User talk:Ian Rose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
    Hi and welcome to Ian's Talk. Please leave new comments at the end of the page. Unless requested otherwise, I will reply to you here to keep the conversation thread in one place. Cheers, Ian.


Archives: 2006 * Jan-Jun 2007 * Jul-Dec 2007 * Jan-Jun 2008 * Jul-Dec 2008 * Jan-Jun 2009 * Jul-Dec 2009 * Jan-Jun 2010 * Jul-Dec 2010 * Jan-Jun 2011 * Jul-Dec 2011 * Jan-Jun 2012 * Jul-Dec 2012 * Jan-Jun 2013 * Jul-Dec 2013 * Jan-Jun 2014

ADF Ranks[edit]

G'day Sunshine! I hope you're surviving winter better in Sinny than I am in Adlaid!!

I've had a request from a wiki-colleague that is outside of my area of experience. (I hesitate to say "expertise".) I'm fairly confident that you can point the requester in the direction of someone who can give him a reliable answer and good advice, so I humbly request that you do so.

Here's the request. (The thread is User talk:Nford24#Re: ADF Ranks)

Hey! I am just after an opinion. A graphic designer has done the various RAN/RAAF & ANC/AAFC/AAC ranks using his awesome skill and I have been given access to the originals and permission to use them on WP. I have added the flag rank hardboards to the RAN page and was wondering (in your opinion) if I should replace the sleeve lace with the SRI (soft rank insignia) versions then add the hard board's as well. I will (in the coming days) add the OR/WO ranks and the WON special insignia to complete the section. Cheers Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 08:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. It's time for you to do a talk page archive. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, no-one in particular comes to mind. I realise I probably sound like a broken record but I'd just recommend posting a query at the MilHist talk page. Cheers. Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Tks for the reminder!

advice needed and your help is appreciated[edit]

hello. thank you for your valuable input and help in this discussion, may I ask you though: is the article a suitable candidate to be -at least- a "good article"? thank you again. best regards Grandia01 (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I think the suggestions I made at the FAC page probably apply even if going for Good Article status, though it would take less effort to address them for GA than for FA. My suggestion is to try Peer Review even before GA, so you have a chance of more than one editor's opinion (and PR is less stressful as it's not an assessment, just a chance for people to offer constructive comments). I can't guarantee you'll get many people stopping by but it's worth a try. If you go for Peer Review, let me know when it's there and I'll try to stop by myself to offer further comments as well. Good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
ok, I did just that. I am anxious to know of your more-detailed comments on this project. thank you much for all your valuable help *hat tip to you sir* Grandia01 (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Grandia01, just to let you know I haven't forgotten this, I will try and get to the Peer Review this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
no worries, absolutely whenever you can. and thank you again Grandia01 (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
*whistles* Grandia01 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Ugh, I can see I've missed out on the PR now. Sorry things have been busy lately -- I'll at least put some comments on the article talk page tonight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
excellent!! thanks again Ian Grandia01 (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Eo et redeo[edit]

A good motto, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
And again, Frank Headlam, amazing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you again, Gerda -- I was surprised myself to see two appear in such quick succession! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I was not surprised, because we (QAI) monitor the scheduling rather than bot messages (my own also came without a notice, it didn't even have TFA date until well after the event) ;) - I was recently asked to create an infobox about the infobox war. A bit more seriously (than my answer "you don't want to know what you ask"): what does a milhist person think of it and its battles? Approaching the anniversary of the arbcom case with the same name but not dealing with the topic, I am curious. My impression, re-reading some statements ("redeo"), is that they picture the battles of a former time (when I didn't even know what an infobox is because project Classical music where I am most active lets you not see many), not the situation of 2013. The last time that a TFA was "attacked" by an infobox was in 2012, and it was a book, not a composer of classical music. A more up-to-date picture of who stands where and for what would be desirable, the last (promising) exchange of ideas was Chopin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah-ha, the dreaded infobox question...! I generally use them because I've always understood them to be a standard part of a military article, and they do seem a logical repository for the lists of commands and awards (in bios), belligerents (in battles) and so on that we associate with such subjects. I am not, however, a warrior for infoboxes, and have never sought to impose them in non-military articles where the main editor has decided not to employ them. Unless there is a clear consensus for their use, I would always defer to the main editor's preference because while I appreciate the wikignomes who tidy up formatting in articles, the people I respect most are those who put in the hard yards researching, writing, and shepherding an article through reviews. Another example: medal ribbons in military articles. Many people have strong feelings for and against the use of images of medal ribbons to augment lists of honours and awards. I am strongly against them but the fact is that, after many discussions, no consensus on whether they should be used or not has been established in MilHist. By default, therefore, many of us leave the decision to the main editor. I try to show the editors who like their ribbons that courtesy in "their" articles, and I expect them to show me the same courtesy in "my" articles. I'll also tend to revert people adding ribbons to others' articles in which they've had no real hand editing. OTOH I don't go looking for medal farms in articles and deleting them. As I say, I'm not a warrior for particular formats or elements and I tend to get a little bit uncomfortable with those who are. For me that's not really what WP is about. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel that I am not a warrior either, but I have been labelled a member of the "infobox warrior club" (whatever that may be). I don't think the Chopin discussion is a battle, what do you think? An new editor asked why no infobox? - They can restrict many editors who go for accessibility, but the question will come again. And yes, why not? An infobox doesn't "damage" the article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
ps: (after looking closer) There are cases with the question on the talk (Bizet, for example), but here, a new user had added an infobox, was reverted with a cryptic edit summary, simply reverted that, was reverted by a different editor. I hope that will not happen again, that treatment of a newbie who has no way of knowing that classical composers are a different category, unlike writers and scientists. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Öland FAC[edit]

