User talk:Jaguar/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jaguar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Good articles
No trouble at all - happy to be of help. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks again! JAGUAR 21:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: photomontage
Was thinking about this and am going to try something-putting these photos through a photo reduction and then uploading the reduced sizes as derivatives. This might eliminate the slight "shrink" on the left side in the 2 sections where more than one photo is used. When I started with something like this, my first try was to put the montage template into the article one. That doesn't work at all, so then I went to making the montage as one photo. Let me see what I get when I reduce the photos presently used for the sandbox montage. We hope (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nope-not even with the reduced photos. We still have the slightly smaller photos on the left. I tried it in my sandbox and added the standard black border, This is not as noticable with the transparent one. Let me try something else. We hope (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- File:Bentworth photo montage.jpg Made this one myself. :-) We hope (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, We hope! I'm not sure on how you managed to fix the images on the left but the montage looks great. I should hopefully be visiting Bentworth Hall soon (probably this month) so I'll ask permission if I can take pictures of the manor. I would have liked to have taken more pictures for the montage when I visited but most of the manors are off-limits! I'll put your montage in the article now and maybe if I'm allowed to take more pictures, I'll update it before the FAC. JAGUAR 16:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- I took all the photos and resized then to 600px width. Two of the photos still weren't the same size in height, the same as we'd seen with both the photo montage templates. I just did some pasting to make things even out. :-) We hope (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, We hope! I'm not sure on how you managed to fix the images on the left but the montage looks great. I should hopefully be visiting Bentworth Hall soon (probably this month) so I'll ask permission if I can take pictures of the manor. I would have liked to have taken more pictures for the montage when I visited but most of the manors are off-limits! I'll put your montage in the article now and maybe if I'm allowed to take more pictures, I'll update it before the FAC. JAGUAR 16:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- File:Bentworth photo montage.jpg Made this one myself. :-) We hope (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Request on putting (single) song in discography section
Can you please add the song "Virtual Friend" in Sophie Hunter's page. I don't know how to put it there as it only lists albums/EPs. Thank you very much. http://guychambers.com/music/armin-van-buuren (And the whole page needs updating/improvements, hope you can help) Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.150.67 (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Chetro Ketl
Hello. Thanks for your comments at the Chetro Ketl peer review. The article is now a featured article candidate, and I'd like to invite you to comment there. Thanks! RO(talk) 17:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Collect £200 salary as you pass GA
| File:Sovereign-pound-monopoly.jpg | The "£200 for passing GA" award |
| For approving Park Lane to good article status, and rolling a 3, collect £200 salary as you pass GA. Keep it up, and why not have a go at improving one yourself? (please note this currency is fictional and cannot be used as legal tender) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC) |
- Thanks, Ritchie! I would take a shot of improving one of those articles when I have some things out of the way. If I got a pound for GA review I've done, I'd be so happy... JAGUAR 18:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Whitechapel Road is up for a GA nom now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Taken, I'll get it done ASAP JAGUAR 16:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- There's a whole bunch of Monopoly street GA nominations up now if you fancy having a pick at one, though it might be nice for somebody else to have a go to get a bit of consistency and variety. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to take a few. Oxford Street and Old Bond Street are the two streets in London I went to most frequently - I used to go pass through almost every day circa 2010-12! I think I'll take Bond Street first and will wait for another reviewer to pick another one up, before I review more JAGUAR 16:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- There's a whole bunch of Monopoly street GA nominations up now if you fancy having a pick at one, though it might be nice for somebody else to have a go to get a bit of consistency and variety. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Taken, I'll get it done ASAP JAGUAR 16:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Whitechapel Road is up for a GA nom now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of MediEvil: Resurrection
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article MediEvil: Resurrection you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
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 AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Bentworth
Thanks for reviewing Walton and Ivythorn Hills. Following your comment there about Bentworth I've done a bit of tidying. This checklinks report shows several deadlinks which will cause a problem at FAC. The article is looking good but I suspect some short paragraphs - particularly in the villages and hamlets section may cause comment (also why is Tickley excluded?). If I can help more let me know.— Rod talk 19:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, Rod! I thought I fixed all the dead links a couple of weeks ago, but thank you very much for fixing them once again. I agree with you regarding the hamlets, the sub-sections are too short and could do with some expanding. I'll what I can do about that, although I'm worried about writing WP:JARGON. I excluded Tickley because it is far too small and not notable enough to be included, however I'll include its mention in one of the other sub-sections. JAGUAR 11:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Introducing the new WikiProject Hampshire!
Greetings!
I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Hampshire! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 2,690 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in Hampshire.
