User talk:Curly Turkey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanksgiving episode of Winsor McCay's Little Nemo in Slumberland
The Signpost
9 April 2014



Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/How Brown Saw the Baseball Game/archive2. I'm pinging you as you commented on the first one. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

List of The Adventures of Tintin characters[edit]

Hello Curly Turkey, I am interest in hearing your thoughts about:

  • This section? List of The Adventures of Tintin characters#Index of characters by album. It is an entire section in the List of The Adventures of Tintin characters article that lists each character by book.
    • You're using a semicolon to list the characters, which semantically is meant to be used for definition lists. Regular bullet lists useing asterisks would be better. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed, thanks for helping me see reason, and I'm glad you apparently agree having the index section is good.
  • This infobox? List of The Adventures of Tintin characters#Allan Thompson It is a test; an infobox has been added to a supporting character appearing in the same list (inspired by Template:Comics character list header and List of Marvel Comics characters)
    • I'm not a fan of those superhero lists. Some things to think about
      • One thing about infoboxes is that there are a lot of editors who believe that they should only summarize what's already in the article or subsection. The lists of appearances are not in the bodies of those subsections.
      • I'm not a fan of collapsible boxes. I realize you're likely doing it to save space, since so many infoboxes will end up running into each other. One problem they cause is with accessibility—they can be difficult for those with disabilities (or those with smartphones) to uncollapse. Personally, for this and the above reason, I'd put the appearances into the body, either in a "So-and-so appeared in X, Y, and Z" style, or in a list. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Alright, I'll remove it. Thanks for reminding me of other types of readers; good point. Some of the prose of a given character actually does mention the books the character appeared in, but not exhaustively, so I thought the infobox could cover the rest ... but not if info-in-box-not-in-prose is frowned upon; thanks for that knowledge.
  • This question? Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#List of The Adventures of Tintin characters It was asked today of the good people who monitor Wikipedia:Media Copyright Questions, as illustrations should be somehow added to the article.
    • I sympathize with the desire to have a well-illustrated article (check out my ukiyo-e article to see just how much I sympathize), but at the same time nonfree files are an issue with an encyclopaedia whose goal is to be free. Exactly how many images is too many is a legal grey area that only a court can tell us with certainty, so it's best to keep them to a minimum—but of course that "minimum" will be a subject of debate. Personally, I'm on the copyright paranoid end of the spectrum, and would prefer to keep such images off entirely unless doing so does damage to the article. Perhaps a single image with a lot of characters in it would do, if I were to do it, but, like others, you might not like that advice—my attempts at removing the lead image from The End of the Road have been met with resistance (which drives me nuts—it's totally unnecessary, and the only thing keeping that page from being 100% free).
      • Thank-you for sympathizing, I believe you. And the ukiyo-e article looks beautiful! I am in complete agreement with you and with Wikipedia's non-free image policy. Having said that, I agree that the restrained adding of non-free illustrations, especially when no other illustration is actually possible (i.e. Tintin), is okay--but remember, with great restraint. Therefore, I was wondering if three images would be cool for that article, but of course no more than that. You may be right, perhaps only one more, because I do agree with the spirit of what you are saying. However, I'm afraid I disagree with your The End of the Road initiative; as one image for the infobox falls within this kind of "restrained" use. Your ukiyo-e is full of free images so that is irrelevant to this discussion. (Oh, FYI: I saw an error on File:Chikanobu_(1887) "Template without parameter: please specify why the underlying work is public domain", just passing it on to you in case this helps you.)
  • The size of this article? Readable prose size is 72K.
    • That's pretty big, but it is a list—one of the issues with having a long page is the strain it puts on a reader's attention. Readers are less likely to read a page like this starting from the first word and continuing through to the last. If you think it's an issue, you could break it up into separate pages—you could break oout the appearances by book list, or you could break it down by subsets of the alphabet. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I guess I'm not imagining anyone reading it from top to bottom, but instead consulting it. I think I can trim this a bit, though. Thanks for your thoughts here too.
  • Life in general? Leave your comments. Thanks, I appreciate your expertise. Prhartcom (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Life's good! Everyone at home's managed to keep healthy for the holidays, except for a vomitous Christmas for the youngest. Did you enjoy your holidays? Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I may not have imagined you as a family man! Good show! It is the same with me, however they are older (as yours soon will be). Have a great new year. P.S. I need support on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tintin_(character)/archive1, I wonder if you could help when you can? (It has been copyedited for tone recently.) THANKS in advance for that and thanks again for your expertise above and for taking your time. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: I have heard that the Tintin article needs an improvement in exactly what you said: Tone. Drat. I am attempting to improve the tone of that article now. I may have to give up this submission and resubmit it again someday. Let me see if I can fix it, though. More later. Prhartcom (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the article closely enough yet to comment on that "strong oppose", but the editor has a point about GA—in fact, some editors believe it should be mandatory to bring an article through GA or at least PR before submitting. If it's your first solo FA, I'd recommend sending it first through GA, and then through GOCE before submitting. Doing so would raise the confidence of potential reviewers (who are volunteers who have to budget their time, after all) that the article is ready, if nothing else. Again, I'm a bit busy until next week, but whether you withdraw or not I'll give the article a close look then. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Midnightblueowl's recent edits also raise issues of comprehensiveness and stability—for one thing, she added an entire section, which brings down the level of confidence for "comprehensiveness" quite a bit. After seeing just how much there was to add, I'd definitely recommend withdrawal and make sure these issues are sorted out before resubmitting. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Based on your recommendation I just just requested that this FAC be withdrawn, at least temporarily. I think Midnightblueowl and I can get this whipped into shape in the next month (you are more than welcome to stop by during this) and I can try again. P.S. I am reviewing her article for GA here: Talk:The Black Island/GA1. Thanks again for your thoughts on List of The Adventures of Tintin characters. Prhartcom (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Today's featured article[edit]