Since you provided helpful comments and/or reviewing in related quality assessments, I'm dropping a notice that battle of Öland is now an FAC. Please feel free to drop by with more input!

sincerely,
Peter Isotalo 05:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Tks, will stop by if I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Congratulations![edit]

Ian,

Your "front page" appearance is a modest recognition of the intense efforts you have put into Wikipedia. Well done!

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Always a pleasure to hear from you, George, and many thanks for your kind words. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

April to June 2014 MILHIST reviews[edit]

CRM.png The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period April to June 2014, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. During this period you undertook 14 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG I don't know whether you like coffee or not, but it is to show my appreciation to you for promoting Gemini (2002 Tamil film). BTW, why no closing comments? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Tks, I do like coffee and in fact missed my usual mocha today so this kind of makes up for it... ;-) Promoting the article when there's consensus and all checks are complete is just doing the job, and then I don't always add closing comments. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Roy Phillipps[edit]

Four Award.svg Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Roy Phillipps. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on being the second wikipedian to receive the WP:FOUR Award 25 ribbon. This award recognizes your successful promotion of 25 FOUR awarded articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Tks for both of those, Tony. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Blue men of the Minch[edit]

Hi Ian, I have some concerns about the Blue men of the Minch article which I see was promoted to featured article status by you a few days ago. My initial concern regarded some apparent geographical confusion in the article but on further investigation discovered that the rationale for the inclusion of a significant section of the material was questionable and any connection to the subject matter of the article was based on synthesis of different parts of a source and a source which does not mention the blue men. On raising the matters on the talk page, I was met solely by abuse by one of the main contributors, with none of the concerns being addressed in factual terms. Any edits I made to the article were reverted to add back the questionable material. I also raised it at the Scotland project's talk page, by the way. I'm concerned that the issues in the article be addressed before it might come to be featured on the main page. Can you help please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not being an admin (nor wanting to be), I don't have any special authority when it comes to edit wars or volatile discussions. As far as Featured status goes, the article and the review had stabilised with the requisite support and checks for a while prior to promotion. We do depend on people to take part and raise issues if we're to delay promotion in such cases, so once that's happened the talk page is where consensus should be gained to make substantial changes. There is the Featured Article Review process for articles that may no longer meet FA criteria, but that's usually only a consideration after quite some time has passed since promotion. As far as a possible main page appearance goes, you can object if the article is nominated at WP:TFAR, or on the TFAR talk page prior to that if you want to preempt things. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the informative reply and sorry for not responding earlier (I've had an enforced wikibreak, slung at me by the real world, in the interim). Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF[edit]

The article No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

FAC questions[edit]

Hello Ian, I noticed that—before I could leave input—you closed the FAC for Ulysses S. Grant after six weeks without consensus for promotion. It got me thinking: is that perhaps the average time FAC's last (both successful and unsuccessful)? Just figured I'd ask for an idea of what to expect for articles I nominate for FA myself. I've also asked other editors who have experience in taking articles to FA, and heard it optimally would take roughly a month for an article to be promoted, but figured it would help to ask an FAC coordinator as well. Also, how did you manage to become a coordinator yourself? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! To answer the last question first, I was asked to do it by the original FA Director, Raul, after he consulted with other delegates/coordinators of the Featured Content processes. I hadn't lobbied for it, in fact I was surprised to be asked, but I assume my extensive experience writing and reviewing FAs had something to do with it. This leads me to my responses to your other questions which, I'm afraid, is that it depends! If a nom has a good deal of commentary and support from experienced reviewers, and had its source and image checks, then we might promote it in a week or two. If OTOH it's taking a while to reach consensus but the review is active and there appear to be no major stumbling blocks then we might well let it go on for more than six weeks. I tend to see a month as around average for consensus to become apparent, remembering that noms with little or no activity for a few weeks can be archived for that reason alone. Hope this helps! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
It does help, thank you :). One FAC I participated in, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, was closed as successful one week after nomination. Definitely the quickest promotion I've seen. Others I've seen take 4–6 weeks. Hoping I can get quick promotion for my nominations! SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 02:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Try not to be discouraged if it takes a while. The subject -- to say nothing of the quality -- of an article has an impact on the process. A well-known subject may gain more reviews faster than a less popular subject, OTOH the popular subject may attract such a divergence of opinions that it takes longer to gain consensus. My advice is always to seek as many reviews as possible prior to FAC -- e.g. GAN, PR, or A-Class Review if applicable -- to try and iron out potential problems at the earliest opportunity, especially with well-known subjects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Echo that last point. If you write about less-known subjects (like, say, films that pretty much nobody alive has seen), getting interest early on is key. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't take an article to FAC before PR and GAN- it would be rather unprepared. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 10:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I mention this not only from a quality stand-point (my current FAC didn't have a PR, and quality-wise it's pretty prepared), but also in drumming up interest for future reviews. Usually the people who PR articles I've written will drop by the FAC as well... though, of course, they expect me to provide comments at their PRs and drop by their FACs as well. Getting some interest can mean the difference between a quick pass (like Si Ronda) and a long haul (like 1740 Batavia massacre; see the first nom). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well gentlemen, I launched my first FA nomination yesterday, fingers crossed. As the top contributor the Katy Perry, I'm hoping to have this be "Today's Featured Article" for her 30th birthday this upcoming October 25th. You are both welcome to leave comments. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 14:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • KP? Yeah, you're not going to be short of reviewers. Face-smile.svg — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sure she'll get lots of input, Crisco, but am not sure when their comments shall first come in. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ian, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but Katy's FAC has so far gotten six supports just three days after nomination! I've asked IndianBio to do an image review, though I'm not sure when he'll get to that. In any case, could you have a look and see if she's ready for promotion once the image review is complete? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Mahan-class destroyer review[edit]

