User talk:Eric Corbett

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

"Lager, so much more than just a breakfast drink"

Sign in the Pheasant Pluckers pub in Southport, England

Coal mining terminology[edit]

When we wrote Bradford Colliery, I think you suggested a glossary of coal mining terms would be useful, and since then I've been very gradually compiling one. I have looked at a few lists and just about every one is formatted differently and I have no idea what NOTOC means. Any guidance would be welcome but I did think of a title, Glossary of coal mining terminology. Is it possible to link every term or would I have to do it by alphabetical section? Sorry to be so dim but I've only been here for five years :( J3Mrs (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at how WikiProject Equine set up Glossary of equestrian terms. We're rather pleased with it. Montanabw(talk) 20:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
NOTOC means no table of content, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The Glossary of equestrian terms that Montanabw mentioned looks like a good model to follow. Eric Corbett 22:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll take a look at that one, thanks all. J3Mrs (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Very useful. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Everything that Wikipedia doesn't want, that's me[edit]

We're more important to the WMF than Eric, and given this infinite supply of us, and an infinite supply of computers, we should easily be able to get William Shakespeare delisted through WP:FAR before it gets semi-protected due to persistent vandalism!

I'm a white, male, graduate European and apparently therefore worth nothing to the WMF. Easily replaceable. Doesn't bother me though, because my opinion of the WMF is that it's even more easily replaceable by a tribe of monkeys. Eric Corbett 20:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey! That might be offensive to monkeys. They have standards, you know... Intothatdarkness 20:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I am not much better, just a woman, otherwise same. I remember Trotz today, having performed it on this day for the first time, Giano helped with the related church article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
But you're a woman Gerda, you're worth far more than I am. Eric Corbett 20:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You know what Trotz means, and you know who defines worth ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hundredth monkey effect? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about women in general, but I'm close to crone status and we clearly are as worthless as can be. Remember the 9 million of us burned at the stake in the 14th century... wise women are a dangerous thing .... muahahahahahahaaaaa! Montanabw(talk) 21:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's a common misconception that all witches were women, but take a look at the Paisley witches, and see if you can read the account of those two brothers asking to hold hands while they were being garotted without it bringing tears to your eyes. In England there were only about 500 executions for witchcraft – 500 too many I agree – but nothing like 9 million. Eric Corbett 22:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
14th century? Remember Grace Sherwood? pardoned 300 years later, in 2006 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Who could forget Grace? Eric Corbett 22:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Not me. In our town, witches (= single wealthy woman) were burnt in the 17th century, sadly, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
this article explains it pretty well. England was relatively enlightened, all told. The 9 million figure is no doubt high, but it factors in all of Europe for about 500 years, and add in the heretics and other victims of rhe inquisition and it may not be as far off as one might think. Montanabw(talk) 22:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I haven't checked the numbers, so I may be talking out of my anus, but if you factor in heretics then 9 million may not be so wide of the mark. But that's a remarkably well-balanced article you've linked to there Montanabw. Eric Corbett 22:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This thread is displaying what is for me a very typical experience. About half of those commenting here are female, which is pretty much what I find when I'm collaborating with other editors. I just can't see this 13% female stuff at all, seems to me that most of the good stuff here is at least 75% female. Eric Corbett 22:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the 13% is more reflective of how the "in-crowd" views women...or the percentage of said crowd that is actually female? Intothatdarkness 22:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course 75% of the good stuff is female, we do twice the work for half the credit! I think the 13% number is low, but I don't think we are above 25-30% just looking at overall contributions and the systemic bias issue. Also, where there is drahmahz, most women tend to avoid conflict as opposed to wading straight into it the way I do... Montanabw(talk) 22:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that's not been my experience at all. SandyG for instance didn't hold back. There seems to be some kind of idea that females are interested in different things than males are, but I really can't see that medieval bishops, collieries, or Scottish mythology are obviously girlie topics. Eric Corbett 22:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, we girlies are not all pink ponies and magic unicorns, but you might note that most aren't particularly fond of the type of conflict that flourishes on the WP drama boards tended by the little boys who live in their mummy's basement. As for me and SandyG, all I can say is that you are correct, but it also must be noted that two queen bees in one hive does tend to not end well.  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 01:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I’d like to know how the statistics are produced—from surveys? What proportion of users is identifiable as to sex from a template or category? (Certainly some insist on being referred to with epicene pronouns.) How many of those here who self-identify ‘conversationally’, or by using an obviously gendered handle, would be found in a database query? Is there a difference between the respective proportions of men and women who identify themselves?—Odysseus1479 04:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. If I recall, I think it was a survey that generated the 13% figure, so a self-selection bias existed (and I don't recall participating in said survey, FWIW). A database search would definitely leave out people such as myself who deliberately chose a non-gendered user name and though I don't hide being female, I don't really advertise it either. Nonetheless, I don't get the impression that women's participation is close to 50-50. Montanabw(talk) 06:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Right, it was a survey; it was conducted in 2008 and reportedly had some 175k respondents. (I just happened across an old Signpost article mentioning it, “Gender gap and conflict aversion“ so thought I’d link it here, JFTR.)—Odysseus1479 00:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Its not difficult to feel undervalued on wikipedia no matter who you are. I don't disclose my gender, although it's probably known and I don't seek drama but sometimes it finds me. I classify editors by capability and helpfulness, not by gender. I no longer attempt to take articles to GA because, ....well let's say I no longer take articles to GA. I'd rather write something better than a stub without the hassle. I started here five years ago to improve something that nobody else was likely to and I value myself for what I add because I don't expect anybody else to. Eric you are valued by people who matter, content creators like yourself, maybe not so prolific, but editors who do the research and the writing and who can rely on you to help when they need it. WMF, wtf do they do to create content, nothing, but they should support the content creators which is what this place should be about. And by the way, my particular witch was a man. J3Mrs (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree, and the two WP witches I celebrate with every Precious I pass are also men, - I am surprised that it is not refused more often by people who don't want to be associated with the outcasts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