You took part in the FAC of Waveguide filter which has now been promoted to a featured article. I have nominated it as a candidate for Today's featured article. If you wish, you can support that nomination here. Regards, SpinningSpark 17:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Blind Leading the Blind[edit]

The article The Blind Leading the Blind you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:The Blind Leading the Blind for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts on Tintin sections[edit]

Do you have a moment to give your opinion? Of course you do. Midnightblueowl and I are looking at the new Tintin (character) article and are wondering about the inclusion of certain sections: "Tintinology" and "controversy" sections Prhartcom (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw that and was about to comment. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

FAC for A Song for Simeon[edit]

I took a little bit to figure out what you were getting at with the instruction on "with some critics": since it's one critic being quoted, is it really "some" who hold this opinion? -- I went through about 10 different directions before thinking "oh shit, that's what Curly Turkey means"--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"Shit" is usually what Curly Turkey means. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh the joys of text communication. lol.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue[edit]

Books & Bytes

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

Shoot me an email[edit]

I have Something Black in the American Psyche on a PDF for you. Shoot me an email and I will send it in the reply. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Gertie the Dinosaur[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Gertie the Dinosaur know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 8, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 8, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Gertie the Dinosaur cries when scolded by her master

Gertie the Dinosaur (1914) is an animated short film by American cartoonist Winsor McCay (c. 1867–1934). He first used the film before live audiences as an interactive part of his vaudeville act: the frisky, childlike Gertie did tricks at the command of her master. His employer, newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, later curtailed McCay's vaudeville activities, so McCay added a live-action introductory sequence to the film for its theatrical release. Gertie was the first film to use animation techniques such as keyframes, registration marks, tracing paper, the Mutoscope action viewer, and animation loops. Although Gertie is popularly thought to be the earliest animated film, it was McCay's third, and his earlier films were preceded by animation made at least as far back as J. Stuart Blackton's 1900 film The Enchanted Drawing. Gertie influenced the next generation of animators, including the Fleischer brothers, Otto Messmer, Paul Terry, and Walt Disney. McCay abandoned a sequel, Gertie on Tour (c. 1921), after producing about a minute of footage. Gertie is the best preserved of his films—others are lost or in fragments—and has been preserved in the US National Film Registry. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Lovely! + the reference to my name (I almost feel pictured) and the glorious line under the image in the infobox! Precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gods' Man may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • flow.{{sfn|Spiegelman|2010a|p=x}} The work inspired Ward to create a wordless novel of his own,{{sfn|Spiegelman|2010b|pp=804–805–1971){{sfn|Spiegelman|2010d|p=833}} of the publisher Smith & Cape. Smith offered him a contract

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Contract with God[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Contract with God you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maunus -- Maunus (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've posted my first set of comments. Looking forward to hearing your own.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 January 30#File:A Contract with God - back - Baronet trade paper.jpg concerning an article you have edited. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right about the back cover, now that I think about it. That might just have been me being overenthusiastic. If you want to take it down or wait for the admin to do it, either way, it's certainly OK on my end. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Contract with God[edit]

The article A Contract with God you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:A Contract with God for comments about the article. Well done! Well done! User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I'm planning to put this thing up for FAC sometime this year, so if either of you have any more nitpicks or sources to add, please Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)!

Comics series vs Series of comics[edit]

Hello! Today an anon IP in good faith changed the first sentence of one of the Tintin articles (The Castafiore Emerald) from "the comics series" to "the series of comics". I reverted it, but since I do enjoy questioning seemingly insignificant reality, what do you think? Keep as it is, or were they on to something? Prhartcom (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, and thanks for your quick reply. I thought that maybe they were on to something, as I realized it didn't sound too bad actually, but I wasn't sure. That's fine. As you know, I just got the first sentence consistent across all the Tintin articles, so I am not in favor of changing. Let me know if you ever think of anything that is truly better, but it's fine for now. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree; that's why I wanted to run it by you. I'm glad to get your thoughts. This is an interesting one. Prhartcom (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Blurb image changed[edit]

Curly Turkey, I've changed the blurb image to File:Fuck film interview grid.tif, per your suggestion at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Nonspecific_date_1. Perhaps you could revisit? Thank you for your helpful suggestion, — Cirt (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Peer review response[edit]

Thank you for your helpful comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

I agreed with all of your suggestions, so I've directly implemented them all.