- Browse the new WikiProject page
- Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system
Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Odd. I thought I was a member since 2009... JAGUAR 21:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Something to ponder
31 articles! It's been a haul. As for the criteria, the topic is discrete: the compilation's thirty component games are each individually notable. I wasn't sure whether to include 
Perfect Dark (2010 video game), the Xbox remaster of the original Perfect Dark. While several of these games were remastered for the Xbox 360's high-definition output, the PD remaster is the only release with a separate article (and it was technically the version that bundled in the compilation...) Anyway, your call on that. We got through the majority of the entries late last year and I've dragged my feet on the last few until recently. Turns out that the hardest articles are the ones about which you care least. When I see this many GAs, though, I think about that many reviewers who have endured the articles as well: @AdrianGamer, Rhain, J Milburn, Ritchie333, Moisejp, Tintor2, Anarchyte, Crisco 1492, Dank, David Fuchs, Electroguv, Famous Hobo, Gabriel Yuji, Hurricanehink, Indrian, It Is Me Here, New Age Retro Hippie, Swarm, Teancum, and Tezero Thank you. czar 09:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
We finally did it! Echoing on what czar said, the majority of the lesser-known titles in this topic were in fact the most difficult to write. Just like to add that Solar Jetman was by far the most dull, tedious, and agonising thing I've ever done on here. It must have taken me longer to write that article than they did designing the game. JAGUAR 16:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support. What a monumental task. I've been following this project since day one, and I'm so glad to see it finally completed. Czar and Jaguar (and all others involved), you should be immensely proud of your work. As a reviewer of four of these articles at GAN, I'm happy to endorse this candidacy—every article is clearly within the scope of the topic, and they're all excellently researched and written. Congratulations. – Rhain ☔ 10:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support: I have reviewed quite a lot of them, and I agree that they are all excellent articles. I am sure that the rest of them are equally good and impressive. Well done! AdrianGamer (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support. An amazing amount of work has gone into this topic and I can see that the dedication shown by Czar and Jaguar finally paid off. They're all really well written and deserve the title of GA/FA. (Note: I didn't receive any pings, AFAIK, even though I was included in the list of people. Is this a bug?) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- You were not on the ping list? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Salvidrim: <small>{{ping|AdrianGamer|Rhain|etc|Anarchyte|Crisco 1492|Dank|etc}}</small>. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wow. For some unfathomable reason I thought this was posted by Sergecross73.... no idea why. I guess I need more coffee. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Salvidrim: <small>{{ping|AdrianGamer|Rhain|etc|Anarchyte|Crisco 1492|Dank|etc}}</small>. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- You were not on the ping list? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Although I would replace
Perfect Dark with 
Perfect Dark (the remaster), because that is the software bundled into Rare Replay, and it's a different enough game to gave a separate article and not just a mere "HD remaster". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC) - Support; nice topic. Meets the criteria. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I waver back and forth on this, but I think that the 2010 Perfect Dark remaster should be included alongside the original Perfect Dark, since they are both represented in the package (the core game through the included 2010 remaster). I would think that we would include the HD remasters of the other N64 games too, if they indeed warranted separate articles. Pinging in case there are any objections: @Rhain, AdrianGamer, Anarchyte, Salvidrim!, and Yellow Dingo. czar 19:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have no strong opinion on keeping or removing, but I see no reason to not have it in the topic. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support and immense respect for the hard work that you guys have put into it. Really a great inspiration. —IB [ Poke ] 12:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support: Impressive work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Really nice work, both in terms of quality and quantity. Though I haven't contributed myself, I've been following the progress of the Rare Replay project for most of its existence, and was particularly happy to see the older games with only little online sources available get improved.--IDVtalk 18:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 20:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
{{User:Czar/topics/Rare Replay}} – czar 23:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- *Heavy breathing*. That would be a monster Good Topic, I'd love to take a shot at them. It is my mission statement on Wikipedia to bring up every cool 90s game/Rare game up to GA. Did you plan on bringing some of them up to GA too, czar? I'm currently in the process of bringing something up to FA, and I've almost brought MediEvil to a Good Topic, with just one article remaining. After that, maybe late July or early August I'd love to make a start on Rare Replay when it actually comes out. Rare's earlier games prove more difficult due to lack of development sources, but heh, that's what Twitter's for! JAGUAR 23:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how cool Rare's Milton Bradley games will be to write up! I like working towards topics, so I was considering this one (and I know you like working on Rare articles...) I do have a number of other projects started and unfinished, but I'm okay with the slow march towards completion. And it would be nice to get a chunk of this topic ready by Rare Replay's release. That said, I wouldn't commit myself to this unless it's something you're definitely doing. So if you're up for it, I'll follow your lead—you take one, I take another, etc. I'd probably choose Blast Corps or Kameo first, as they're already in awful shape (and I prefer to work from scratch so I can stand behind all of the content). Where