User talk:Foobarnix/Archive 2

French drama

Hi Foobarnix. While I find the subject itself quite interesting, I'm afraid that I'm not competent to be a meaningful part of the project. Best, Pichpich (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athenaeum Theatre (Paris)

Hi, Foobarnix -- thanks for your invitation to contribute to Athenaeum Theatre (Paris) and other related pages. Your kindness is very persuasive, especially compared to the majority of my other correspondents. So 'yes' is the answer. I'll prowl around, starting with the Athenaeum, and you'll see my contributions here and there. All best to you --Lockley (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Lockley -- Fantastique, merveilleux! Notice that editor Anneyh has begun a very nice section on the history. For your convenience, the French Wikipedia article is at Théâtre de l'Athénée. Do not hesitate to revise any of my writing if you wish. I do good reasearch, but my syntax is not always good. Best to you. --Foobarnix (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lockley-- Thanks for your edits to Louis Jouvet. I added a person infobox and a filmography to this page. I would love to have a photo of Jouvet but I do not know much about how to determine when media are in the public domain. There are great pics of Jouvet at picture of Louis Jouvet at Find a Grave and at picture of Louis Jouvet at Flickr. I have no idea if they are under copywrite. Do you know much about this subject?

French drama additions

Hi Foobarnix, how are you? Please, don't worry a bit about stepping on my contributions -- we're all pulling in the same direction. (And, anyway, once I hit that Save Page button, I try not to think of them as 'mine' anymore.)

And please be aware I have a tendency to remove the 'stub' tags from articles when they reach three or four paragraphs & a photo. I'll stop doing that for these French drama pages. What a 'stub' is, is a judgment call, and I apologize if I've removed any of the ones you've placed. All best! --Lockley (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Received your latest question, and I'm going to reply on your project page, in the spirit of collaboration. (The good kind of collaboration....) --Lockley (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Apollo of Bellac

Hiya Foobarnix, Thank you for your kind message on my talk page...unfortunately my attention is deficit to the extent that I cannot concentrate on any particular topic for any length of time. Apologies for not replying sooner...I just didn't want to be labelled a difficult editor so early in my wikicareer. Anyway we have a query that needs to be investigated. My reference states that The Apollo of Bellac was televised in England before your reference states that it was actually tranlated into English. MacStep (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS It is refreshing that others share my view on bottled water! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacStep (talk • contribs) 20:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MacStep - Good to hear from you.

Thank you for your query about the The Apollo of Bellac. I assume you are referring to the 1955 television production. I mentioned the 1958 (Valency) and the 1957 (Duncan) translations because I had documentation for them. I have been unable to track down the translater of the TV version. Could it have also been Ronald Duncan? See the link Encyclopedia of literary translation into English for info on translations of lots of Giraudoux plays (but not this one!)

You could also try typing something like: english translation television "Apollo of Bellac" giraudoux -novel into Google and tracking down all the resulting leads to see if you can find the translator. I was unsuccessful.

I am always happy to find other people interested in Giraudoux. If you want to do some research on any other play, I have lots of ideas. I assume you saw my page 20th century French drama where I discuss all this.

As for bottled water, you might want to look at The Story of Stuff. Anyway, great to hear from you. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Foobarnix (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jouvet

Hello Foobarnix. Unfortunately, after a very large search all over the Internet and in many books, this is the only picture without copyright, I have been able to find ; it is cropped from a much larger picture in a magazine. I was specially looking for pictures from the 20's & 30's, whose author would be dead for more than 70 years and I haven't found anything else. In case you find something, keep me posted, I'll do the same for you. Good luck (sorry about my non-native English...). Octave.H (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Madeleine Ozeray, several nice pictures here http://www.virtual-history.com/movie/person/992/madeleine-ozeray but I have no idea about their copyrights. Octave.H (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odéon, etc.

I left some discussion for you on my talk page. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conversations with Filmmakers Series

These EL's that you have been adding are not appropriate, since they do not add anything to the article that cannot already be written into its text and they are promotional in nature. I'm going to go through and remove them now. Them From Space 15:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings User:Themfromspace. I added the ELs in good faith based on the following:
- There already were quite a few references to University Press of Mississippi in Wikipedia.
- They are apparently non-profit. They state "The University Press is the only not-for-profit book publisher in the state" on their page at Meet the Press.
- If these links do not add anything, could one not say the same thing about links to the Internet Movie Database, the TCM Movie Database, AllMovie, and similar sites? Links to these are all over Wikipedia. I am not sure I understand the distinction you are making.

You said, "these links do not add anything". I feel that they do. But you are right about the promotional aspect. Would like to further discuss this point?