Cirt (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Gertie the Dinosaur[edit]

Congratulations on the Main Page appearance! :) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The Blind Leading the Blind[edit]

What are your intentions here? Its a fine article. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ceoil: Well, thanks for the kind words! Is this in response to something, or just a general question? I'm hoping to bring it to FA, but I can't shake the feeling something's missing in the "Legacy" section (two centuries of silence!), and I came across a mention somewhere of an untranslated analysis in German that I've been unsuccessful at tracking down (can't remember the name or author of it now, I think it was from the 1930s, and is supposed to have made comparisons to the Wheel of Fortune and certain other things).
It's unlikely I'll be doing any more research on it soon. I've got university courses eating up my free time. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
A general question. I liked the way the article had been developing before the PR, but havnt seen much happening since. Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, the article's on my list of priorities, it's just that Wikipedia itself has been low on my list of priorities this year, and I have other articles queued up for FAC as well (here's one!). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • A painting? Unrelated to comics? I am both surprised and impressed. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Not as unrelated as you think! I got into Bruegel after reading about him in an interview with Robert Crumb. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Of course, but still (topically) unrelated... and very different subjects to write about. I know... I'm terrible at writing art articles, and I'm not that proud of my three attempts so far (Extermination of Evil, The Princess from the Land of Porcelain, and Streatham portrait). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, I get where you're coming from—I'd love to take a stab at, say, the Avro Arrow article, but aspects of it seem beyond my reach (and I'm surprised I got as far as I did with the Japanese serow article—even with a great big helping hand). I always have had quite a bit of an interest in art and literature, though—I decided to devote myself mostly to comics articles mainly because they're all shit, which gives me a lot of unhindered work to do (unhindered because the Comics project doesn't pay much attention to non-superhero articles, which is all I care about). What gave you trouble with those painting articles, and what leaves you unsatisfied about them? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
          • The descriptions of the works themselves (didn't find much discussion of it for any of them, though I think the Streatham portrait has a good source... just need to see if it's reliable or not), and the themes. My post-secondary education is in Indonesian literature, which has entirely different tropes and themes than European works. I couldn't tell you, for instance, that fleurs-de-lis were not allowed to be worn by non-kings and queens until I read that same statement elsewhere. To be honest, I almost always write painting articles only because I want the painting to be featured at POTD (I've done articles on films, like Island of Lost Men, for the same reason). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm disappointed at the lack of comprehensiveness in Extermination, and the Influences section in Princess is ... ugh... (Reception could use more reviews too). The Streatham portrait is probably in the best shape, though I think the description still needs serious work. The author of this, J. Stephan Edwards, completed his doctoral thesis on Jane, and he's been cited by Yale Alumni Magazine, so that source may be an RS... if it is, that article and a couple others on the site might push this into GA territory. Or perhaps my standards are too high after seeing so much of Ceoil and Victoria's fantastic work? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
            • Well, I don't think they're articles to be unproud of. If it's a matter of sources, I guess there's not always a lot to do about that, especially as, being overseas, you're kinda locked out of good non-online sources. And sometimes the sources just don't exist—I'm sure I could do an awesome article on Cartooning if there were only a few half-decent, serious sources on the subject. Almost motivates me to want to write a book myself ... I was thinking the Streatham portarait looked pretty complete (though I haven't actually read it yet), and your Hekija-e is far more comprehensive than the Japanese article. I guess motivation is a big thing, too—I did The Blind because I really wanted to see a couple of the underdeveloped Bruegel articles worked up (still got my eye on a couple of others). Maybe the whole issue is that you've got a pile of FAs and GAs under your belt, so anything less seems inadequate now? (holy shit, I just looked at the list of 'em—they don't even fit on a page) Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
              • *shrug* Perhaps. I know motivation is a major factor; Ruma Maida was essentially at FA comprehensiveness within 24 hours of me watching it, because I thought it was a cool movie, and I've been so interested in Roekiah that I took advantage of my visit to Sinematek Indonesia to find sources on her despite it not quite being related to my graduate thesis (on the adaptation of novels into films in the Indies; she was never in one). And yet, despite having decent sources, I haven't revisited Titiek Puspa in years [despite having a 400 page biography now, although that's maybe 25% pictures], and D. Djajakusuma could use some more work with the biography I purchased in Jakarta last December). If you do get Blind up to FAC, don't be afraid to ping me. I think it would be interesting to review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
                • Well, now having seen the rate at which you crank out these articles, perhaps "lack of motivation" ain't the issue—maybe it's just finding room in your busy schedule. wink Motivation's definitely subject to caprice—I never originally intended to do any of those McCay films until I realized I had all the sources I need at my fingertips, and Gertie's anniversary was coming up. I'll likely never do another film.
                  Thanks for offering to look at The Blind. I probably won't put it up any time soon, but I'll let you know when I do. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
                  • Darn, and I was rather hoping for another early cartoon. Like that 2 second anime clip ... Katsudō Shashin... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


