User talk:Fæ/2012/F

Wikipedia is ten years old this year.

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 16, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 16, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Hoxne Hoard is the largest hoard of late Roman silver and gold discovered in Britain. Found by a metal detectorist in the village of Hoxne in Suffolk, England on 16 November 1992, the hoard consists of 14,865 Roman gold, silver and bronze coins from the late fourth and early fifth centuries, and approximately 200 silver tableware and gold jewellery items. The hoard is now on permanent display in the British Museum and is valued at £4.5 million. The coins of the hoard date it after 407 AD, which coincides with the end of Britain as a Roman province. The Hoxne Hoard contains several rare and important objects, including a gold body-chain and silver-gilt pepper-pots. The Hoxne Hoard is also of particular archaeological significance because it was excavated by professional archaeologists with the items largely undisturbed and intact. The find has helped to improve the relationship between metal detectorists and archaeologists, and influenced a change in English law regarding finds of treasure. (more...)

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

ok i have removed advertising material so please remove the template Db-g11 from that page(talk)

DYK for British Library Philatelic Collections

Thank you for your article Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

speedy vs too speedy

You nom'd Black Caviar (Horse) for speedy one minute after it was created. This is a little too quick. A1 should not be used under people have a chance to write the article, so it's a good idea to check the article history before placing such a tag.Fortunately, the editor persisted, but many people would have never come back again & we would have lost a perfectly good editor. Since most people remain here for only a finite time, survival of the encyclopedia depends on recruiting new editors, and we must be sure not to alienate them, and do everything possible to encourage them. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with being welcoming and in most cases would apply the minimum 10-minute guideline. In this case the article was flagged in IGLOO and appeared to be nonsense with no meaningful context whatsoever (this version). If there had been any reasonable context (say, one sentence saying something about the horse) I would have just tagged as needing citations and notability addressed. The notice explains that the user can remove the template if they intend to fix the problem and I would have removed the speedy myself if I had been about and noticed the continued improvement. Reviewing this case history, I must disagree with your opinion as my action comfortably falls within the CSD-A1 guidelines though I appreciate they give significant latitude.

However, thank you for pointing out how this might be interpreted by a new contributor and I shall think twice for similar cases that are not simple abuse, personal attacks or clearly self-evident nonsense. Cheers Fæ (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine that the extra eight minutes (at the barest minimum) would cause a nom any hardship whatsoever, especially when weighed against the impact of an ultra speedy nom. Fae -- did you do a wp:before check first?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In this case the article consisted of the six words "New article name is Black Caviar". If using IGLOO to deal with content-free or nonsense articles is considered unhelpful, then I am happy to walk away and ignore them in the future, but if there is a consensus that this is best practice for such empty articles then I suggest that IGLOO is also adapted to ignore new articles without, say, blatant swearing or key attack phrases rather than highlighting them as vandalism candidates. As you probably know I am fully conversant with BEFORE but one is not required to walk through the 13 points therein for articles which give insufficient context. Fæ (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If one AGFs, and even if one doesn't assume good faith--if one simply looks at the six words, one quickly should come to the conclusion that this is an effort by a well-intentioned editor to start an article. It is simply not at all consistent with an editor seeking to leave utter nonsense.

If one checks the editor's edit history, one sees that the history supports that conclusion.

And if one uses the extra eight minutes to do a wp:before search on Black Caviar, the fact that there is a horse by that name that is very much in the news just these past 30 days pops right out of one's screen and plops upon one's forehead, confirming even more the likelihood that this is a well-intentioned effort by a new editor.