As a matter of course, I often find external web sites for which the information could be written into an article. But this is difficult to do without outright copying. One must go through contortions of rephrasing and rearrangement to avoid plagiarism, and then add lots and lots of citations to the source. I have found this to be particularly true of obituaries, which sometimes constitute the exact concise article you wish you could have written. How do you handle this problem?

Upon reflection, I would agree that the links at Conversations with Filmmakers Series do make a more explicit appeal to buy something. But then, AllMovie is fairly commercial too. Is AllMovie OK and Filmmakers Series not OK? What Wikipedia policy pages should I look at to learn more about inappropriate citation problems?--Foobarnix (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy of most relevence is our external links guidelines. Look over the section on links to avoid. I was implicitly referring to points 1 and 5. Each of these links only contains a few paragraphs of text and an invitation to buy a book. ELs that we prefer to have are ones that expand the scope of the article in a way that can't be done through normal text-based editing. The fact that other links may also break our guidelines is not a valid argument for the inclusion of these particular ones. As far as I know, IMDB links have trivial details and exhaustive lists regarding their subjects that are not appropriate for our articles due to size restrictions and content guidelines, but they nonetheless provide an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. The links you placed lead to short summaries about the subjects, which is precisely the content that point one of WP:ELNO prohibits. There are thousands of summaries of these film people out there, and tacking them on as ELs instead of incorporating the content into the article would lead to an emphasis on building linkfarms and a deemphasis on article content. Them From Space 22:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prime element and Irreducible element

Hello RobHar

Your revision to Prime element on 9 February 2011 changed the definition to apply only in an integral domain. If prime element is not defined in a commutative ring then the following sentence needs to be amended:

In fact, in an integral domain, every prime is irreducible but the converse is not true in general.

It should say instead:

In fact, every prime is irreducible but the converse is not true in general.

Not only that, but in the article Unique factorization domain begins with the sentence:

In mathematics, a unique factorization domain (UFD) is, roughly speaking, a commutative ring in which every element, with special exceptions, can be uniquely written as a product of prime elements (or irreducible elements)...

Again, this makes no sense if primes do not exist in commutative rings.

I know this is kind of nitpicky. Frankly, I do not know whether the mathematical consensus holds that primes exist in commutative rings or not. Whatever the consensus is, though, it should be clearly stated somewhere in Wikipedia.

It was to address the immemorial confusion between prime element and irreducible element that I began tinkering with the two relevant articles. For example, it has always perplexed me that virtually all authors define irreducible polynomial in polynomial rings when prime polynomial would be clearer. After all, everyone knows that primes are irreducible, but can we be sure that irreducible polynomials are prime polynomials? Well... yes, so long as you are talking about a UFD, and you probably are. Of course, the terminology is now standard, but why let any possible confusion arise in the first place?

Several of the sentences in prime element are repeated here in the article Integral domain (and elsewhere). This seems messy. Should Integral domain be cleaned up and simply refer to prime element? (A similar situation exists for Irreducible element.)

Incidentally, your edit comment "replace refs from 3 random sources to one standard source" in prime element would apply equally to the article irreducible element (which I consider the sister article of the article prime element). I cannot do it because I do not have access to Dummit & Foote.

Thank you for your attention to Prime element. As you can see, I essentially wrote it (i.e., stole sentences from other articles). But I am not a professional mathematician and welcome any expert corrections. --Foobarnix (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your attention. I changed the definition to restrict to the case of an integral domain because neither Dummit & Foote, nor Ireland & Rosen (if you look earlier in the section where they define prime element they say they assume R is an integral domain) define it in full generality. I had also given a cursory search through Bourbaki and didn't find it either. Checking some more, Lang doesn't go to full generality either, but Hungerford's Algebra does, so I'll add that as a reference and make the changes in a few minutes. Of course, I've only ever seen people study prime elements in integral domains, and some brief thoughts seem to indicate that in a (noetherian) non-integral domain every prime element is a zero-divisor, and no prime element can divide a non-zero-divisor. As to the more general treatment of these things in related articles, it would indeed be nice to fix things up, but I don't really have the time right now. You should look into it and see what can be done. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

watch those caps

When you disambiguate hyperbolic plane, I wish you wouldn't so consistently add a capital letter (Hyperbolic plane). —Tamfang (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did not realize I was doing that. Will fix it.--Foobarnix (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas W. Hungerford

Please don't add links before you create the article. I've removed them (and 3 other references to him). Once the article is created, if you let me know, I'll restore them, although I'll try to do it correctly, using "authorlink=" within {{citation}}s. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, all colleges are eligible for inclusion as categories. So wherever he's taught, if there's a category for faculty from that school, it can be added.

And I have a reputation as the fastest gun in the east 'round these parts... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]