Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:00, 11 June 2008

Archives

Archive 1 (Feb–Dec 2007) Archive 2 (Jan–May 2008)

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! 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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Tone 11:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice

Hello. In answer to your queries:

Although I did get the reviews online, it wasn't from a publicly-accessible site - I found them in the InfoTrack database, which is a big searchable database of British newspaper content which you can get access to if you are a member of a British library. However, it should be easy enough to use it to find some more reviews from the time - I shall try and get hold of a few for you, with the appropriate citation details.

As for adaption and adaptation - as far as I am aware "adaption" isn't a real word, although I think it is quite a common spelling mistake, even by native speakers! "Adaptation" should always be used.

Regarding the pictures... I can't say I have any particular preference! I am rubbish on the visual side of things, sorry... Have very little aesthetic sense at all! Angmering (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Starship

Well, in my opinion, whomever said that "starship" is too much like Star Trek is simply wrong. "Starship" is a generic term used for any ship that travels amongst the stars. If it were simply a ship that stayed inside a solar system (aka, not lightspeed-capable: the F-301/302 and Death Gliders), then "spaceship" is appropriate. But for a general article containing multiple ships, the majority of which are lightspeed-capable, "starship" is by far the most appropriate term ( are the only which aren't hyperspace-capable). Star Trek does not dictate the naming of all other sci-fi terms, and I firmly believe that "starship" should be used over "spaceship" or (ack) "starcraft". — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Radek Zelenka

I removed the tag. My mistake. Sorry. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Article mergers

Hey Sgeureka, nice job on the merges, as I've mentioned before. However, I notice that two critical things were not performed. One, make sure that for any images that you retain from the merged article, you update the fair-use rationales so that they link to the current page...else the bots that roam will mark them for deletion as missing a valid rationale. Second, when you merge multiple pages into one, leaving the original talk pages behind, make sure you link to those talk pages on the new page's talk, as I've done at Talk:Ancient starships in Stargate. This is just so people can look back and see previous discussions. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep the talk page notifications in mind (in fact, I am thinking of adding {{merged}} to all the SG lists, which may solve this "problem" as well). About the images, as far as I know, image bots do recognize redirects, and I always fix double-redirects when I merge articles, so everything should be fine. – sgeureka 08:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, maybe they've gotten smarter, but I know they didn't used to. Well, just keep an eye on the talk pages, in case any notifications pop up. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Zachary Jaydon

There seems to be confusion as to the relation between Jaydon D. Paull & Zachary Jaydon. They are one in the same. A large percentage of performers/artists don't go by their legal name. Any notability no matter which of the two names they are credited under are still assertions of nobility under either or both. Many people are eliminating anything that can be user uploaded or changed. I agree with the principle of this in general, however, videos, magazine scans and the such are irrefutable proof of events or facts no matter where they came from. If there is a video of Mr. Jaydon playing with a National Rock Band, you can't say that because it was put up by a "user" that the fact doesn't remain.

While every sentence of this Wiki Article isn't strongly sourced, it doesn't mean he doesn't meat notability requirements for an article. I have scanned and uploaded quite a few of my sources at: http://zacharyjaydonwiki.blogspot.com/

Also, the following was taken directly from WP:N#MUSIC:

Criteria for composers and lyricists

For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists:

  1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.

Jaydon has written material on several Multi-Platinum records, including *NSYNC, Craig David, Ryan Cabrera and others. These WERE songs that were included on these albums. They weren't scrapped, or obscure B-Sides. These were songs included on official releases by MAJOR artists. He obviously has notable talent if these artists are choosing to work with him. This is obviously an arguable issue, but given the success of the albums his work has been featured on, it seems at the VERY least, notable. These credits are easily verifiable here:

(, , )

The 3 above sources are all from www.ASCAP.com which is one of the most trusted sources used on Wiki for Songwriter Credit Verification.

() also shows from a VERY large, Fortune 500 companies website with information on Close To Home and confirming Mr. Jaydon's Songwriting Credits. This website would be considered reliable on any front, and also independent of the subject himself.

Skyler Morgan (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)