Under such circumstances I would expect any editor not to request deletion of the article. If we just wanted to delete all six-sentence articles within the first two minutes without further inquiry and without application of AGF, we could certainly have bots do that for us. That's not the case. I just !voted at an RfA against a candidate I would otherwise have wholeheartedly supported, because of my concern about his sensitivity to how his acts impacted well-intentioned constructive editors. It is an issue I think all of us, and especially those of us who are seasoned editors, should be very sensitive to.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This was a two word article, not a six sentence article. I agree with your concern for welcoming newcomers, hence my involvement at Wikipedia:Wiki Guides and my long track record of welcoming new accounts after their first meaningful contribution. As two experienced contributors have commented here, I shall lay-off using A1 for the time being to give time for proper reconsideration. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry -- I had understood that it was a six-word article. Had the circumstances been the same, however, and (at the advent of Wikileaks) the new editor simply left one word -- Wikileaks -- that would be enough (if sufficient RS coverage were available on a quick wp:before search) to suggest that what we were facing was a new editor who needed mentoring, not the hammer. IMHO, of course. Thanks for being able to listen to my thoughts without ego getting in the way, and seeing how it might inadvertently impact a well-intentioned new user. BTW, the user has left a note on the articles page; I responded, but if the spirit moves you of course you should feel free to address him as well. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, there were literally six words but "New article name is" hardly count as content or context. Comment left as suggested. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In an article that had been there for a while containing only the name of the subject & not indicating what sort of entity the name referred to, I might also have not checked. I do not consider it our responsibility to complete all the articles people start but do not work on. I merely consider it our responsibility to give them a chance to work on them after they have started. I'll expand to a valid stub anything I have some reason to think might be important, but I might not check a bare name like this. (And FWIW, in my experience, most fanciful names tend to be garage bands.) My only problem is the timing.

Fae, it would have been my guess that you accidentally omitted to check the edit history and thus noted the time, & when I realized that last night I was planning to come back here and add that comment. I must admit that when the situation seems totally clear I have not always checked myself, though I know I should--I'm not perfect and I know I'm not perfect, & because I know that I have always been reluctant to do as some admins do, and delete single-handed when they see a speediable article not yet nominated for speedy, without anyone else checking. (Incidentally, that is unfortunately the default in the current version of twinkle, & when I first started using twinkle, I had not noticed that & did a few dozen before I realized.)

What we need is some sort of automatic mechanism to prevent such deletion, or at least to alert the deletors. In the past, such proposals have been rejected because one can think of peculiar cases the might not cover, but we should try again. DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy vs too speedy 2

I must agree with the editor above. I created an article for Paul Drury with one line after having had an hours work lost due to a tech blip. Within one minute of me saving the initial text you had it tagged for notability and references. If you had waited only a few minutes you would have seen the detail and the references coming. This behaviour is very off putting for people trying to create articles. We may not be following guidelines exactly, but please give other contributors, who are giving up time to Wikipedia a bit of breathing speace before you tag them. You say above that oyu will think twice before doing this so quickly.Please wait at least ten minutes before applying these tabs. Kunchan (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgive the page stalking but I noticed this comment and wanted to chime in. While I can understand that it can be frustrating to have something quickly tagged for deletion, you've got to put yourself in Fæ's shoes as well. How was Fæ to know that you intended to add more to the article? How is he/she to differentiate this article from the hundreds of junk articles that get created each week with little more than a single line. Some editors like to save frequently and that's fine. If this is how you like to work, consider adding {{underconstruction}} to the top. That lets everyone know whats going on and will give you some time to bring the article up the point where new page patrollers wont have a problem with it. --RadioFan (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Kunchan - Please add comments at the bottom of talk pages, otherwise they are likely to be missed. In this case your point is misplaced as the above comment refers to speedy deletion notices rather than improvement templates for which there is no consensus or recommendation to ignore poor articles in case someone might come along "in the next few minutes". In addition to RadioFan's suggestion, please refer to WP:DRAFT for an explanation of how to create draft articles if you would prefer not to receive improvement notices.

