User talk:Squeamish Ossifrage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Squeamish Ossifrage, communication, and you:

Whenever possible, I will ensure that talk page communications are threaded. This means that I will continue conversations on the talk page they begin, whether that be here or somewhere else. I watchlist talk pages where I am involved in conversation. If you are involved in conversation on my talk page, please consider either temporarily adding it to your watchlist, or at least checking in regularly while the conversation is ongoing. Communication, after all, is what makes this project possible!

A page you started (The Carpet from Bagdad) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating The Carpet from Bagdad, Squeamish Ossifrage!

Wikipedia editor Tritario just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Very nice page!

To reply, leave a comment on Tritario's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Temperatures Rising[edit]

Hi. I have read your comments regarding Temperatures Rising and I am currently reworking the article. Unfortunately there is one rather large problem that I encountered regarding this: "The TV Guide links to specific episodes don't seem to be working (at least for me). I get only a generic, mostly-uninformative page for the series in general. Perhaps the website has been restructured since last June?" From the looks of it, yes (damn them!), TV Guide did indeed restructure its webpage and now my links are worthless. My reason for putting the plot descriptions for some of the episodes is so that anyone reading the article will get a rough idea of what the series is like. I think this is needed since the series is not being shown in syndication and has never been made available on DVD. TV Guide's online listings did indeed provide me with the necessary information but now that they've been removed I will have to find alternate sources. The Library of Congress and the UCLA Film Archives have prints of all of the series' episodes but their online catalogs only list the episode titles and but not the casts and story lines. I know that using IMDb is regarded by Wikipedia as being unreliable (and likewise, IMDb regards Wikipedia as being unreliable). What about these sites: The Classic TV Archive and epguides: Temperatures Rising? I'm reluctant to use them because I have a feeling that they will be tossed off as being unreliable as well and I don't want to waste time. If I can't use them the only alternative is to find old newspaper articles with the relevant information. That might take time because doing an online newspaper search for "Temperatures Rising" will bring up hundreds of weather reports only with articles about the series. Any suggestions will be most appreciated. Jimknut (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if that winds up being the outstanding problem at this stage, it's not a problem, because the GA criteria don't consider dead links to be an obstacle to promotion (GA criteria are weird...). Obviously, if you're aiming for FA, it's a problem. Unfortunately, RSN's determination has been that neither epguides nor ctva are reliable sources. Have you checked to see whether the Internet Archive managed to snag your original source pages? Sometimes you get lucky with these. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Complete citations are okay even for dead links - but it is a bit picky. It is an interesting case, but it has come up a couple of times. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's a strange one for you: Those TV Guide links are working again! Jimknut (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Archive them to protect them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1937 Fox vault fire[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1937 Fox vault fire 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1937 Fox vault fire[edit]

The article 1937 Fox vault fire you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:1937 Fox vault fire 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter[edit]

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Australia Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Life's Shop Window[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


I filled the red links on your St. Elmo, but I cannot do much more without the books on Vitagraph's organization and operation. I've run into a problem... I have 50 good article nominations and I've tried to polish up some other films and found a still for Thanhouser's St. Elmo and others in the process... I've even been busying myself with identifying film stills, but I am starting to worry about the number of articles I have up at once. I've compiled a list of several thousand films by release date and I think I should try and get some featured lists for Wikipedia's silent film section. I just do not know what to do next since I am going to crush the process if I keep working like I am now... I even have complete articles ready to drop at a moment's notice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I hear you there. I'm not nearly so backlogged at GAC as you are, but I've been trying to push the articles I have through their various review processes before dumping out more. I've got new articles or major rewrites for most of J. Gordon Edwards's directorial credits nearly ready to at least see daylight. I've been trying to pace myself on these, just because I know silent film is a tough topic to get people interested in, which does not help review speed! In the meantime, I've been distracting myself by attempting a Core Contest revision (of Land, specifically, because wow that is an awful excuse for content). That said, your work on Thanhouser has been nothing but amazing. And thanks for bluelinking Balboa; I've been meaning to get around to that for months, but kept putting it off... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't suppose you'd take some of the reviews? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course! I've got a couple other things I've promised to look in on, but I'll make sure to find time to hit up the GA backlog soon. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I need to do some featured lists... since the silent era has almost no lists. I've made three recently, but the List of Thanhouser films released in 1910 is the most important. I could really use some suggestions and formatting tips from you on getting this to FA-level. All the dates and the status are covered in two easy cites, but the "notes" is probably going to be difficult. As is the leading prose. Could you advise on this? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Tower House[edit]

Do you have any intention of retracting your oppose once all of your points have been addressed? It's rare that editors will agree on every point but a significant effort has been made here to address them. It would be good to reach a point where you are satisfied with the article, they don't have to be perfect, whether FAs should be professional or of a high standard or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Actually, I probably need to cull resolved issues to the talk page per recommendations. Obviously, some of my concerns are more significant than others. As the big ones go away, my view with regard to promotion obviously improves. At this point, I'm most concerned about some of the reference issues (because I spend a good bit of my time being a reference-section pedant) and the furniture capitalization issue, as it's very inconsistent. At the current rate, all the copyediting-level comments should be dealt with before the weekend! Not only would I like the article to pass, I'd like it to be the best that it can be. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

You clearly have a keen eye for detail, so I wanted to invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Irataba/archive1. I'll understand if you are too busy or disinterested. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we were planning on taking Irataba to FAC in the near future, it would certainly be a good idea if you could give it a grilling before the FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, biographies are rough. I've got one I've been putting off even starting for over a year now. But I'll see what I can do in the next couple days, instead of just surprising you at FAC. Again. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
There's not a terrible amount of detail written about him biographically. I think it's nearing as comprehensive as it's going to get. I suppose in a way that makes the scale of the task an easier one, but it just needs "several pairs of fresh eyes" as Indopug would say looking at it and giving the prose and content a degree of scrutiny.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me have at this one before FAC. Odds are pretty good that I wouldn't have reviewed it there because I mostly avoid biographies. But there's a lot to be done, and if I had, I probably would have outright opposed on the state of the references. The good news is, should be an easy run to the bronze star once this peer review is done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You've been extremely helpful there, so thanks a million not just for the suggestions but also for doing so much of the work! If there is ever anything I can help you with please don't hesitate to ask. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I was going to close the PR, but I noticed that your prose comments do not span the entire article. Are you done making suggestions there, or do you have some more for us? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit] The Attention to Detail Barnstar
For your consistently excellent reviews at FAC. It just goes to show that despite a thorough peer review, things can still be improved. Many thanks! CassiantoTalk 18:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Inconvenient Truth Featured Article Review[edit]

Hey there, I made several of the changes you had suggested. Please review my changes and let me know what else you think needs to be done.--The lorax (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)