  • I wonder how "comprehensive" that'd have to be to make it through FAC wink Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd say... 3 until 4k, max. Mostly about the discovery and attempts to date it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh, you bitch. Now you've gotten me to download, transcode, & upload a copy of the video to Commons, and to fix up the article a bit. I did come across a source—a blog that quotes the Mainichi Shinbun newspaper. I can't find the original source for the article to properly cite it, though, but it's got a little bit more interesting information. Apparently it wasn't hnad-painted to the film, but was done using a pattern method from the late Miji era called kappa printing. I don't understand how it works, but it seems to explain why the colour registration's off (I was wondering). It was on 35mm film that was affixed in a loop (so maybe it wasn't a fragment after all, but was actually the whole film? That's my speculation). Nobuyuki Tsugata speculates it was made without knowledge of any Western animated film, as they were few and not well known, so it was likely the work of Japanese ingenuity. The article's from 2005. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
        • *Eyes twinkling* I must say, being able to read Japanese really helps there. I couldn't find anything more than the YouTube video. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, what Japanese skills I have aren't doing much good with a fun whose nameis simply Motion Picture. Oh, I get a pile of hits, just not helpful ones... Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm also getting the feeling that "Katsudô Syasin" is the generic "title" they give to any untitled film they find, so that it's only the "official" title in English sources (as if a translator took "Anonymous" too literally as the name of a writer, or something). Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
            • Now that's hilarious. Oh, I do love translating... and laughing at poor or weird translations. I had a heck of a time trying to figure out why they translated the characters' names in Hero... though come to think of it, it could have been a deliberate choice to lampshade that these are not their real names. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
              • Or maybe because Chinese names are so hard to pronounce. When I was living in Alberta they had a job training program for natives. We had a couple of sisters who were surnamed Powdernose. I couldn't imagine why they would translate that---in their home & native land, no less. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
                • Powdernose? Oh my. I'm just glad Indonesians don't usually translate their names. Someone like Good Things, or Three Good Loves, or... I mean, my ex's name meant "A Revelation from God, April's Flower" or something similar if you wanted to translate it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
                  • Japanese names are like that, too, but you often can't tell what they "mean" until they're written down. My wife's name translates as something like "felicitous branch"—but you would never guess that (even as a native) without seeing it written down, so in the end a lot of the names are just like English names—they seem meaningless, until you track down their etymologies. I mean, you'd be surprised, but if you tracked down the etymologies of "Curly" and "Turkey" you'd find they actually have quite deep significance under their opaque exteriors.
                    I'm slowly figuring out some of the stuff about this film—apparently this "kappa" thing was some sort of device for impressing images for magic lanterns. It's hard to make sense of something when the words mean nothing to you in either the base or target language—I didn't know what a magic lantern was. It also looks like 1907 is the earliest proposed date for the thing, but not one accepted yet by the authorities—it appears that Western otaku have glommed onto that date and refuse to let go. Apparently 1915 is another likely date, because there were a number of Western cartoons that were shown in Japan that year, and they may have inspired Katudō Syasin. I'll wait until I've digested some of these sources a bit more before editing the article again, because I don't want to include any more inaccuracies than I already have. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
                    • Fascinating bit about the names. Alright, I'll let you and your need to avoid Wikipedia (somewhat) be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Curly Turkey[edit]

Greetings Curly Turkey. I happened to see this thread and wanted to comment. I started to say I saw this "discussion", (mostly from habit), but knew that to call it a discussion was certainly a misnomer; so I changed it to "thread". In fact that is the main reason I wanted to comment here; because it wasn't a discussion, it was the normal bullshit that happens on that talk page. I wanted to make sure at least someone told you that it would have been nearly impossible for you to have approached the matter any better, or to have magically found the right prose to have been more clear. It's nothing but a damn shame that you practically apologized three or four times for having done nothing wrong; in fact you were made to feel an apology was required because you had done everything about as right as anyone could hope to have done. I guess I just wanted to be sure you were unequivocally clear about where the bullshit was coming from, and to kinda know that you had metaphorically stumbled into the twilight zone; forced to see things you would have been exponentially better off to not have seen. I don't know why we act as if we must have this pathetic place on Wikipedia, but it is practically certain that Jimbo Wales could post a comment in that debased area, then be told by the smart dumb guy who runs the place to go fuck his self, and then have ten or more well respected administrators explain how it was all his fault anyway. I wish I didn't feel a need to ensure that you were aware of these things, but because I did feel such a need, I made sure that you knew. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the pat on the back. I was well aware of who I was dealing with when I posted the question. I'd assumed I'd have my intelligence gratuitously insulted, and then either get my answer or not—I was curious enough about his reasoning, and knowing whom I was questioning it'd've been hard to take the inevitable insults personally. I didn't expect the headgames or the accusation of "personal attacks". It demonstrates the emptiness of his brokenrecord-ing about how "honest" he is compared to the whole rest of Wikipedia. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Curly Turkey. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive2.
Message added 13:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jakob (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ukiyo-e[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ukiyo-e you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ukiyo-e copyright years[edit]

Hi, I see that two of the web references have (2001–2002a) and (2001–2002b), but that is not distinguished on the individual web pages. More out of curiosity than anything else, why the a and b?

The date range fields are just supposed to have numbers, no alpha characters, so that would be helpful to know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's standard in many academic styles, and is recommended for Citation Style 1 (read about it here). Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Could I ask you to take a look at my article?[edit]

Hello -- I've listed the article Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) at Peer Review, and I was wondering if you could take a look? It's recently been promoted to a GA and the reviewer tells me it has FA potential, so I'm hoping for some help in identifying areas to be brought up to standard before taking it to FA review. Any assistance you could give would be most appreciated. Thanks, Shoebox2 talk 05:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ukiyo-e[edit]

The article Ukiyo-e you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Ukiyo-e for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

For the discussion about Nanking[edit]

I started that discussion but I didn't involve the discussion. I plan to wait maybe 3 days or no more than one week (Or may be 2 weeks like the article deletion nomination) so that each side can offer more sources about this. After this, I will invite all editors who joined this discussion before to find a solution for this discussion. I think in that time, there maybe lots of sources for this discussion. Maybe I will find a way to vote. Is that OK for this?Miracle dream (talk)14:55, 14 February 2014