would you want to start? And as for finding reviews for the older games, I think we'll be fine – czar 01:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm definitely up for it, and thanks to that archive you found, I would probably start with some of the ZX Spectrum games, with Jetman in particular (although that falls under the "80s kid" category)! This sounds like it's going to be an interesting project. I have my mind solely focused on a FAC at the moment, but once that's out of the way I'll make a start on the Rare Replay topic and will let you know ASAP. JAGUAR 13:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how cool Rare's Milton Bradley games will be to write up! I like working towards topics, so I was considering this one (and I know you like working on Rare articles...) I do have a number of other projects started and unfinished, but I'm okay with the slow march towards completion. And it would be nice to get a chunk of this topic ready by Rare Replay's release. That said, I wouldn't commit myself to this unless it's something you're definitely doing. So if you're up for it, I'll follow your lead—you take one, I take another, etc. I'd probably choose Blast Corps or Kameo first, as they're already in awful shape (and I prefer to work from scratch so I can stand behind all of the content). Where would you want to start? And as for finding reviews for the older games, I think we'll be fine – czar 01:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alternatively, based on your 90s list, I'd also be interested in doing the DKC or full {{Donkey Kong series}}. Rare Replay is somewhat of a "best of" collection (debatable), but most of the DKC games are Rare games that, frankly, I find more interesting than most of the above. So, alternatively or in addition to, wanted to throw that out as a possibility – czar 16:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- I was initially going to build Donkey Kong Country 2 after bringing the first one up to GA, but I'm not sure what stopped me. I find the DKC games more interesting too, and even though I'm happy with Rare finally escaping the evil clutches of Microsoft and releasing Rare Replay, at the end of the day if you look at the list of games almost half of them are Rare's lesser known games! Of course due to legal reasons they can't put any greats on there such as GoldenEye 007 and the Donkey Kong Country series because they're owned by Nintendo etc. I saw your talk page earlier that you requested sources for DK3, if you like, we could throw in that along with DK2 in the pipeline... JAGUAR 16:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Good luck with this one. GamerPro64 04:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Moved & centralized this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Rare Replay – czar 22:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of MediEvil: Resurrection
The article MediEvil: Resurrection you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:MediEvil: Resurrection for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of MediEvil: Resurrection
The article MediEvil: Resurrection you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:MediEvil: Resurrection 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 AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
My RfA
|
Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! |
FAC
Hi Jaguar, I currently have Hitler Diaries up at FAC; should the topic be of interest I'd be delighted to hear any comments you have to make. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Of course, I'd be happy to return the favour for your comments on Bentworth! I'll take a read through now and should leave some comments tonight. Regards JAGUAR 14:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanhouser's incoming
After a wee bit of prodding and such, I've begun to work on the Thanhouser films again. It seems since my last work, some more sources have turned up for films I was considering merging together. Single reel releases will still be combined, but another 2000 pages of material have been added and Newspapers.com got some more useful tidbits for later films. Won't be clear until I finish checking for surviving copies of the orchestral scores that were composed - a very unusual rarity for the era. I'm also getting into the 1920s works after consulting with Dr. Blofeld - those major works are something which will probably be 8-10x longer and filled with dozens to hundreds of sources at a minimum. Unlike the independent Thanhouser run, by the 1920s the media and strong arm had resulted in a true media industry that didn't really take off big until 1912-1913.
After a stretch of Thanhouser's probably to push over the "peak" period, I'll be dedicating several hundred hours to that list. Going to exhaust my sources and any "favors" I have with some people to get copies of the materials, but hopefully there will be more gems in the archives. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's great news, I wish you the best of luck with writing more Thanhouser content! I'll be on standby for another potential GAN sweep, but since the articles will be more detailed with more complex sources, my reviews would most likely be more comprehensive than the last lot, but we'll see. There's definitely a need of more 1920 film GAs - right now I believe films from the 1910s have more Good Articles than the 1920s, but I'm sure Dr. Blofeld will be happy to help with some of them (I think Metropolis comes to mind)! JAGUAR 13:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- One's like Metropolis make me nervous, but yes - the 1910s are more detailed and covered for the moment. That is bound to change as time progresses. Only Thanhouser has great documentation for the era - many of the other major successes and major studios do not even have pages at all. These ones include Urban-Eclipse, Hale Tours, Great Northern Company, Williams, Brown and Earle, Lux, Capitol, Yankee, Electragraff, Atlas, Itala, Centaur, Carson, Whyte, LeLion, and Kinograph. That's the problem with the content area. Even existing ones are very incomplete. Fox Film the precursor to 20th Century Fox is poorly documented. Despite the 1937 Fox vault fire some 20% of the films existed elsewhere in some form. The concept is scary, but some of these films lost were like Back to the Future - in terms of importance. Though when you get into the complexities of films like The Phantom of the Opera (1925 film), you realize that these works are completely different in scope, scale and impact then a lot of the Thanhouser films. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I understand. It's surprising that the 1910s are more covered than the 1920s - as that's when theatre really kicked off. I hope you're able to find more information on other major studios, although it might be worth just focusing on Thanhouser for now as you'll be overloaded with work (I know how that feels)! I look forward to performing another GA sweep once you have a few GANs in the queue, but let me know if I can help in any other way. I vaguely remember me and Dr. Blofeld having a discussion in late 2013 about bringing Metropolis up to GA, but as you mentioned it's a shame that some things in the Golden Era of cinema are poorly sourced... JAGUAR 20:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Might have to do with my work on the Thanhouser films. I won't be doing individuals for many of the lesser films. Though I am having issues with why For Washington isn't showing up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I understand. It's surprising that the 1910s are more covered than the 1920s - as that's when theatre really kicked off. I hope you're able to find more information on other major studios, although it might be worth just focusing on Thanhouser for now as you'll be overloaded with work (I know how that feels)! I look forward to performing another GA sweep once you have a few GANs in the queue, but let me know if I can help in any other way. I vaguely remember me and Dr. Blofeld having a discussion in late 2013 about bringing Metropolis up to GA, but as you mentioned it's a shame that some things in the Golden Era of cinema are poorly sourced... JAGUAR 20:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- One's like Metropolis make me nervous, but yes - the 1910s are more detailed and covered for the moment. That is bound to change as time progresses. Only Thanhouser has great documentation for the era - many of the other major successes and major studios do not even have pages at all. These ones include Urban-Eclipse, Hale Tours, Great Northern Company, Williams, Brown and Earle, Lux, Capitol, Yankee, Electragraff, Atlas, Itala, Centaur, Carson, Whyte, LeLion, and Kinograph. That's the problem with the content area. Even existing ones are very incomplete. Fox Film the precursor to 20th Century Fox is poorly documented. Despite the 1937 Fox vault fire some 20% of the films existed elsewhere in some form. The concept is scary, but some of these films lost were like Back to the Future - in terms of importance. Though when you get into the complexities of films like The Phantom of the Opera (1925 film), you realize that these works are completely different in scope, scale and impact then a lot of the Thanhouser films. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@ChrisGualtieri:, Yes, one like Metropolis and Phantom are landmark films in which you could find a lot of material, but for GA they don't have to be that comprehensive or as impeccably well researched/written as I think you're envisaging. They'll need more than some of the lost early 1910s ones though for sure, but will get at least 10 times more traffic and the attention of film scholars etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have a few works that would be really helpful for those. When I put something up for GA, I check all the industry sources and books I have access to. While I've stopped listing the locations of Thanhouser releases because the "state's rights" system is complex and of only interest to scholars, I still have my own personal lists should I need them. I'll do The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923 film), but both you and Jaguar will probably need to help in the review stage. I got ridiculous number of sources and hits from the production period even prior to the release. Most of which I never see in the brief overviews of the film production. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Also, do you have any interest in National Register of Historic Places sites? Some of those should be coming up soon. NRHP added a bunch since last check. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think I reviewed a couple of your historic site GAs before, and as with the Thanhouser films, I like reviewing them. If you have another lot of them coming up I'll be happy to make them (if not most), along side the 1910s films. I'll begin reviewing them once you have a few at GAN (if that's what you want me to do), if not I can try something different? Me and Dr. Blofeld will be happy to help out with The Hunchback of Notre Dame also. JAGUAR 10:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Got a few up, but going to be doing more today and tomorrow. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's good news - I'll take a look at them tomorrow JAGUAR 22:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Got a few up, but going to be doing more today and tomorrow. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think I reviewed a couple of your historic site GAs before, and as with the Thanhouser films, I like reviewing them. If you have another lot of them coming up I'll be happy to make them (if not most), along side the 1910s films. I'll begin reviewing them once you have a few at GAN (if that's what you want me to do), if not I can try something different? Me and Dr. Blofeld will be happy to help out with The Hunchback of Notre Dame also. JAGUAR 10:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Also, do you have any interest in National Register of Historic Places sites? Some of those should be coming up soon. NRHP added a bunch since last check. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
2015 GA Cup - Round 2
 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points. The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category. After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition. Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful. 16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
BWV 46
A little late, my GA nomination for Schauet doch und sehet, ob irgend ein Schmerz sei, BWV 46 which I would like to see on DYK on 9 August, but possibly not too late for you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to take it, if I finish the review today or tomorrow it should give you enough time for the DYK deadline? Regards JAGUAR 12:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, great! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Tunisian Arabic
Dear User,
Tunisian Arabic is nominated for GA Status. Please review this work and adjust it if it involves several deficiencies.