Though you have since added a lot of footnotes to this article, most appear to be fairly meaningless and unverifiable, for example you have referred to "Paul Drury: Artist and Printmaker, University of London, 1984" five times and it could be a book, a general note or something else as without an ISBN, OCLC or some other kind of reference there is no way of telling. You should also note that general searches such as http://www.mfa.org/search/collections?keyword=paul+drury are not considered reliable sources as they are subject to change as the underpinning data changes, please refer to the specific article or collection. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the critiques of the article - the reference you mention is a book (University of London are the publishers). The general searches come from links to art galleries collections - I refer to the actual colleciton in the article - so I'll add more details in the ref. The references are not 'mostly meaningless and unverifiable' - I find that insulting, as the article is a well-referenced and much better than most on Wikipedia. All the references have publisher details and dates. I have spent considerable time writing, researching and verifying this article - and feel we should be more supportive of each other. We are all equal members of Wikipedia. You haven't actually refered to my main request - to allow 10 mins before you tag an article? Thanks 86.176.39.149 (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The term "meaningless" is based on not being able to identify what the footnotes relate to. The term "unverifiable" is in the sense of the policy expressed by WP:V. The sources such as database searches explicitly fail WP:RS and WP:ELNO. The newspaper article referred to is presumably an obituary (which it does not make clear) but I have not been able to verify it so far. The website http://www.makers.org.uk appears rather compromised as a source as it is a promotional website with no clear editorial policy which means that single sourcing statements against it would not be recommended. The books you have referenced have no page numbers, which weakens their veracity as sources as one cannot expect other editors to read the entirety of every book referenced before judging if the citations are being correctly applied to the text of the article. I have, however, taken the page off my watch-list as if I started tagging all the outstanding problems you would probably find it less than helpful. Fæ (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, as for your 10 minutes suggestion, no, I'll not be adopting it as it is not considered best practice for improvement tags. Fæ (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the database sources - they were only showing works in the collections and I wasn't sure how to 'evidence' them - and from your previous posts I gather this doesn't need referencing. I've aded the ISBN numbers (the books are, of course) verifiable - as for adding the paged numbers - I've checked your articles and it is not something you do yourself consistently - other editors are not meant to be reading books to verify sources (or even verifying sources quoted) - usually we think that if someone has taken the trouble to write a referenced article (one that had, in this case, been outstanding for several years), we give them the benefit of the doubt. As fot not metioning in the Daily Telegraph reference that the article is an obituary - the referenced text does that. We can all take an overzealous stance towards editing - I'm glad we don't as we soon run out of members.

You have every right not to adopt the 10 minutes - but I'm not sure where it dsays that adding tags 1 minute after an article has been created is best practice either. Let's agree to disagree on what is 'nice' practice on thisKunchan (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm no paragon of virtue and doubtless in my 47,500 contributions over the last year you will be able to find many sloppy edits. However you will note that good articles (or better) invariably use page numbers for cited books and it is common sense best practice. Happy to agree to disagree, that's really how Wikipedia works best. Fæ (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Vindolanda Tablets

I borrowed the reference for Claudia Severa's letter to use on the article about her. I noticed that the date the British Museum source was accessed doesn't appear to display correctly, but I don't know how to fix the reference. Alan (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you fix it? The date appears in a standard ISO format to me. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I got confused about this BM reference. BTW, I have amended the citation for the Harry Mount piece on Vindolanda Tablets. You may wish to check it. Alan (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have a script that sniffs out the article date from the Telegraph, it must be using faulty meta-data. I'll keep an eye on it. Cheers, Fæ (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources of Gogyhka?

Fae, I have two questions.

1. If the Gogyohka work is carried in a magazine or a blog on line, does it have a source? For example, if an English gogyohka is carried in Japanese magazine, does it have source?

2. If the writer of the Gogyohka has the publishing company, does it have a source? Or is it a self publishing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodaka-X (talk • contribs) 15:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Blogs would only be a suitable source if either as evidence of a person's opinions or if considered an editorial from a notable expert (such as a journalist's blog for a national newspaper). Rarely are blogs given much credence for notability of an article. A magazine in any language would normally be considered a reliable source, so long as there was an editorial policy (i.e. not just publishing anything anyone sends in) and it appeared to be more than a club newsletter.
2. In this case, someone publishing their own work and opinions through their own publishing house is weak evidence. Even where the publishing house were publishing works by others, the issue would still be that there is one guiding mind selecting the material and would always raise concerns about possible COI or natural bias. The sources can be quoted but they could be discounted as evidence for notability of the topic. However, this is a marginal case (in my opinion) and if one were to compare (say) to religious topics on Wikipedia, one can frequently see that the majority of sources are published by organizations set up to promote the religion and these sources are rarely removed (though their encyclopaedic usefulness and appropriate weight can be called into question). So long as some independent sources cover the topic, there should a fair rationale for the article to continue to avoid deletion and in particular an argument that the article is continuing to improve is often considered quite convincing. Fæ (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer in detail ,fae I 'd like to make sure of what you wrote because I'm a foreigner.