The table of some estimates of different scholars for the death toll of Nanking Massacre[edit]


I have roughly constructed a table listing estimates of different scholars in response to the demand of Zmflavius of finding "reliable sources or evidence that indicates support for the figure of 200,000+". However, User:Banzaiblitz keeps removing this table from the discussion page of Nanking Massacre. I do not know why I cannot post this table on the discussion page of Nanking Massacre for discussion. I invite you to visit the table here before I can post it on the discussion page without any bothering. If you have any question or any demand for translation please contact my talk page. I will try reply as soon as possible. --Snorri (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping Banzaiblitz from removing my table. I notice that Banzaiblitz is modifying my comment (see page history here), removing my words and trying to cover up this affair. I do not care about the new "version" of my comment but I feel a little scared because I did not know the one can modify other users' comment. It is like a censorship. What should I do? I do not want to make an edit war with him. --Snorri (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again but Banzaiblitz is removing the content of my table based on his own judgement without any word in the page. I even don't have the chance to react if I did not notice it from the page history, [1]. I don't think it is the right way to discuss. If he has something to say about the contents he should leave a comment, not removing the evidence. I cannot talk with him in edit summary. What should I do?--Snorri (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I saw your proposal in the talk page. I apologize here if I have been acting not calm enough. I think I have always been trying to discuss in a reasonable and peaceful way. However I find that I can no longer communicate with Banzaiblitz if he continues acting like this. At the very present time he deletes MtBell's comment and modifies my comment again (see here). I can discuss with him if he just leaves comments to discuss about my sources. But if he deleted them directly without leaving any comment, I do not know how to discuss with him. I collected and sorted these sources with great care and presented them to reply to Zmflavius (Not Banzaiblitz), but got deleted again and again. I have to think that Banzaiblitz is doing this on purpose to interrupt the discussion. --Snorri (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I saw Banzaiblitz made another table listing the Japanese side estimates (mainly Japanese, with a few Westerners) ranging from 40,000 to 200,000. I think the two table adding up present a quite complete picture of the current estimates (not including the mutual critics made by historians of each side). The problem is that Banzaiblitz seems to be rather unreasonable when it comes to the arguments that he does not like. It is in fact very pitiful because we are actually very close to a good solution if we keep to discuss in a reasonable and sincere way. --Snorri (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I've emailed you about the NYT article. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


What do you mean that there's "far too much emphasis" placed on the two-volume nature of the book? It is a book in two volumes, which were each published separately, some years apart; you can still, today, easily find each volume separately in libraries or stores. The first paragraph clearly explains the situation of the two volumes and if you think it doesn't emphasize this enough, why don't we just straightforwardly say that it is a single book originally published in two volumes? Wolfdog (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Wolfdog: Be sure of your facts before criticizing the guy who researched, wrote, and reffed the article, and brought it through the whole Good Article and Featured Article processes. Spiegelman never envisioned Maus as a two-volume book—that was done as an expedient (as detialed in the article body—have you read it?), and it later caused confusion, as when Ted Rall made high-profile, assinine comments about the second volume as a sequel (read it here), which led to the whole legal kerfuffle with Danny Hellman (and Legal Action Comics, etc). The article talks about the two volumes in the body—there is no need whatsoever to emphasize this publication trivia in the lead, any more than we should be listing the names of the individual chapters (which is how the book was orginally published—the two-volume version was but a stop along the way). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I never criticized you. I was only discussing the reality of how the book ended up being actually published. Your point is made. Wolfdog (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Do you feel that the mention of "porcupines" is a relevant point at all in the article? I'm wondering why it's included when we're trying to trim some of the trivial fat. Ideas? Wolfdog (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's trivial at all—a lot of readers are going to wonder how Spiegelman feels about Israel, and besides it has been noted by an awful lot of sources. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
There's more to it than that, though—in light of all the issues with choosing animals for races in the first place (what animal should Françoise be? Was the one guy who claimed to German really a German or a Jew, and how should it be presented?)—why would Spiegelman think of choosing an animal other than a mouse for the Israelis? A hint is there in the article—Hirsch suggests it's the relations of the characters that create their representations—the European and American Jews see/saw themselves as victims, while the Israelis have a stronger self-image—and Françoise is a mouse because of her association with Art and his (at least perceived) victimhood. It's a comment that seems flippant, but really gets to the heart of one of the key themes of the book. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I wasn't clear on all the sources focused on such a seemingly throwaway line. On another note, I again tried to revise the run-on involving Anja's fear of mice. Hope it seems more sensible now. Wolfdog (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Right now I see a bigger problem than the quality of the prose—I can find the nazi attack dogs in WolfWolk's book, but not the bit about Anja being afraid of mice. It's definitely not on the same page as the attack dogs bit. These things need page references—do you have the book? Can you confirm which page this is on? If not, we can track down another source—it's unlikely nobody's mentioned it (Maus is one of those books that everyone and his cat has seemed to've written about). Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


Congratulations on Gods' Man getting promoted to FA...perhaps you'd like to raise it at TFA (hint hint). --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Requested Moves?[edit]

WP:Requested moves#Backlog Since you have shown familiarity with article naming issues and the MOS guidelines for WP:COMMONNAME, you might want to look into the discussion at Talk:Joseph Schereschewsky#Move back to SIJ Schereschewksy?. The question is whether to move the article back to a name of reasonably long standing. Toward the end of the discussion there is a Summary ch (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Al Plastino[edit]