wanted to look something up here on wiki ... and thought I'd drop by and say hi. "Hello" Eric. Hope life is treating you and the Mrs. well. All my best. Ched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Everything's hunky-dory Ched, nice to hear from you again. I hope you won't be a stranger. Eric Corbett 15:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Views sought on sources for the Reculver FAC[edit]

Hello Eric (and esteemed stalkers), any chance of commenting on a discussion about possible use of primary sources and/or OR at the Reculver FAC? This question has arisen through a source review kindly undertaken by hamiltonstone, who has suggested I ask around for the views of others. Whatever your views might be I'm keen to get this wrapped up, one way or the other. The discussion begins at "* Footnote 77 - is a cite to Access to Archives", and (as I write) it's towards the end of the FAC. No worries if not. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations (again)[edit]

My traditional congratulations ({{FA congrats}}) on the promotion of another article to FA status (Kelpie) coupled with my traditional invitation to use TFAR to nominate it for a main-page appearance as and when you wish, or when icicles form on the boilerpipes of Hades, whichever comes first. Yours, BencherliteTalk 23:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it to my co-nominator to decide whether she wants to go for a TFA or not, but probably everyone ought to go through it once. Eric Corbett 00:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Eric - Gerda nominated it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 03:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You cats are awesome. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Kelpie[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Kelpie know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 29, 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/June 29, 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:

The Kelpie, by Thomas Millie Dow

Kelpie is the Lowland Scottish name given to a malevolent water spirit or demon inhabiting the lochs and pools of Scotland. It has usually been described as appearing as a horse, but can adopt human form. Some accounts state that the kelpie retains its hooves when appearing as a human, leading to its association with the Christian idea of Satan as alluded to by Robert Burns in his poem "Address to the Deil". Almost every sizeable body of water in Scotland has an associated kelpie story, but the most extensively reported is that of Loch Ness, first recorded in the 6th century. The kelpie has counterparts across the world, such as the wihwin of South America, the Scandinavian bäckahästen and the Australian bunyip. The origin of the belief in malevolent water horses may lie in the human sacrifices once made to appease the gods of water, but it also helped to keep children away from dangerous stretches of water and to warn young women to be wary of handsome strangers. Kelpies have been portrayed in their various forms in art (painting by Thomas Millie Dow pictured) and literature, most recently in two 30-metre (98 ft) high steel sculptures in Falkirk, The Kelpies. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


Eric C. (left) and PoD

Been looking for months for the photograph of you and Parrot of Doom. Ah, to be young again. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually that guy on the left does look a bit like me when I was younger. Except for the haircut, the clothes and the face of course. Eric Corbett 13:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
So they captured the punk attitude exactly?  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 18:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Not really, this would be a closer approximation, although in my time we were obliged to wear crash helmets. Eric Corbett 19:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Water bull[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed[edit]

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

horses, by definition, can't carry out "manual labour"[edit]