Yours Sincerely,
--Csisc (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Would you like me to take the GA review? JAGUAR 15:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Image tagging for File:Grabbed by the Ghoulies gameplay.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Grabbed by the Ghoulies gameplay.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate you for Autopatrolled (again)
Hello Jaguar! As prolific article creator (and good article, etc. creator), I'd like to nominate you for Autopatrolled status. I gather you had it in the past, but lost it in some long-ago kerfuffle at WP:ANI. So, I just wanted to ask – is there anything that I should know about before I nominate you again? (Any info you can provide on how the ANI thing resolved will help me craft a nomination statement at WP:PERM/A...) Thanks in advance! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for considering me, IJBall! This is going to take some explaining. I got it revoked back in 2012 due to the result of an ANI discussion, and I have asked for it back on a few occasions since then. The last time I requested it was in July last year, but I only got turned down because I did not create 50 articles within 365 days. Looking back at that, I disagree with that decision as I can demonstrate that I've created articles before and I know the criteria. I will never consider mass-creating articles ever again, as I've turned to building content. I've always wanted Autopatrolled back, it's been over three years now and I don't agree with having to create 50 new articles if I have almost 2000 articles remaining. It would be great if you could help. Regards JAGUAR 16:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ironically, that's where I came across your name – I'm currently in the process of drafting a proposal at WP:VPP to lower the threshold to obtain "Autopatrolled" rights from 50 created articles to 25 or 30 created articles. It was in going over the data at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count for that proposal that your name jumped out at me as someone who doesn't have Autopatrolled rights... Tell you what – let me float my proposal over at VPP, and if it gets a positive reception, I'll plan on nominating you after the threshold level drops. There's probably no point in nominating before the threshold is reduced if they're going to be "picky" about it over at PERM... Cheers! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Sisters at Heart
Hi Jaguar,
Thank you very much for your reviews of my past articles. You may have noticed that the JC's Girls article was recently promoted to featured status; there have been objections to it going up on the main page, but I'm glad to see that gold star there anyway. Might you be willing to review another article I have nominated for featured status? It is called Sisters at Heart and no one has commented at the discussion yet. Any thoughts you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.
Neelix (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Neelix, I'll be happy to take a look at the article and will leave some comments very soon. Regards JAGUAR 22:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the review, Jaguar! I have implemented your recommendations and responded at the FAC. Please let me know if you have any remaining concerns regarding the article. Neelix (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for the wait, lately I've been overloaded with a lot of work on Wikipedia, but I promise to take another look tomorrow. I should support soon enough as it does appear to be a well written article! JAGUAR 21:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the review, Jaguar! I have implemented your recommendations and responded at the FAC. Please let me know if you have any remaining concerns regarding the article. Neelix (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Atic Atac you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't know if you remember Pang, was one of my favourites. I challenge you to get it to GA and I'll review it for you!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Don't think I remember it! I'll have a look at it tonight and I should make a start on it soon. I've got my hands full with Bentworth and Atic Atac at the moment, but when I'm able to I'll be happy to build that to GA, given I can find some development sources for that... JAGUAR 15:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for your PR and FAC comments and/or edits to Chetro Ketl, which is now a featured article. It was a long and interesting process, but thanks to a wealth of insights and suggestions the article is now among our best. Thanks for taking time out of your busy editing schedule to help me. RO(talk) 16:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well done, RO! JAGUAR 21:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Grabbed by the Ghoulies
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Grabbed by the Ghoulies you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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) 17:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 10 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Bentworth page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
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) 00:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Parent Management Training
I think I have addressed all your specific concerns listed in your GA review of Parent_management_training. Can you re-review it or should I renominate it? I am not exactly sure how the process has to work.
- @Tadamsmar: Thank you for addressing all of the concerns from the GA review. You'll have to initiate a new nomination in order for me to review it again. To do so, add {{GA nominee|~~~~~|nominator=~~~|page=2|subtopic=Culture, sociology and psychology|status=|note=}} at the top of the page at Talk:Parent management training and I'll start the review again once it's available. JAGUAR 17:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Tyrone Garland FAN
I thought you did a good job of reviewing the Tyrone Garland article so that it became GA-class. This article is currently listed as a featured article candidate. Could you please leave some comments? TempleM (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for letting me know. I'll be happy to leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 13:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Jaguar: Hello, letting you know that the candidate will be archived unless support is shown. TempleM (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for the wait, I've finally got my Internet problem fixed. I'll leave some comments tomorrow morning! JAGUAR 23:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Never mind, a user has archived the candidate. Is there any way to bring it back up? TempleM (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh really! Would that be Laser brain? He just archived a FAC of mine a few minutes ago when it was on the verge of being promoted. Words can't describe how pissed off I am. Unfortunately we both have to wait two weeks before we can renominate ours again, because the co-ordinators are always right... JAGUAR 00:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Never mind, a user has archived the candidate. Is there any way to bring it back up? TempleM (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for the wait, I've finally got my Internet problem fixed. I'll leave some comments tomorrow morning! JAGUAR 23:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Jaguar: Hello, letting you know that the candidate will be archived unless support is shown. TempleM (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
GA nom help
Hi Jaguar, I was curious if you could offer some assistance for my question on the GA help page. Basically, I nominated Leo Frank for GA and the person who volunteered for reviewer had a content dispute with another user just hours before doing so, and has not responded with a full review in over two weeks, even though I posted on his talk page. I asked for a second opinion on the GA page, but another reviewer who I asked to take over instead said that they wouldn't do it because the article wasn't stable in their view, due to the fact that there was a content dispute. However, the member who started the dispute has not responded in over two weeks and I don't believe it should have much validity at this point.
