Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Slrubenstein (talk | contribs) at 14:48, 14 September 2007 (→Holocaust: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dowd

Hi. I'm not sure Dowd belongs, as the reference is to existing engineers. --Epeefleche 03:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Epeefleche, I hadn't gathered from context that the list was to be only existing engineers. Since this is an encyclopedic entry and not a job listing, I don't see a problem with including those who've passed away.

I split the list off to its own heading and added some more famous engineers. Binksternet 06:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It referred to notable engineers. Dead people are no longer engineers; hence the reference was to existing engineers. Nothing to do with a job listing -- if I'm not an engineer, and am not on the list, if that is what you are suggesting. It looks cumbersome to me the way that it is presented, but if no one else objects I won't.--Epeefleche 06:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest deleting the redlinked ones, or creating articles, as if they do not have Wiki articles they are not of note.--Epeefleche 09:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks are just Wiki articles that haven't yet been written.  ;^)-- Binksternet

Often because the person is not notable. If a non-notable article is written, it is speedily deleted, resulting in a red link as well. Unless someone plans to write articles that pass the speedy delete test in the near future, I would delete the red links as lacking indicia of notability.

Am moving this to audio engineering talk page as it may interest others.--Epeefleche 17:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Audio restoration

Nice job working on Audio restoration. I had cut out some spammy stuff, but simply didn't have the knowledge to bring it up to quality standards. It is one thing to 'understand' the process in general, and quite another to have the level of expertise needed to add some really good content. You additions breathed some new life into the article, and I just wanted to say thanks. Pharmboy 01:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the 'thank you'... ;^) Binksternet 11:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Horn loudspeaker

Ah, well, it would still be original research. We'd need a secondary source that discusses what you want to add in order for it to be properly supported. An encyclopedia rarely covers extremely new technology not yet covered in secondary sources. GlassFET 14:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

P-38 Lightning References

Hi Binksternet, your 1991 Bodie edition is exactly the same as the 2001 paperback reprint. Thanks for adding some very relevant references. FWIW Bzuk 01:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

Noise reduction mess

What's up with this awkward split you're in the middle of, leaving the article history behind? Was there a discussion some place that I missed? It seems to me that if a split is agreed on, then the original article should be kept or moved. It is always improper to copy the contents of an article to a new place, leaving its history disconnected from it. In any case, I'm not so sure the split is worthwhile, since the techniques of noise reduction for audio and for images are not so different. Dicklyon 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to retain/move the history of the original (audio+image) noise reduction page? My intent was not to lose the history but to separate audio from image as the English was convoluted in the attempt to corral both subjects into one page. It's still convoluted in the two splits but (as you note) I'm in the middle of my plan. There was no prior discussion--I looked at the Noise reduction Talk page and found virtually nothing; nobody was having a dialogue and nobody was in the middle of edit wars. It looked like nobody was home. Next time I'll throw the idea out for discussion before I jump in and start shoveling text this way and that! Binksternet 04:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you do it by moving the existing article to one or the other of the new split names. But for now, let's just back out the split and call for a discussion. I'll show you... Dicklyon 04:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, show me. Thanks. Binksternet 04:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. See the split proposal at noise reduction. Your new articles are changed to redirects until we resolve this. State your plan at Talk:Noise reduction and wait a few days for other opinions. Dicklyon 05:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That was fast--I was worried you'd be spending more time fixing the mess than I spent creating it. I'll throw out a plan. Binksternet 05:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

re:Ram (Ship)

I don't know much about naval rams myself, but I do think those two articles should be merged. I would suggest merging Ram (ship) into Naval Ram. I'm going to put a proposed merge tag up for these articles. Parsecboy 15:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Shakes the Clown

The films list box for Adam Sandler is included because he is in the film, and as a general rule actors do not have box lists, but because of Sandler's role as a producer and co-producer he does have a list, which also lists his films. You give the example of "best boys and catering" having film nav boxes which is a little glib, as there are no such boxes. It is unlikely that all the other actors will ever have nav boxes because it is not general practice to have nav boxes for actors, however they may one day be a Bobcat Goldthwait director box like these, which will take the boxes on Shakes the Clown to two maximum, I do not see how this impedes the article, it provides a useful link to Sandler's other work. If you want to create a Bobcat box then I could point you in the right direction but to suggest that the only route is to overload the page with 30 actor nav boxes, or remove the Sandler box, is a bit glib. As I see ti there is nothing wrong with the article at the moment, although the actual body of the article could do with expanding to give a more structured article, such as a seperate plot and cast list. Darrenhusted 15:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll put creation of a Bobcat box on my "to do" list. Thanks for the information. Binksternet 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Okey dokey. It was relatively easy since Bob's only directed two films so far. Maybe someday I'll flesh out the box to include writing, acting and TV. Binksternet 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

Oughta is now a word but okay. I won't edit your very incorrect grammar again.--Angel David 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Once grammar is incorrect, can it be very incorrect? Just curious... Binksternet 21:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that could only happen with ain't...but, you know what I mean.--Angel David 00:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Overtones

Thanks for you comments. Feel free to reword the cringe bit. Just a phrase to reflect what really happens if the guitar is not set up right.

Kevin aylward 11:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oakland Hyphy

I didn't write it. I just move it to a new section. So feel free to modify it. Chris! _{my talk} 23:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust

It is quite acceptable to delete talk by banned users and their sock-puppets. Indeed, your restoring his comment just violates the ban. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)