1.I can quote my blog online as sources of others' works because I'm a person and I don't belong to any groups of Gogyohka. It's OK? Does a magazine without ISBN,or without selling it in a bookstore mean "a club newsletter" ?

Mostly no - as for blogs the answer is not clear-cut. In my opinion I would advise against quoting your own blog as it is likely to be challenged as failing WP:SELFPUB.

Mostly yes - a magazine with no ISSN/ISBN/OCLC and not for sale in shops also appears doubtful, however there are specialist journals and magazines which have been accepted in the past (such as student magazines or scientific journals which are privately published and with a circulation of less than 100).

2.If the writer is an editor and the president of the publishing house, can he cite his magazine or his book as sources of gogyohka in Wikipedia?

Yes, but if an article is entirely reliant on non-independent sources then the article may fail the guidelines of WP:WEIGHT and/or WP:COI resulting in later challenges to contents. Again, it is essential for a stand-alone article to have independent sources to support the content. It may be worth confirming general opinions about your publications on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Fæ (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

drop me a line (Vindolanda tablets)

• please drop me a line when you want me to look at Vindolanda tablets. Tks. – Peacock.Lane 02:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Replied on your page, will be spending a bit of time on it today. Fæ (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I'll have a little time tomorrow.. will look at it then. Cheers – Peacock.Lane 11:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum collaboration

Hi Fae! Not sure if you have seen this on the WMUK mailing list but do have a look at Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM when you have a chance. Regards, The Land (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I did, congratulations on this being a go-er. I'm hesitant to put my name down as I'm rather committed to the BL and BM collaborations at the moment (if I'm stretched to thin I would be in danger of forgetting what I promised to do or not making much of an impact in any task force). Would you like me to format the NMM page in the same tab style as GLAM/BL or is it more useful staying as is? Fæ (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Once it's up and running, that would be very helpful - I looked at the format briefly and couldn't get it to work with the time/effort I had remaining. But once we're going we should probably move the current content to a sub-page and make the GLAM/NMM page a bit more like the BM The Land (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I suggest you leave a note for either me or Rock Drum to set it up when you are ready as we've done a few now, so it's more like 10 minutes of cut, paste and tweak rather than 50 minutes of suck it and see for us. Cheers Fæ (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Lithuanian painters

Instead of embarrasing me with repeated seperate nominations I suggest that you go through Category:Lithuanian painters and make a list of articles which you think are not notable because of no hits in google books and if you are correct I will speedy author them once we've both looked through them all. They were all started under the preconception that all articles in the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia were notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry that you are feeling pressured. I'm not targeting Lithuanian painters or your creations, rather I'm looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Unreferenced BLPs in alphabetical order as part of my unsourced BLP backlog drive contributions (which is much wider than artists). That a handful of these similar articles have been nominated for deletion at the same time is a coincidence of their alphabetical listing rather than anything else about their nature. As these don't represent any immediate issue, I'm quite happy to skip all Lithuanian painters if you would prefer to review these in your own time. Obviously if the only unsourced BLPs left in the Visual arts uBLP queue were these articles then we probably ought to pay them particular attention. Cheers Fæ (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not pressured but embarrassing to see deletion warnings of such rubbish stubs that I'm responsible for.. I thought as much that you were doing the BLPs. The problem was I started both Lithuanian and Swiss painters in sub stub batches ages ago before I even knew what a BLP was. The intention was to transfer material from other wikipedias and get these articles put into ENglish. The mistake though was that a] the articles should have contained some info which asserts notability. b] the articles should have been referenced with at least one reliable source and c]Each article requires individual attention and research which is why biographies are not really compatible for mass stubbing unless they share a common theme (e.g president of somewhere or actors in the same film) and have a solid source. d]The stubs are flooded into the same categories with the half decent articles and don't seem to be expanded by anybody. Maybe the best thing would be to nuke them all and wait until somebody actually wants to spend the time to write articles about them. Swiss painters for instance, a few have been expanded but the vast majority are untouched sadly. We have a serious lack of German contributors on here which is why most of our German/Swiss/Austria municpalities are still sub stubs and have decent articles in German wikipedia. and Lithuanian editors, as one can see the numbers interested in Lithuanian art is practically zero. Its a shame I think as wikipedia should have detailed articles on topics such as these... But the mass stubs and lack of people expanding them shows up the systematic bias on wikipedia and doesn't really do anything to eliminate it unless the articles themseleves are resourceful.