Good point (though to be fair they can't normally stretch their backs, glue little kids to themselves, transform into naked sexpots or talk either). Did you see my suggestion/question on the talk page? Belle (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I did, and my first impression is that the engraving looks nothing like any description of kelpie that I've seen. Eric Corbett 11:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
True enough, but it is a horse spirit/demon and commonly used (yes, yes, citation needed, let me get in there before anybody else). At the moment the article is quite clear that the kelpie is a horse spirit and if it does take human form it is almost invariably that of a man, but then has illustrations of women draped languidly over rocks. ("Kelpies traditionally look nothing like these images" might be a good caption). I do appreciate it is a bit of a rock and a hard place situation ("stuck between no illustrations or tangential illustrations" doesn't quite have the same ring to it) and I expect you've already looked for free pics of weed-draped horses with their hoofs on backwards. Shut up, Belle, you are just being annoying now. Belle (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
A fundamental problem I have with this image it that it shows a creature that's half man half horse, whereas kelpies appear either in human form or equine form, not some mixture of the two. I expect that Sagaciousphil will have a view on this as well though, and she may well disagree with me. Eric Corbett 12:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
An orobas is not a kelpie - it is something entirely different and has no connection to it whatsoever. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • And also, for something completely different, great work on Enid Blyton! Drmies (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks. It was hard work, but it goes to show that men like Dr. Blofeld and I are quite capable of writing decent articles about women, doesn't require a woman to do it. Eric Corbett 01:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, I wouldn't have pulled that from it, but sure! Seriously, again, congrats to you and to Ernst too. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    I'm rather fed up being regarded as of less value than a female editor simply because I'm male. And I've yet to see what subject areas would be enhanced by the attention of more female editors. I've worked with female editors on subjects ranging from mining and industrial archaeology to cannibalism, and they seem to think about stuff in just the same way that I do. I'm not saying that the demographics of WP editors doesn't need to be addressed, but I don't see gender as being the most important of the necessary corrections. Eric Corbett 02:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, nicely done, and do stop whining about the girl thing. ;-) You aren't part of the problem, with articles like Blyton, you are part of the solution.  ;-) The systemic bias problem on wiki has nothing to do with content creators, and it has a lot to do with idiots who insist that we need articles about every guy who ever played cricket in Sri Lanka but question if an Olympic equestrian competitor is notable. Recentism is also a problem, just saved a 19th century steeplechase rider - and a guy, to boot - from an AfD brought by someone who felt the fellow was getting insufficient hits from Google...  :-P Montanabw(talk) 03:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Enid Blyton: precious again! Dr. Blofeld and you are quite capable of writing decent articles, period. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Good to see it on the main page, a pity there's not a free photograph of her or one of her more notable books though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Enid Blyton[edit]

"... because of the alleged unchallenging nature of her writing ..."

My first instinct on reading the FA today was to change "alleged" to "allegedly". The latter would be more conventionally "grammatical," but the former somehow sounds better to part of me, so I didn't make the change. Your thoughts? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
(watching) I am not good in grammar, but my instinct tells me that the adverb "allegedly" would have to go with a verb, not "nature", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Conventionally, an adverb is used to modify a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. Here, "alleged[ly]" is modifying the adjective "unchallenging." Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Learning, - I didn't know that adjective thing, interesting aspect. - Different topic: we are approaching the anniversary of me being welcomed to the club of infobox warriors (26 June), - the latest topic on my talk, quite enjoyable so far ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Interesting question, both seem arguably "correct" to me. I do have a preference for alleged though, which in the sense it's used here I'd say is a past participle rather than an adjective or adverb, and therefore perfectly OK as it is. Eric Corbett 15:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Learning more grammar, I think it is not used as a past participle here ;) - I would probably try to escape by wording something completely different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Trying to think of a example: "her alleged long history" might question that there was a history (never mind long or short), while "her allegedly long history" might question the length of a history not in question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Now should it be on the background of my alleged long history or allegedly long history as an infobox warrior? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it "allegedly long", implying that it might actually have been short, or is it that your long history is alleged, and may even be non-existent? Eric Corbett 22:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Is that - in other words - what I tried to say above? (alleged relates to "history", allegedly to "long") And now to the question: is my history short or non-existent? I don't remember. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it's pretty much exactly what you were trying to say above. What's being alleged? That you have a history or that it's a long history? Eric Corbett 22:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know. I was admonished to better conduct myself and not use WP as a battleground, but they didn't tell me how. I know that I earned the title for Sparrow Mass. I said that I didn't think that I deserved it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it, who really cares about admonishments? Or even knows what they're supposed to be? You go around expending a lot of effort in trying to support other editors, but maybe you should spend a little bit more time on yourself as well. Eric Corbett 23:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I don't care, I actually came to love a restriction to two comments, it should be handed out more generously. - I still wonder, however, how I got that label. - Be assured that I don't do a thing here that I don't do for myself and my dreams ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
So it's all good then. :-) These kind of restrictions don't always work in the way that they're intended to I don't think. I'm still restricted from taking part in any threaded discussion on any RfA or RfA-related page, which means that I can vote or say whatever I like but then don't have to respond to the screams of outrage if I should oppose a popular candidate. Not that I bother voting at the popularity contest known as RfA any longer, but you get the idea. Eric Corbett 11:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I get the idea ;) - I haven't formally thanked the arbs for their collective wisdom, next week, there's music in the air first, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Kelpie: precious again, and two more in the pipeline! - recommended Sunday listening: Psalmen Davids, cleverly published (on the same page later today), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
What a refreshing change to have an article like Kelpie as TFA for once!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