I'd like to know what you think I should do as I'd like to get it to GA but don't want to be put on hold indefinitely by one user who started a content dispute right before offering to review and then disappeared. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Tonystewart14, the way I see things I think there are two choices - you could either wait for a second opinion (SilkTork is excellent at looking over GANs and often handles second opinions) or you could close GAN and re-nominate it when ready. If you want, I could review it again, but I would prefer to start a new review so I can look at things clearly. Is there a controversy on Meishern reviewing the article? Please let me know what you would like to do. Regards JAGUAR 13:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Jaguar, thanks for the interest. There was in fact a controversy with that reviewer which was brought up by another contributor in the link you posted, and it would be dubious for that user to review the article after having just brought up a content dispute. However, as I said before, I don't believe this would make the article unstable as that user has not responded on the talk page of the article or his own talk page in about three weeks.
- If you don't mind, I'd appreciate you reviewing it as it's not a "second opinion" per se, but rather a change in reviewer. Also, I'd like to eventually go to FAC and it would look good to have an experienced GA reviewer approve it.
- P.S. The centennial of Frank's lynching is this Monday (17 August 2015). I had originally hoped for it to be TFA on this day, but hit some snags earlier this year. The article is now semi-protected and another user was blocked indefinitely, but I'm optimistic that it'll get promoted soon. Thanks again for your help. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Request for comment
An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, I've left a comment at the discussion. It seems that everything in that discussion has already been said! JAGUAR 13:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 14 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Atic Atac page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
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) 00:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, bro. It's been quite a while. How are things going? 
The article on the first talking picture in Tamil is at FAC (nominated by Kailash29792). Feel free to leave comments at its FAC page. Thank you. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Ssven, I'll be happy to take a look and leave comments soon. There has recently been a flood here and it has caused my internet to drop in and out, but I promise to leave comments as soon as I can. Yeah, it's been a while! JAGUAR 12:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Bentworth
I'm sorry for your frustration, but FAC is not the place to perform major fixes and updates to an article. Based on my extensive experience with FAC and with sourcing problems, I don't share your optimism that it's a small or quick undertaking. I'm also seeking clarification on a couple of your remarks. First: "some people don't understand the pace and severity of the situation" What are you implying, exactly? And: "I was hoping to have this pay off by the end of August least" I'm afraid I have no clue what this means or why it should influence my decision to archive the nomination. I really do not want you to have a bad experience at FAC, but I do expect you to be realistic about the amount of work needed here. --Laser brain (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- You're right, Laser brain, I'm sorry if it sounded like I was overreacting in the FAC back there. Overhauling the sources is no small task, no, but I (along with two other editors) are dealing with each source one by one. On my first remark, it has been my experience that some people (in previous FACs, not Bentworth specifically) didn't understand the current situation at hand and jumped to conclusions too quickly. I didn't feel like it happened today, but it has happened to me in the past and has personally made my experiences very uncomfortable. And on the second remark, it just meant that I sub-consciously thought it would be over by the end of the month, but no worries, there's still work to be done. It's my understanding that there has to be a minimum wait of two weeks before anything can re-nominated unless given clearance by a co-ordinator? If everything has been addressed under a fortnight (no rush of course, but given that we're already halfway through the sources), can I ask permission to renominate it early? Once it's ready, of course! Thanks for clearing this up, and sorry if I sounded too extreme, I know you've made the right decision. It's currently almost 2 am and it's been a long day. JAGUAR 00:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Don't worry—I'd be frustrated in your situation as well. I left you a message because I don't want you to have a horrible experience at FAC. You can re-nominate it as soon as the source audit is done. --Laser brain (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Jaguar, please try not to take the archive personally. It's an unfortunate curveball, but an important one nonetheless. I'm sure the reviewers who took part will not mind a gentle prod as and when you renominate, I know I won't. I applaud Brian for his diligent and through source check and, dare I say, his honesty in the face of so much support. Laser brain was, in my view, 100% right to archive the nomination based on Brian's findings. Remember, FAC is an incredibly tough process, especially when you're a relative newcomer. That's why most people tend to steer clear, they simply can't take the rejection when flaws are exposed. It takes a special type of editor to nominate at FAC, one of which I'm sure you are, so don't let the archive get you down. CassiantoTalk 07:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Don't worry—I'd be frustrated in your situation as well. I left you a message because I don't want you to have a horrible experience at FAC. You can re-nominate it as soon as the source audit is done. --Laser brain (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to see it has been archived. Yes, it's frustrating, but I think the real reason, beyond the task needed to overhaul the sourcing