I've got to say though that you are one of the rare editors who actually know how to research articles. The vast majority who nominate my articles for AFD do not and they are nearly always kept. This is why I haven't protested or fussed about your AFDs as I can see you are right and that aside from the encyclopedia entry there is relatively nothing to indicate they are that notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've db authored the two you sent to AFD as its obvious the outcome. If you come across any more of mine which fails notability I'll db author them once you inform me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool, if I notice any more I'll put a note on your talk page rather than taking any direct action. Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for RPPing my user page!

Thank you: A few hours of Huggling and it needs semi-protection? Sigh. Thanks for keeping an eye out and RPPing. See you at the London meetup next weekend. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Being abused by vandals seems to be a badge of honour. :) Fæ (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Camberwell Public Baths

The article Camberwell Public Baths 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Camberwell Public Baths for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I found the review discouraging, so will not be returning to the article within the time limit suggested. Fæ (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

International Dunhuang Project

Just to let you know, the article was GA reviewed and quick failed this morning, which was a little disappointing. The reviewer was concerned about undue bias and reliance on the IDP site, but given that there are no reliable 3rd party sources to use for information about the IDP, I see no way of correcting this issue. Thanks anyway for your help with the article. BabelStone (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry this has not got through yet, particularly as apart from the sources problem, the article seems to tick the rest of the GA criteria. This would be an good issue to discuss with the researchers in the IDP whenever they have their wiki-week or related editathon. In my discussion with the BL English Lit. department, one key suggestion was to provide recommended bibliographies for key articles rather than going to the effort of a detailed review by a curator; this seems to be an article where a good bibliography would make a big difference. Fæ (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've added my responses to the GA review at Talk:International_Dunhuang_Project/GA1. I could (and should) use non-IDP sources for referencing the collecting activities of Stein, Pelliot, Kozlov, etc., but I don't see any possibility of finding any reliable and useful 3rd party sources about the history and activities of the IDP itself, so I'm afraid that it may never reach GA status, never mind FA. After two successive GAN failures of what I consider to be well-referenced, well-written and comprehensive articles I'm beginning to wonder whether it is worth trying to jump through hoops in order to get wiki-accolades when I all I really want to do is write good articles about topics that interest me. BabelStone (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the GA/FA process is useful and in talking to both the BM and BL these are easy to understand quality targets to set (and easy to see when they are achieved). The IDP problem of sources is unusual for such a notable project and considering that so many highly notable institutions are part of the project, I would personally consider any peer reviewed publication a suitable source even if from the IDP and it is not a hard requirement in WP:GACR for there to be multiple independent sources for the text of the article. I do however agree that if the article is overly single-sourced to the website (as opposed to printed publications) I would struggle with agreeing this as best practice. Saying all that, you have done sterling work on this article and I fully support your viewpoint that the important thing is to write what interests you most. The British Library are planning other editathon events later in the year and I suggest that it might be a better use of time to move on to other articles and leave the GA debate to another time rather than letting it bog you down. Fæ (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

For the purposes of GLAM/BL, it might be better to say that GA/FA isn't the target: the ultimate target is having as good an article as possible on the subject, and that getting GA or FA is a nice bonus. If the article is as good as it can possibly be and it remains a stub, that's fine. (Eventualism? I dunno. More like just another challenge in helping target-driven public institutions navigate the rough and tumble of Wikipedia.) —Tom Morris (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you both. Creating and improving articles is the real goal, and once you start explicitly aiming for GA or FA status you are in danger of losing sight of that goal, and it all becomes a box-ticking exercise which does not necessarily make the article any better -- and in some cases it can make the article worse (which I thought was the case with Hoxne Hoard, which in my opinion was not improved by the FA review exercise). BabelStone (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Thanks for suggesting to site References correctly. Since I am kinda new, I don't know how to cite them properly. But still thanks for telling. Gleb (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

For you!