This is a neutral notice to a WikiProject Comics member of a discussion at Talk:Al Plastino and an edit-war over fringe science and family/friend editing of Al Plastino. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar for you[edit]

Book barnstar2.png The Literary Barnstar
Congratulations on a much-deserved FA star for Gods' Man and for all you do on the subject of graphic novels and wordless novels. It has been an immense pleasure and learning experience reading your work. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, wasn't that pleasant! Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Comics written by Harvey Kurtzman[edit]

Category:Comics written by Harvey Kurtzman, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated apology[edit]

Hello Curly,

Just to say that this was a rash reaction that I soon wished to undo, but found that I'd lost my Internet connection. It's taken until yesterday to restore it, so my apologies for this belated apology.

Best wishes,
Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Sure, no problem. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article[edit]

Notifying you, as you participated in the peer review for the article:

I've nominated Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article candidacy.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

Cirt (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your helpful suggestions! I've responded, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1. Perhaps you could revisit your position there? — Cirt (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Mind if I move your addressed comments to the talk page? — Cirt (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations[edit]

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Gods' Man to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,326 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 10:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

  • @Bencherlite: I'd rather hold off on Gods' Man and Wordless novel until, say, a half dozen or so wordless novel articles have been built up—there are quite a number of them, but they're all stubs. It would be disappointing to a reader to come across this whole medium, and then to click through and find nothing but stubs. I have a number of them on my mental "to do" list, and the sources to work them up, just not the time to devote to them. I'll think about one of my other FAs, but none of them really jump out—there are rumours that Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book may come back in print after nearly thirty years—I'd rather not tantalize readers with an unobtainable book; it's only been a month since Gertie the Dinosaur was TFA, so another McCay article is probably not a great idea. Maybe Maus? It'd be completely random, but at the same time I guess I can't think of a date it would be associated with. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Holocaust memorial day? (January 27) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I suppose, but then that means Bencherlite goes nearly a year without any Turkey.
      I've actually got a couple of articles lined up for FAC that I was thinking of proposing, but it could be months yet for them to get through (my articles tend to take their time attracting reviewers). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ezra Pound[edit]

This one, right?

Just wanted to stop by and thank you for the peer review comments, which helped to shed light on a few gaps as well as spawning a few sub-pages. Btw - if you upload that Suzuki Harunobu print will you let me know, or if I'm not around dump it in In a Station of the Metro? That was an interesting bit to uncover that I didn't know about before the peer review, and I particularly wanted to thank you for it. Congrats on the above too! Victoria (tk) 22:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Victoria: Oh, I uploaded it the day you pointed it out to me (and a few others). It's at File:Suzuki Harunobu - Woman Admiring Plum Blossoms at Night.jpg. I've put it in its "logical" place, which ain't too pretty—I'll let you figure out what you want to do with it. Sorry I never got around to finishing reviewing the Pound article, but it looks like it didn't matter—congratulations on that shiny star! Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! It's a lovely print. I'll have to sort that page out and it's fine where it's at right now. Victoria (tk) 00:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
They had quite a few really nicely scanned ones. I'll have to find the time to download the rest of them. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The MET? Yes, I ended up starting Der Busant because of one of the tapestries there (needed an article to bring the scan to FPC). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Whoever they have doing the scanning knows their shit—zoom in on File:Suzuki Harunobu - Evening Snow on the Heater.jpg and see how nicely you can see the embossing. In every other image I found of File:Suzuki Harunobu - Woman Admiring Plum Blossoms at Night.jpg the embossing doesn't even show. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Impressive. Very, very, very impressive. That probably means the scanner is set so that the DOF is sufficiently large to get the embossing (but how to do so?). Scanners usually have a very narrow DOF, which is why scans of coins often end up terrible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Right, of course. Everyone knows that. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
          • I'd hope so... (I probably should invest in a scanner... DYK images like this are still photographs?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
With thanks for being an important part of the team at Ezra Pound, especially at peer review, and for helping to make it happen. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you!—and congrats on the new FA! Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


Really? Me too. I should be revising my thesis, but I am much more tempted by Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I was cleaning up my desk and came across a bunch of photocopies I made from a library book. I managed to retain just enough self-control not to go ahead with the other four books. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, I know how you feel. I'm dying to write an article on Roesia nu Goreng Patut (the basis for Karnadi Anemer Bangkong), but thesis comes first. Finish the revisions, get my MA, and then waste hours writing about a novel in a language spoken by few who would read the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
    • @Crisco 1492: So I guess you've got hours to waste now? Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Yep, basically. Though I'm still waiting for my friend to finish translating Roesia nu Goreng Patut (I can't read Sundanese; I have an Indonesian-language summary, but the recent printing has a foreword by Ajip Rosidi which I want to use). I also got a photocopied copy of the novel Melati van Agam (1924) in the mail from Malaysia, so that's another article that needs writing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Southern Cross (wordless novel) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * {{cite web

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

When to feature Maus[edit]

Thank you again for improving the article. When do you think is a good time to have it featured on the main page? I was thinking that it should be on a day that is a memorial for the Holocaust, however I've found out that there are several days to memorialize it. See: Holocaust Memorial Days. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm not really too worried about when (or if) it hits the main page. If there's a day you'd like to see it featured, go ahead and nominate it. For the record, I'm more concerned with the book's significance as comics than its significance to the Holocaust per se, so it makes no difference to me whether it runs on a Holocaust-related day, a completely random day, Spiegelman's birthday, or not at all. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Southern Cross (wordless novel)/GA1[edit]