was that people like Cassianto and Tim who've already supported it were placed in a difficult position as they weren't aware of the sourcing issue like myself. Rather than them turn to oppose in the time being I think it's probably the best solution to archive as the article might look quite different to the version which they supported once we go through them all. Still, part of me thinks we could get the sourcing wrapped up within a few days but Laser is right that major fixes shuldn't really be made during an FAC. Never mind. I do think a renom in a few weeks though will be more a continuity thing though and I'm sure the people who've supported to date will again be willing to offer their support once the sourcing is definitely sound. Remain positive, we can still do this. I must say though that this is something not many of us experience as most of us expand articles and then take them swiftly to FAC, fresh off the plate. It's a lesson learned for all of us if anything never to take an old article to FAC without checking the sourcing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Jaguar. I've been following this one too. Although the FAC has been archived for the time being, I must say I think you've been doing a fantastic job with the article. You've really put little Bentworth on the map. It's not often such a small place receives such careful attention. Keep up the good work and you'll soon reach your goal.--Ipigott (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you everyone for the reassuring comments, it means a lot. I must first apologise because I knew I acted irrational last night; I admit I initially didn't know how to take the closure and I failed to recognise that it was for the best. I need to thank Brian for his excellent source review and using his judgement despite the amount of support, and also thank Laser brain's judgement on archiving the nomination, which should relieve some of the pressure on us as we are still overhauling some of the sources. We might be able to have everything sorted out before two weeks, but Dr. Blofeld is right - with this extra time on our hands we can finally ensure that everything is perfected by leaving no margin for error in the next FAC. We'll renominate it as soon as it's ready, but this time I'll make sure I'm more careful. Ipigott, I admit I feel attached to this article after seven years of technically editing it and it would be the culmination of my work here if it passed FAC, but all in good time. I've learned today that success can't be achieved without failure first, or learning from mistakes. JAGUAR 18:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Just caught up on this conversation - I have to say that Brian was absolutely right to oppose; factual accuracy is one of the most important things on Wikipedia as it's too easy for the Admin Civility Enforcement Brigade not to notice, but very easy for the casual reader to spot it and think, "that's a pile of nonsense". This is why, if I've targeted an article for improvement, you might see a handful of changes and then a flood; the initial front end is reading all the main sources from top to bottom and having a good idea in my head of what to write about. You need to do this - it's too easy to mis-transcribe a source and say something that's factually wrong unless your brain's already trained to trip up on it. All that said, I think we can all agree that it's not personal - I've never had a good time at FAC, not because anyone else's comments were invalid, but the effort required to make what I personally think genuinely reflects Wikipedia's best work is too great for the spare time I can commit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I agree with what has been done and I now understand the terms of the closure. We'll renominate when everything is ready, and this time we'll get it right. I must admit it was unexpected, but it was a lesson for us all as some of the content in that article remained from my 2010 re-write. The trouble is that locating sources for a small village isn't an easy task, and overhauling the sources is an even more difficult one. I'm still optimistic as I have the incredible We hope and Dr. Blofeld on my side! JAGUAR 17:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- I personally think any review that makes a better article is a worthwhile exercise, even if you don't get the green blob or brown star at the end of it. List of Hammond organ players failed FLC (though a lack of interest mainly) but the effort to get the list there has left us with something much better than before. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's very true, the FAC and source review has improved the article immensely, and I can recall other articles that have had failed GANs but have still come out for the better. Winchester is a good example! JAGUAR 19:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- I personally think any review that makes a better article is a worthwhile exercise, even if you don't get the green blob or brown star at the end of it. List of Hammond organ players failed FLC (though a lack of interest mainly) but the effort to get the list there has left us with something much better than before. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The article Atic Atac you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Atic Atac 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 Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jetpac you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Grabbed by the Ghoulies
The article Grabbed by the Ghoulies you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Grabbed by the Ghoulies 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Bro, Doc's on a Wikibreak as you might have seen on his talk page and has asked me (if interested, which I most definitely am) to address your comments at Kubrick's GA as per this edit. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'll start doing the review now. Glad you're here to take care of it! JAGUAR 12:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I have resolved your remaining comments at the GA review page. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The article Jetpac you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jetpac 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 Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you!