		The British Library barnstar
		For getting those two articles to GA, I present to you, the British Library barnstar. Regards, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Driving well?) 14:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks RD! Fæ (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

GLAM portals?

Hey Fæ,

I was wandering around the BM today and had a thought about a potentially easy win for GLAM: Portals. I don't quite know what the best way to proceed with this idea is, so I hope you don't mind if I run it past you. Imagine if you went to something like Portal:British Museum or Portal:British Library and it contained links to lots and lots of articles about the things you can find in the particular institutions. You go to the BL portal and it's filled with articles, pictures, sounds and other content from across Wikimedia related to stuff that's on show in the BL. (I see there are some bits and pieces that have been put together in subpages of Portal:British Library, but there isn't yet a main page for Portal:British Library.

Basically, I'm thinking with GLAMs, the portals could go in a slightly different direction than they do already. They could show what is in the museum, and basically be a Wikipedia counterpart to the real life museum. With the BL, that means you might have a list of all the works in the permanent collection on the Portal page with links to the relevant articles (like Magna Carta, Gutenberg Bible etc.). Same with the BM: a chunk of the portal page could be organised along the same lines that the exhibitions are. You can then imagine someone getting home from poking all around the BM or another major institution like the Natural History Museum or Science Museum and be able to explore Wikipedia along the same set of conceptual threads you had while exploring the museum.

If you went to the BM one, you might find a listing of objects in the BM that have Wikipedia pages, along with topics they are related to. In the BM one, you might have a section on, say, Enlightenment topics, and another section on the African galleries.

This will probably work better for institutions like the BM or, say, the National Gallery or the Louvre.

I'm not sure whether this will be problematic with Wikipedia policies and what the best way to seek community consensus on how to build this. That might be through the Village Pump, or through RfC, or just by seeking consensus on, say, Wikipedia talk:GLAM/BM or Wikipedia talk:GLAM/BL and then being bold and going ahead with one. Portal policy seems deliberately vague on what could become a portal, and a GLAM institution portal would definitely "help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas", but I'm not sure whether it would fall foul of either the COI/NPOV policies (re. the feeling that the portals may be promotional for the particular GLAM institutions) or WP:OR (WP:P says that all the core policies apply like WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV etc. apply to portals just as much as they do to mainspace. Then again, Portal:BBC exists, as does Portal:British Army. But imagine if Portal:BBC were a guide to Wikipedia content about BBC shows but through the lens of what is currently being broadcast. That might raise some problems in terms of neutrality and WP:OR (ignoring the fact that it would currently probably be a copyvio because of the copyright status of TV schedules).

I'm also not totally sure how it will be thought of by the GLAM institutions that WP/WMF/WMUK are reaching out to. The positive is that it's a way to explore Wikipedia content through the lens of what they can see in a particular GLAM institution. The negative is that they may see it as competition for their own web efforts. I can imagine that if such a portal existed, it might be the sort of place a GLAM institution could link to from their site. Their mainspace articles may be good, but they aren't necessarily interesting for the visitor. I mean, people go to somewhere like the BM not because the BM is interesting but to see the exhibits. And although the exhibits are often temporary, people will often want to read up on what they've already seen.

Thoughts? —Tom Morris (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be concerned about maintainability unless there were a keen set of maintainers (intuitively I feel the same way about newsletters, which tend to draw time away from collaboration activities and that's why I prefer to think about long term case-studies rather than "news"). I would think there could be enough interest in a Portal:Museums (which avoids the issue of it being a COI) and could hierarchically sit under Portal:History. However as a more specific interesting page for our collaborations, I wonder how funky it would be to have a BM or BL floor plan article using the {{Overlay}} or similar template? An exploded plan of rooms in the British Museum which cross-linked to articles about the room theme, collection category, photo category or particular artefact would be pretty useful as an adjunct for the main article. The BM reading room changes its special exhibition every few months and this would impose only a relatively small maintenance burden.