Thanks for the mail! A short hospital stay put me out of commission for a bit, but I plan getting back to the review soon. Regards! Pendright (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear the stay was short and you'll be back soon! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

FAC promotion[edit]

Hi Ian, not sure which of you have the promotion queue at the moment, but I have three support votes on California Chrome and knowing that you like to do your own review as well before promoting, thought I'd give you a heads up. I have three other reviewers there still outstanding, but one (Go Phitins!) seems to have dropped the review, the second is Blofeld, who I think is pretty close to support (I've chopped over 1000 words from the article, just for him!), and the third is Nikkimaria - I don't know what to think there because I was one of the people involved in an unrelated mess she was in that ended badly for her last week, so I'm not sure if she's abandoned the review also or not. Montanabw(talk) 04:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't, but I don't support on just a source review - you fixed the last two dead links and I fixed everything else, so that's the end of that. Looking at the review though, it seems you're missing an image licensing review yet. I can do that later tonight if no one else gets to it. Ian, did you want spotchecks on Montana too? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Cool beans. @Nikkimaria: If you are OK with doing the image review, that would be good, no one else seems inclined to do so. I also chopped quite a bit of stuff so it's possible some sources got separated from material (I chopped the sources that were no longer used, don't think I dumped anything necessary). Montanabw(talk) 23:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Ouch. Sources getting split from the text is something that's very hard for me to find without doing full spotchecks - is it possible for you to go back and look for that? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I was extremely careful not to separate sources from material i kept, as far as I know but there were a few loose cites that no longer had anything to be sourced to. I think I got them all. Basically, the ownership section took the hardest hit because it was spun off to DAP Racing, so maybe focus your spotchecks there, then various random stuff. The Belmont section was last written and had the roughest chop because a lot of material became irrelevant when the horse didn't win, so if you want to check that bit, it had the fewest rewrites. Montanabw(talk) 04:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Tks Nikki, I'd never knock back the offer of a spotcheck on anyone's article (including mine!) but everyone's time is limited so I tend to restrict my requests to articles by FAC first-timers, or more experienced editors who haven't been around FAC for a while. IOW I wouldn't be hanging out for one on this particular article but there may be nominations by newbies or returning old-timers out there that I haven't picked up on as yet and spotchecks would be very welcome in those cases. Montana, I will probably take another walk through the FAC list for potential promotions mid-week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Groovy Ian. I'm fine with Nikki running the usual checks, the one thing I don't know quite how to do and I don't do well running scripts (they honestly flummox me completely) is to check for over-wikilinking. I suspect I have a few, but the eyes, the eyes... if there are other worker bees I can ping so you and Nikki aren't stuck with all the routine checks, I'd be glad to get others. Montanabw(talk) 22:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with doing most of the checks, usually, but I was rather surprised to see my most recent FAC passed with no source review at all ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I don't want to give away trade secrets but there are times when the list is so long, the FAC has been open a while, there's clear consensus to promote, and the risk seems minimal, so you just say hang it and promote without the dedicated source check... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Scharnhorst FAC[edit]

Hey Ian, is there any problem with me running this for another FAC? I seem to recall there being a mandatory waiting period after a failed nomination unless one gets approval from one of the delegates first. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the std time is two weeks after archiving but we can waive that when there's been practically no commentary on the original nom, as in this case. If you could wait though until mid-week when I go through and hopefully close a few more, that might be better all round, 'cos the list is pretty long at the moment... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure, that's no problem - there's no rush since I have until December for the date I want to run the article. Thanks Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)