials‎, changing "Little Anthony and the Imperials are a rhythm and blues/soul/doo-wop vocal group..." to "Little Anthony and the Imperials is a rhythm and blues/soul/doo-wop vocal group...", with the edit summary "Rules of English grammar require collective noun to have singular form of verb, therefore 'Is' not 'are')". I agree with you for American English, but British English (and most other variants of English) use the plural form of the verb with a collective noun. So you will see that all non-U.S. band articles use are. However, you will see that most Wikipedia references to U.S. bands also use are (and other plural forms such as were and they). If you look at the edit histories of these articles, you may see multiple revisions changing back and forth between singular and plural forms. So I think you are fighting a losing battle; don't be surprised if someone eventually reverts the edit and similar edits to other articles you may have made. --hulmem (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say something like that. The whole BrE/AmE thing is a pain - I dunno why we can't just mix 'em all up... Rothorpe (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. As an Australian, I was educated in the intricacies of British grammar, and so can advise that the rule applies in both Australia and other British English countries. Through voracious reading I am familiar with the American variant:) Grammatically I am correct, but realise that common usage would be "are". It will be interesting toi see how quickly it is reverted.(smjwalsh (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Further to the above, the WP article: [1] is interesting, but not sourced.(smjwalsh (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

WP indicates that an article on a topic (eg biography) related to a particular nation should use the grammar and spelling of that nation. "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:HEAD#National_varieties_of_English(smjwalsh (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

I know. Isn't it a frightful bore? Rothorpe (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consequently, an article on an American band or singing group eg Little Anthony and the Imperials should conform to American English grammar conventions.(smjwalsh (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I agree, and I've tried that (Beach Boys, etc.) but someone invariably reverts the edit back to the plural form. It just isn't important so I quickly gave up. I guess I was trying to alert you that you have an uphill battle. I think the root of the issue is that to many people, one way "sounds" right and the other way "sounds" wrong. Based on an informal look at a number of articles, the empirical consensus seems to be to use the plural form, right or wrong. --hulmem (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both your sentiment and prognosis.(smjwalsh (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Astor House Hotel 1927.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Astor House Hotel 1927.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Norman References

SMJ - On Talk:Larry Norman you have recently added

"There seems to be a way to consolidate references also, which would reduce article length considerably"

I'm not sure if you are saying you don't know how to do this? If not, then instead of starting the reference with just <ref> start with <ref name="XXX"> where XXX is a short memorable title, and complete the reference as usual. When you want to re-use the same reference just use <ref name="XXX"/> If you knew this - sorry for trying to teach you to suck eggs. Arjayay (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was not familiar with the process only with the product.(smjwalsh (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Related to this edit, where's the new article? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just found it. Perhaps a brief paragraph or two in the LN article with a main tag is appropriate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just about to direct you to the new page. Will add the appropriate tag ASAP. As we are both fans of Randy Stonehill, perhaps we can work together to ensure the new article is fair and even-handed.(smjwalsh (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

I'm interested in assisting in creating new articles to help weed this page down. I don't have any stake in it, just saw somewhere I might be useful in growing my wiki-editing skills. So if you have suggestions of pages that can be culled out, let me know. I'll spend some time with the article later today and see if I can come up with something on my own.Tuxhedoh (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petra ref

I edited your addition to the Petra (band) article and the "owner" of the article decided to remove it completely. Feel free to restore your version or my edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "heads up".(smjwalsh (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)).[reply]