It would be a good topic to chat about at the next London meet-up. Fæ (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind be adding by 2c, I've started work on the BL portal, Tom, but haven't finished it yet. That's why there is no main page for it. I can put it up, if you wish, but there would be some modules on the page which would be blank. However, if you are willing to help me, it could be done it a couple of days. I do like the idea, though, of having different sections for each exhibit. However, Portals are usually about exhibiting the best Wikipedia content on a particular. But rules are there to be broken. Regards, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 08:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Portals are good, but I think that the solution is a new wiki that allows for unnotable additions to an article. Probably needs some paper to discuss at length but here goes. But lets imagine I'm a zoo with a zebra called "Zed". I would like to mention that "Zed is 14 years old and was born here in this zoo and is fed at 4pm etc". If you want to know more about Zebras then there is a link here. If you want pictures then they are here. If you would like a list of other zoos nearby that have a zebra then click here. This solution I think solves the maintenance problem that Fae spoke about. The zoo writes a few sentences about "Zed"; the stuff about zebras comes from wikipedia, the pictures from common, maybe some stuff from wikispecies and the latter is just category data. Sorry Fae I couldnt resist adding to this conversation. Obviously I have shown a GLAM solution but it also works for other subjects where a user has some locally notable stuff that it wants maintained by an external database.... mostly. But nuff said Victuallers (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't so much thinking about for zoos, but for institutions which in general cover things which are of high cultural significance. Take the British Museum. They have just concluded an enormous, stunning exhibition on the Book of the Dead and shown an enormous collection of items related to ancient Egyptian death rituals and beliefs. In addition, they have exhibitions on Afghanistan, Eric Gill, Asian Buddhism, and an exhibition on drawing (the Picasso and Julie Mehretu). But just stick with the Book of the Dead exhibition: on a BM portal page, imagine you've got two columns with articles about stuff of general interest about the museum on the one side and on the other, a list of current major special or temporary exhibitions. In that column, for each of the current exhibitions and, say, the last five recently finished exhibitions, you include links to a huge amount of encyclopedia content and links to the relevant categories and pages on Commons, and on Wikisource, Wikibooks and Wikiquote. If it is significant, maybe even Wikinews may have covered it.

Now for the Book of the Dead exhibition at the BM, why not the Commons category, Wikisource for the Papyrus of Ani, then the following articles: Book of the Dead, Ancient Egypt, Egyptian hieroglyphics, Hieratic, Art of Ancient Egypt, Ancient Egyptian religion, Osiris Ancient Egyptian burial customs, Mummification, Canopic jar, Pyramid texts, Coffin texts, Book of Breathing, Papyrus, Senet, List of Book of the Dead spells, Duat, a few of the pharoes and others whose remains were exhibited and so on. Maybe even Death deity. And from Commons, we could use an image to illustrate. And relevant WikiProjects, categories, maybe a nice historiographical text on Wikisource. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for support Fæ. Getting some advice from someone is always helpful :). Gleb (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A little help

I wanted to add this picture to this article. Picture seems to be copyright-free. I just wanted a little help uploading it properly, so it doesn't get removed. Thanks for your help so far. Gleb (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this photo is 'all rights reserved' so would not be suitable. I'll add some standard help about photo uploading to your talk page for you to browse through though. Cheers Fæ (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Black Stone Violin

Dear Fæ.. This is Lars Widenfalk, Poderedellaluna, who's writing. I'v tryed to make my text(Blackbird. The Black stone violin) a little more encyclopedic and placed it in Village pump, proposals.. and requests for feedback.. Silence! Can U please give me a hint how to proceed?What about photos? where to place them? Regards Lars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poderedellaluna (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• User:Poderedellaluna/Blackbird. The Black Stone Violin

Hi, I have taken another quick look and tweaked the format a little. My opinion is that this would fail the criteria of WP:GNG for notability and still reads as highly promotional rather than encyclopaedic. For notability of an artistic creation to be notable enough for an article, there would need to be significant impact demonstrated in independently published sources and I do not believe that everything mentioned in Ripley's Believe It or Not is notable in the sense intended on Wikipedia. It may be easier to justify an article for yourself as an artist rather than one creation if there were sufficient independent sources. I am sorry that your request on RFF had no replies, it may be worth posting a note there for a second time. Fæ (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A list of kwik questions ...