Eric, if you have some time to spare would you be able to give Rape during the Rwandan Genocide a bit of a polish please? I was asking Drmies about the reviewer for GA vanishing and it was recommended I ask you to tidy it up, as I suck at grammar. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help, but I'm afraid you've caught me at a bad time. I'm going to have very little time for WP over the next week or so, and may not even have Internet access. Eric Corbett 22:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
No worries, whenever you have the time, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Calling Eric's stalkers[edit]

Hey all you who follow Eric's talk page: I could use a new set of eyes to do a general copyedit at 'Chrome's article - or comment about their observatons at the talk page - before I take it to FAC. I had a good peer review, but only one person, and I feel like everyone else who has helped me watch this article (including me) is bleary-eyed. It came out of triple crown season with over 500,000 hits (whoa!) and as I was updating it almost daily, I think there is now stuff in there that isn't needed any more now that we know how the saga ended (this round, at least until August or September) but I honestly can't decide what. I'd normally request the Corbett review, but as he is clearly a busy fellow, I'm also good with any trusty, reliable sidekicks. Blofeld? You interested? Anyone else? Montanabw(talk) 23:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks excellent and impeccably sourced at first glance, but I'll give it a full read this week.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Appreciated. It is excellent and impeccably sourced (grin), but a couple of copy editors have caught typos, and more to the point, I don't know if it is boring or redundant. Montanabw(talk) 08:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Will try to read it later! Too late though by the looks of it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't put it up for FAC yet, and informal PR can continue at article talk (and is). If you'd prefer to be an FAC reviewer, that would be OK too. Whatever works for you. Montanabw(talk) 21:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A baby on your doorstep...[edit]

Mermaid biology is an interesting and seemingly sourced little tidbit, been marked for merge for some time and is orphaned. Some said to merge in 2007 (per archives) but that is too old to consider. The main article Mermaid is a GA (that GA looks weird, I only see one person at nom and reviewer both, but maybe I'm wrong). It is a fairly complete article as it is, so I don't want to go mucking about and diminishing the quality. A merge could be no more than cut and paste with proper attribution. Leave alone and remove merge tag? Boldly merge and redirect? Take it to the talk page and start one more discussion on the topic that others there seem to ignore? A great many editors whom I trust lurk about here, so I hope you don't mind me asking you and your posse. Dennis Brown |  | WER 19:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  • On an unrelated note, I am working the 1960s article, which is taking more time than I expected but I'm trying to keep everything bulletproof with sources. It was a very different decade, so the format isn't remotely similar to the 1950s article on manufacturing. I'm just adding semi-rough prose and cites for now, but there isn't enough there to start the clean up yet, but when you get back, I would appreciate if you could take a look at style and format to make sure I'm not getting off the path here. I really want it to be special. Hope you are finding some good use with the time off. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


I guess I took your recent comments on my talk page as a sort of challenge. Anyway, I've expanded Capesthorne Hall and wonder if it is worth submitting it for GAC. If so, would you be so kind as to offer comments, and maybe copyedit? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

(stalking) Having had a quick look, I would try and see if you can get more of a variety of sources in the article. There's quite a bit of citation bundling in the middle and large portions of text are cited to the National Heritage List for England. I'd mix up your sources a bit as it helps cancel out an errors or POV that can creep into an individual one. The author of "Anon" for the "Guide to Capesthorne Hall" looks a bit strange - we'd probably want to know if that was a good independent source. A couple of the image captions are a bit short and vague, and for an article of 16K you probably want a lead of around two paragraphs, so you'll need to trim down what you've currently got. I think B class is a fair assessment of its current state. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
For information, the "Anon" author applies to what was the "official" guide for visitors to the house. Is that not a reliable source? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333 Many thanks for your comments. I really appreciate the time and trouble you have taken. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Eric Corbett See what I mean? Don't bother. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I've not been around to help Peter. I'll have a look at Capesthorne Hall later. Eric Corbett 19:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Eric's on a break at the mo. I'm sure he'll help people who genuinely want to improve articles, he always has done, but he can't improve every article everywhere. Chill. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Peter was getting at me, rather referring to a discussion we've had periodically about whether it's better to focus on a few GA/FAs or to improve a broader range of articles. Eric Corbett 19:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


Nominated Chrome for FAC today, FYI: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California Chrome/archive1. Grab your popcorn and watch the show. Montanabw(talk) 22:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)