User talk:DavidBrooks/archive/EB2004

This is stuff that people have sent me about the Missing encyclopedic articles project.

---

The basis for the division was the original Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics, which I have worked on extensively over the past year and a half. The smaller sections make it much easier to work with the list, remove links once they are activated, and deal with specific topics. As for calculating percentage done, the easiest thing I find is to simply paste the list into Word, and replace all the #'s. The number of replacements made, subtracted from 1,000, gives the remainder left. Danny 12:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I will answer on the other page--thanks for asking me--but I am certainly not leader of anything. Just a run of the mill wikipedian with too much time on his hands. Danny 01:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

/29

Hi David. Many thanks for your message. You make a good point and I replied via email. If you don't get the mail, let me know. Pcb21| Pete 17:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice work on Tabinshwehti. If you look further down the list, Thibaw is another Myanmar king. ;-) Danny 18:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Paul Monette

As part of the EB2004 project I picked the first item on page 21, did a little research, and put together a stub. Only after I used "what links here" did I see you have him listed as a project. Since I know nothing about gay lit, I'd obviously have no qualms with you replacing it. The point is that we have an article! David Brooks 06:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Cool! Thanks, I noticed there was no article and was getting set to write one... someday. Well done! -- Cleduc 14:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Montacute House

Great photographs, I have just moved them about a little, as there was a large void in the centre of the page, hope you don't mind. Giano | talk 09:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• [1] I quite liked them the way we had them! Giano | talk 12:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)... reply on your page. David Brooks

• No I knew it was User:Alphax I just thought it was a bit heavy handed of him to just move them when the history showed someone had spent time already arranging them, and then just inform us his way was best! it's not as if its going to be on the front page is it?. No, don't bother to revert, its not worth a war. Nice you've made your wife famous, the old one actually had a lot of blurring and smudging where I had removed my charming children to deny them their moment of fame! I've retagged the old image (had my wrists slapped) it is an orphan now, but yours are far better so it does not relly matter. Regards Giano | talk 17:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Lung articles

I think lung congestion can safely be redirected, although it is an awkward term. As for pulmonary infarction, this appears to be a distinct clinical entity generally resulting from pulmonary embolism. As there is no Emedicine article (at least for adults) about it, it is probably not exactly shocking that we have no article about it.

Sorry to hear about your lumbal foraminal stenosis. I hope the diodes down your left side will be better soon :-) JFW | T@lk 20:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS have a look at this link. Do you notice something truly impressive? JFW | T@lk 20:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

EB 2004

Sorry, I tried to scan the talk page for policy, but didn't slog through all of it. I wonder why they are all in capital in the first place, the online EB search brings up most in lower case. In any case, feel free to change them all back, but try to leave the comments. I guess it just seems a red link that follows the naming conventions is more useful than one that doesn't. Or are we assuming everyone that creates links from there will check the naming conventions too? - Taxman ^Talk 23:14, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

EB2004

Thanks for spotting my cork tree error, bit embarrassing as it was me that put the automatic links there to easily check EB and wiki!, thanks Bluemoose 09:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Q

I can see you're working from the top as I write, so I am working from the bottom. Pcb21| Pete 18:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right it is a pleasure. I will endevour to share it! Pcb21| Pete 18:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

EB2004 duplicates

Hi - thanks for the clarification on the duplicate entries. Makes sense to me. And thanks for your work on organizing this effort! CDC (talk) 05:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing topics

Shame you won't be on 2004 anymore. Good luck with Nuttall! Pcb21| Pete 1 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)

Nuttal:Epoch Making Events

Nice handling of that one. I'd scratched my head about that entry myself before just skipping it. --KharBevNor 2 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)

Le noir faineant

To be truthful, I don't care either way. All I ask is that in case you re-create the article, you categorise it as "royalty-stub" or nothing, instead of generic "stub"; see WP:STUB. Cheers. --Sn0wflake 05:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Nuttall

Didn't get round to looking at usernames so my comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular... further I didn't want to offend anyone... just that I can see that the proportion of poorly-thought-out articles has increased so it is probably more than one perosn. I don't know if you saw my suggestion... to import all of Nuttall material inside a ==Historical view== section complete with "Please note this is old" disclaimer and a Category:Nuttall import to be checked, as a way of working around the more "enthusiastic" contributors. Pcb21| Pete 16:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point about the blue links in the other lists.

The idea was originally espoused as the third comment in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles#Focuses but people didn't like it because it is has it defencies. I agree it does, but might be better than the current alternatives. The way to work-around you very good point would be first to work through the list of Nuttall x 1911, data-dumping from both in some automated fashion, with a category of Category:Nuttall and 1911 import to be checked.

Having said that, given that I actually haven't yet got the code or support to do it, I will indeed take up your suggestion and join you as an "elder statemen" of the project and clean up after other people!

(Agreed re spelling mistakes and some outright errors in Nuttall, agree to being bold in throwing such things off the list as we see fit). Pcb21| Pete 19:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

David Schenkel

Hiya. Yes, I did create the redirect, mostly because I thought someone would come through and might check the Nuttall entries again. I'd really like to think that the Nuttall pages we're creating are going to stay around and not be deleted, but as the EB2004 and Hutchinson pages were deleted on Jimbo's whim, I thought that it would be good to include it (with an appropriate commit message). It certainly is a toss-up, because I could see some people argue that it's polluting the namespace... Womble 23:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)