• Was this ever published? (I don't read as much as I should)

  No, I thought that Charles would pick it up but now I think he might have expected me to paste it into his newsletter - we probably should use it somewhere else, such as Rock Drum's GLAM newsletter.

• I have also written a think piece .... any comments on this?

  I like it, perhaps you might consider focusing it into an Wikipedia essay though it could easily be bundled in with the Outreach case study or project briefing note. The technical side could do with some thought from someone like Tom Morris, not sure if he has spent any more time on the QR code solution yet. I am still considering our lack of published papers from these events, and maybe our curator and academic collaborators would like to add their name to a short briefing paper for the Journal of the Society of Archivists or similar?

• Do you know how we can get a list of Derby articles and how many we have that are starts, stubs, Cs etc. This is the classic Quality v. Size table for a Wikiproject.... I can't spot how to do it.

  This is tricky and means ensuring that the associated WikiProject categories are sorted out. I fluffed this up previously and we could do with a projects wizard to sort it out. Perhaps Rock Drum might know more, if not we could got somewhere like the History project team to fish for an expert? I know that the tool to set it up automatically takes sysop privilege to use and that's why I was not able to sort it out myself before (presumably as you can cause a giant mess very quickly).

• I would like to ask you whether you would be prepared to give a talk on April 9th targetted at the non wikipedians. Title may be How is Wikipedia different from a museum". (I am trying to get wikipedians, curators AND local historian types.) Is that OK? Victuallers (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

  Ah, when I said I was flattered, that meant that I was not coming along - it's a bit tight with other activities and the 6 hour round trip from the wrong side of London is a bit of a hike; sorry about that as it would have been a fun day. Fæ (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In reply to your mentions of me: I'd be happy for that article on the WMUK wiki to appear in the newsletter, although you may want to update it a bit to be more relevant (eg. there are now two Wikipedians-in-residence active: Indianapolis and France). About the assesment table, I can't help you there. Mike sorted that out for the BL project (I just did the pages - all the complicated stuff with the assessment makes my brain hurt fO_O). Regards, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 17:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to set aside 3 days and a box of painkillers to understand how Mike does this stuff. Fæ (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Camberwell Public Baths

There is a thread involving a matter with which you may be involved at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Camberwell Public Baths. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Intercontinental Church of God

The Intercontinental Church of God article under discussion:

The contents of this article have been transferred to the article entitled: 'Church of God International (USA)' JoVaM. 10.03.2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoVaM (talk • contribs) 11:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The article: The Intercontinental Church of God is currently under discussion:

The contents of this article have been transferred to the article Church of God International (USA). JoVaM, 10.03.2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoVaM (talk • contribs) 11:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have no objection to the article becoming a redirect, at the moment it seems to fail WP:CFORK. Fæ (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Parenting websites

That article on a parenting website which you tagged for speedy deletion a few minutes ago - it was much too spammish in tone, yes, but it did assert notability. I've cleaned it up.

Thanks just the same. DS (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did take a browse through but nothing jumped out at me that it seemed notable, a G11 would have been a better choice though. Looking again, I can see "Supersavvyme also has frequent celebrity contributors including journalist and TV presenter Lowri Turner[7], financial journalist and founder of SavvyWoman.co.uk, Sarah Pennells and style writer and author Mimi Spencer." which I admit to overlooking the first time and I agree is sufficient to make A7 not fly. Thanks for picking me up on that one. Fæ (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Plus they're owned by megacorp Proctor and Gamble. DS (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

True, however at the time I flagged it, the wording was "P&G’s supersavvyme" so it didn't make an impression on me and I'm not sure I would agree that everything a large notable corporation owns is itself automatically notable though it may give you pause. However I put my hands up to this one, and confess I could have picked a better tag and taken a second look at the links embedded in the first version, I'll try harder to get them spot on all the time. Fæ (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Note, I've taken the article off my watchlist but it seems evident that the creator has chosen a name that indicates a conflict of interest with the website. I don't want them to feel pursued by raising another user-warning but you may want to advise them of the CHU process. Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

nice to meet you Fæ thank you so much please help me. because I don't understand wikipedia style...