The GA bot is temperamental at the moment, so if you haven't seen it... J Milburn (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks! I was wondering how you stumbled across such an obscure article to make copyedits. wink Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 17 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canadian comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laurence Hyde (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Southern Cross (wordless novel)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Southern Cross (wordless novel) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Southern Cross (wordless novel)[edit]

The article Southern Cross (wordless novel) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Southern Cross (wordless novel) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on the GA! I have nominated it for Did you know, which will hopefully result in the article appearing on the main page. The link is Template:Did you know nominations/Southern Cross (wordless novel). Thanks, Matty.007 14:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, thanks! I didn't even think about DYK. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Quirky articles make the best hooks... Thanks, Matty.007 11:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Are You Experienced[edit]

Hi. As you recently reviewed the article, would you care to weigh in on this discussion? It concerns whether a particular review quote should be removed from an article. --John (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Suzuki Harunobu—Evening Snow on the Heater[edit]

Suzuki Harunobu - Evening Snow on the Heater.jpg
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Suzuki Harunobu - Evening Snow on the Heater.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Passionate Journey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colas Breugnon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
For your great work bringing Goodman Beaver to FA status! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot! Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Southern Cross (wordless novel)[edit]

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  •  ! Drmies (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Nope, not even punctuation. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Goodman Beaver[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Goodman Beaver know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 9, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 9, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Goodman Beaver

Goodman Beaver is a comics character created by American cartoonist Harvey Kurtzman. Goodman was a naïve and optimistic Candide-like character, oblivious to the corruption and degeneration around him. The stories were vehicles for biting social satire and pop culture parody. Except for the character's first appearance, which Kurtzman did alone, the stories were written by Kurtzman and drawn by Will Elder. Goodman first appeared in a story in Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book in 1959, but the best-remembered strips were the five stories produced by the Kurtzman–Elder team in 1961–62 for the Kurtzman-edited magazine Help! They tended to be in the parodic style Kurtzman had developed when he wrote and edited Mad in the 1950s, but with more pointed, adult-oriented satire and much more refined and detailed artwork on Elder's part, crammed with countless visual gags. The best-known of the Goodman Beaver stories was "Goodman Goes Playboy" (1962). A satire on the hedonistic lifestyle of Hugh Hefner using parodies of Archie comics characters, the story led to a lawsuit from Archie's publisher, although Hefner, the actual target of the strip, found it amusing. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thopha saccata redux[edit]

this didn't make it through first time round....think we fixed everything we could or explianed why at the Peer Review, so at FAC again - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thopha saccata/archive2 - if you could take a look and compare to first time round that'd be great. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Southern Cross (wordless novel): amongst/among[edit]

Dear Curly Turkey: Your recent edit of Southern Cross (wordless novel) is explained

please don't remove double spaces between sentences; "amongst" is common in Canadian English

Language for writing encyclopedias is based on not just what is in ordinary use, but also on what style guides recommend. It is evident that the style guides of the four English-language largest circulating newspapers in Canada deprecate the use of "amongst". Here are the results of searches I performed just now:

Most likely some of the search hits are within direct quotations, where the speaker's exact words would override the newspaper's style guide. Based on these results, I conclude that the four top Canadian newspapers call for writers to use among not amongst. In editing Wikipedia articles, I routinely make changes based on the standards of major style guides, sometimes inferred from overwhelming usage ratios in respected publications. This is what editors do. Sincerely, Anomalocaris (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Until the 1990s some of the same newspapers you cite spelled "colour" without a "u", so I wouldn't take them as reflecting Canadian spelling conventions. I grew up in Southern Ontario saying "amongst" and still do—I have yet to see anyone bat an eyelash over it. You're "fixing" something that was never broken, and your condescending lecturing tone makes your argument no more convincing. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear Curly Turkey: I wrote my previous message as a reply to your editing statement "'amongst' is common in Canadian English." There is nothing wrong with the word amongst. It's a perfectly good word. That doesn't mean it is the best choice for encyclopedic work. In Scotland nobody would bat an eyelash over bonnie wee lassie, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should use that phrase out of quotation to describe a pretty girl, and in fact every use of that phrase in Wikipedia is a quotation of a speaker, poem, or lyric. If you feel condescended or lectured to, that was not my intent. How else am I suppose to explain my perspective and my editing procedures? By the way, I just checked the next four largest English-language newspapers in Canada, and the pattern continues:
  • Toronto Sun: among 46400; amongst 1190; ratio=39
  • The Province (Vancouver): among 1799; amongst 31; ratio=58
  • National Post: among over 500; amongst over 500; "among Canadians" 185; "amongst Canadians" 4; ratio=46
  • Calgary Herald: among 3272; amongst 83; ratio=39
Moreover, Hansard Association of Canada's Style Guide (pdf) says on page 43:
among (no -st)
and, since you mentioned it, on page 47:
colour, but coloration
I conclude that the top eight Canadian English newspapers as well as Hansard all call for writers to use among not amongst. Again, amongst is a perfectly good word, but it is a word deprecated for professional writing by those who set the standard for professional writing in Canada. In the interest of civility and to avoid pointless reversions, since your reversion I have not edited and I do not plan to edit Southern Cross (wordless novel). Sincerely, Anomalocaris (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
If I "feel condescended or lectured to", it's because you invaded my talk page with your condescending "This is what editors do" lecture. For the record, every one of the papers you cite have used "amongst" within recent days—including up to yesterday—and the CBC apparently has no problem with it at all, even in article titles dated April 2014. So much for "deprecated". And if you think "colour" vs "coloration" has anything to do with what I was saying about 20th-century Canadian newspapers preferring "color", maybe you should do some research instead of harassing productive editors. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Curly Turkey for Goodman Beaver[edit]

Four Award.svg Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Goodman Beaver. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
precious again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014 GA Thanks[edit]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Windsor McCay.

Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote the article Windsor McCay to good article status.

.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Look at the categories in his article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The article says he lived in Chicago for a couple of years.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


Well, looks like I missed the boat by a couple days, but I just wanted to stop by to congratulate you on reaching the front page (again). :D That's always a nice accomplishment, no matter how many times you've done it. I don't think we've crossed paths since Mulberry Street failed to make FA. Me, I'm not worried about that one bit. I think the article's in really nice shape now, and I'm proud of the work we accomplished on it. Thank you again for working on it with me.

FYI: I've given up writing about Dr. Seuss, at least for now. I mean, I knew those library books would have to go back sooner or later. But I'm working on articles about E.B White's children's books now. He only wrote three of those -- which is a hell of a lot more manageable than the 40 or so Seuss wrote. :D

Anyhoo, have a good one! Bobnorwal (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob: Well, thanks for the kind words. The only White book I've read is Charlotte's Web, although I've got Stuart Little on the shelf with plans to read it to the offspring one of these days. Even if you're giving the Seuss books a break, I really think Mulberry Street is in good shape for an FA, if you wanted to renominate. If there are still sources outstanding, we could always ask for them at Resource Exchange—I could do it myself if you're not up to it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for the GA review. Quick question: is Moriyama's book giving you a 404 error as well? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed. I don't think it's blocked---when they're blocked you just get redirected to the info page. Maybe it was deleted, but wasn't removed from the search index or something? If they're blocked where you are, you can use a VPN to get around the block pretty easily. I've used JustFreeVPN a few times before. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Blast, and they don't have a hard copy in my university's library (mind you, almost nobody studies Sundanese literature at my university, so I didn't expect them to have it). Alright... guess I'll have to give this some time before PR-ing for FAC. Maybe I'll trawl Jstor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • And that was ridiculously fast. Nothing for Joehana, and Yuhana gives nothing but Bible studies and... for some reason... something about traditional Japanese lit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "Yuhana" does sound like a typical Japanese word, though not one I'm familiar with. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • No luck at Project MUSE or Questia either. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Google gives this line from a poem by Kakinomoto no Hitomaro, "yuhana no sakayuru toki ni" (translated as "but just at the time of the flourishing blossoms" in this book)... perhaps that's what's being quoted. Oh well. (While we're at it, the ukiyo-e of the poet looks quite nice... shame it's from a thousand years after his death) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll probably wait a week or two to see if Moriyama's book becomes available again, then go to PR. It would be nice to have such a niche topic at FAC. Mind you, I don't think I do anything other than niche topics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • And, of course, a Japanese source which may or may not be useful. Which is on our blacklist, so I can't give it to you here. Blah and blah. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Dropbox. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Is this the same Moriyama? I've only skimmed it because I'm on my phone, but I only see Joehana mentioned in the bibliography, and then there's something about wawacan's influence (?) on 1920s Sundanese novels. I'll give it a closer look tomorrow. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks like it. I'd be very surprised if there were two people with the same surname with a fixation on the same geotemporal location. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, by "the same Moriyama" I meant "the same Moriyama article". Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I skimmed through it again and I don't see Joehanna actually mentioned in the body. All I see is something about how the novel took over from the wawacan by about 1930 or so, and how these novels reflected new values and realities within traditional Sundanese culture or something. The one Joehana book is listed as a reference, but it's notclear to me how it's being referenced. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Page 115 has one novel by Joehana mentioned. Mind you, it's probably best to just find the blasted Moriyama book. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Right. In 1930 that book had an advertisement on the cover (?) That listed 57 books in Sundanese published by Dachlan-Bekti. Most of the books have never been found in libraries, and their authors and years of publication are unknown. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
          • So, in other words, useless for this article (but very telling for contemporary Sundanese literature, if I ever write an article). Sadly that's not too uncommon... I found an advertisement for a novel by Saeroen called Di Balik Pagar (or something similar) in Delpher's archive, but nothing on the web elsewhere. Also what appears to have been the fate of the novelization of Gagak Item (and the film itself). Three years of occupation, then another four of Revolution, then another 20+ of neglect, will do that to books and films (20 years of neglect: Indonesians have, historically, been terrible with keeping good documents... when Misbach wanted to establish Sinematek Indonesia, for instance, his friends called him crazy... it's better now, but what was lost can only rarely be "unlost").
            • Anywho, thanks for the help. I've asked my friend if she can hunt down a copy of the 1989 printing of Mugiri, and the foreword might offer some more information that can be used. Now to go back to polishing D. Djajakusuma for PR and FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Madman's Drum[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Madman's Drum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)