For the barnstar! Now, if you could just make the snippet searches for the 2 books listed on the Bentworth talk page come out right, that would be great! :-) I hope this time you'll have success with the article at FAC! If I only had more than 2 hands, I guess I could have finished this faster; right now it feels like I could use some transplants. :-D We hope (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your hard work on Bentworth, We hope! I think we'll get through this sooner than expected now. I'll take care of the two books on the talk page now. JAGUAR 18:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK, friend-the 2 books are now in harv ref style. I think things are going to work out fine now. :-) We hope (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, We hope! I'm going to get to sorting out the remaining issues tonight, while I've got my mind at things. By the way, it's good timing that you messaged me as I'm trying to make a montage similar to the one you made for Bentworth, but I can't figure out how exactly to do it? I have tried to screen capture it and enlarge it in Microsoft Paint but the resolution comes up too low when I try to enlarge it to the standard 600 x 1200 pixels... If I learn the secret on how to do one with no borders like the one in Bentworth, I'll be able to create dozens for cities! JAGUAR 19:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- The Bentworth montage was done in paint. I copied the Commons photos and reduced their size at ShrinkPictures after I determined that the size of the montage was to be 600 by 1200 px. Working with the photomontage template is a good way to determine what you want to use re: photos, whee you want them and for the size of the finished image. While working with the template, I noticed that there were some discrepancies in sizes of the images and also with borders showing up where they shouldn't. That was when I copied the Commons photos and put them through ShrinkPictures and just pasted them onto the Paint canvas. (Had reduced them to 600px across initially because I though the template issue might have been because there's quite a difference in the size of some which were uploaded, so I reduced their size twice.) Where I still had some minor issues with all photos being the same size (true with the smaller ones in the middle), I just pasted and did that until they were even. The difference in their size was not a great deal but would have been visible as a bad match up. File:Sun in Bentworth reduced.jpg This is one of the photos I reduced and then needed to reduce further to get it down to 300 px across. I think copies like this of all the Bentworth montage photos are at Commons in the Bentworth category, so you can have a look and experiment with reducing these and pasting. We hope (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for guiding it to me, We hope! It took a while to get my head around it but I finally created a montage for Basingstoke, an article I brought up to GA last year. Now I can finally get to creating more montages in other cities out there that has a desperate need for them. I think I didn't get the four middle images lined up pixel-perfect, but they look fine from a reader's point of view. Thanks again for letting me know! JAGUAR 17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- You did a great job! :-D I don't see anything wrong at all--think it's really a fine job! And it's a nice way to "show off" the many facets of a community. We hope (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for guiding it to me, We hope! It took a while to get my head around it but I finally created a montage for Basingstoke, an article I brought up to GA last year. Now I can finally get to creating more montages in other cities out there that has a desperate need for them. I think I didn't get the four middle images lined up pixel-perfect, but they look fine from a reader's point of view. Thanks again for letting me know! JAGUAR 17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- The Bentworth montage was done in paint. I copied the Commons photos and reduced their size at ShrinkPictures after I determined that the size of the montage was to be 600 by 1200 px. Working with the photomontage template is a good way to determine what you want to use re: photos, whee you want them and for the size of the finished image. While working with the template, I noticed that there were some discrepancies in sizes of the images and also with borders showing up where they shouldn't. That was when I copied the Commons photos and put them through ShrinkPictures and just pasted them onto the Paint canvas. (Had reduced them to 600px across initially because I though the template issue might have been because there's quite a difference in the size of some which were uploaded, so I reduced their size twice.) Where I still had some minor issues with all photos being the same size (true with the smaller ones in the middle), I just pasted and did that until they were even. The difference in their size was not a great deal but would have been visible as a bad match up. File:Sun in Bentworth reduced.jpg This is one of the photos I reduced and then needed to reduce further to get it down to 300 px across. I think copies like this of all the Bentworth montage photos are at Commons in the Bentworth category, so you can have a look and experiment with reducing these and pasting. We hope (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, We hope! I'm going to get to sorting out the remaining issues tonight, while I've got my mind at things. By the way, it's good timing that you messaged me as I'm trying to make a montage similar to the one you made for Bentworth, but I can't figure out how exactly to do it? I have tried to screen capture it and enlarge it in Microsoft Paint but the resolution comes up too low when I try to enlarge it to the standard 600 x 1200 pixels... If I learn the secret on how to do one with no borders like the one in Bentworth, I'll be able to create dozens for cities! JAGUAR 19:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK, friend-the 2 books are now in harv ref style. I think things are going to work out fine now. :-) We hope (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
A 2010 Bollywood film, the article is currently a GA nominee. If you're not too busy, can you review it? User Ssven2 asked me to ask you, regards. -- Frankie talk 15:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Frankie talk 15:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, I'll be happy to take the review. JAGUAR 18:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
GA subtopic parameter
Hello Jaguar. I noticed when you promoted Depression Quest as a GA in this edit, you used the parameter |subtopic=. This parameter has been deprecated for at least a year now (Special:Diff/619511961), and doesn't work (meaning the pages in question end up at Category:Good articles without topic parameter); |topic= should be used instead. I've fixed the parameter in question here but I think I've seen you use |subtopic= before, so I thought it might be worth dropping you a note. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, Bilorv! I'll remember that from now on. I'll go and delete the |substopic= in any other old GANs I can find, as I think there's a few. JAGUAR 18:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jaguar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |