User talk:Ian Rose

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

Archives: 2006 * Jan-Jun 2007 * Jul-Dec 2007 * Jan-Jun 2008 * Jul-Dec 2008 * Jan-Jun 2009 * Jul-Dec 2009 * Jan-Jun 2010 * Jul-Dec 2010 * Jan-Jun 2011 * Jul-Dec 2011 * Jan-Jun 2012 * Jul-Dec 2012 * Jan-Jun 2013 * Jul-Dec 2013 * Jan-Jun 2014 * Jul-Dec 2014 * Jan-Jun 2015 * Jul-Dec 2015

2016 year of the reader and peace

2016

peace bell

Thank you for for all you do for FA, - thanks with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! Click on "bell" for celebratory music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, I look forward to more of your music articles in 2016! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

On their way, women in music right now, TFA for Easter in the planning, GA right now. I am proud to have an article among the DYK for the 15th (had one for the 10th already), - sad reason that the subject died. Thanks (in prose) for the TFA No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF, - flying and training are also good mottos ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

More thanks in prose for No. 77 Squadron RAAF "one of the most famous units in RAAF history, mainly for the way it single-handedly carried out the service's air combat commitment to the Korean War", but not to forget much more! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Tks Gerda, your good wishes for TFAs are always appreciated! cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Here comes the next: John Balmer. I also had a TFA on 3 July because of a birthday once, Wikipedia:Main Page history/2013 July 3, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be on TFA wings, No. 90 Wing RAAF, thank you! (My next one on Saturday, and writing BWV 161, informal look welcome.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

16 July 2016

Thank you for the promotion! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

... and for someone with your given name, Ian Dougald McLachlan! - For simple peace, and also, - needed after the shock of the Munich shootings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

... and for Alexander Pentland! - Did you see yesterday's, a composer with an infobox? I should have signed it 10 August. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You are on TFA wings ;) today No. 91 Wing RAAF, thank you! I had the sweet hour of death yesterday, thank you for watching over it. - What can we do about the "reader and peace idea"? Precious people left, and I can't see more than the little difference between this and this, which I fail to see as a reason for so much emotion, activity and lack of good faith. The calling of group names gave way to using just my name as the source of all that evil. I had happy real life to do all summer long until last week and would not even have had the time to concoct and run a conspiracy, and I had no time for defense. Strange war that is. For your amusement (in case you don't know): my first infobox discussion is still on a talk, I was against it (took me half a year to arrive at serving the "idiots" also) ;) - Wish we could have peaceful conversations like that now! - The bell tolled for death more than for peace this year, sadly, but a recent memorial concert for which I had an idea I found a bit crazy myself, but they liked it and realized it, was three great hours of some of the greatest music ever written! "Draw the trace of your life with a smile." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

More wings: James Rowland (RAAF officer), thank you! Together with an image I took, of OREYA singing. They introduced me to Barber's Agnus Dei in 2009 (which we dared to sing the following year, difficult but rewarding). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 1 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 1 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Oct - Dec 15 Quarterly Article Reviews

		Military history service award
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 1 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period October to December 2015. Thank you for your efforts! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Tks Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited No. 4 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamworth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

1969 and 1973 versions of Space Oddity

Give me your contact details and I will send you the 1969 and 1973 versions of Space Oddity. What you are doing is crazy because the 1969 version is from Bowie's first album and doesn't sound anything like the 1973 version that today would be known as a remix. If you cannot provide contact details then buy the album "Space Oddity". In fact, I think that both versions 1969 and 1973 were released on one of the Bowie compilation albums. But your removing that information is crazy. Dickie birdie (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked for a written reference in Google books and it does not exist in print. When the 1973 version was released it was never promoted as a re-recording because I was collecting Bowie's singles during the 1970s in my mid-20s. I only found out about it when I bought the album "Space Oddity". What are you going to do --- remove the information again because it does not appear anywhere in print and mislead people? Dickie birdie (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Space Oddity Original Version - From Amazon

The original version can be bought and downloaded from Amazon, here [ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000WLNVO4?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0]. The 1969 version is 3:46 long. The 1973 re-recorded version is 5:14 long. Dickie birdie (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dickie, it looks to me like you condemn yourself out of your own mouth -- the track available from Amazon appears to be a demo version of the song recorded for the Love You Til Tuesday film, not the original single release from 1969 produced by Gus Dudgeon, which also appeared on the 1969 David Bowie album and was reissued in 1973 and 1975. This is precisely why WP works by reliable sources, not anecdotal information. As well as ignoring that guideline, you've also failed to observe BRD, whereby you should Discuss after your Bold edit has been Reverted, not simply keep adding the same material over again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I made a mistake. But see message below, I have clarified what caused the confusion. Dickie birdie (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Space Oddity - Solved

I have corrected the article after checking the David Bowie material uploaded on YouTube that gave the following:

1969 promotional film [[1]] and David Bowie - Space Oddity (Full Album 1969) [[2]]. Again, need to listen exclusively to the songs because what exists in print does not clarify the fact that these are 2 different songs. Dickie birdie (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, the song was re-released at different times during the 1970s in different countries. Full details are given here. [[

http://rateyourmusic.com/release/single/david_bowie/space_oddity___changes___velvet_goldmine_f2/]] Dickie birdie (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

FAC nominations

Hi Ian, I hope all is well, and a slightly belated happy new year to you. I've just posted this on Graham's page, but seen he is on a Wikibreak. As you will probably have seen, Tim riley and I have co-nominated Albert Ketèlbey‎ at FAC: although only five days old, it has five supports and one set of open comments which (I think) we've dealt with fully. I also have Isabella Beeton ready to go into the FAC process as a sole nominator. Are you happy if I nominate Beeton now, or would you rather I leave it for a little longer to see if any other large blocks of comment and criticism come along? There is no rush on putting Beeton up for FAC and I'm entirely happy to be guided by your thoughts on this. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

HNY to you too Gav -- based on past performance and the current comments I doubt they'll be any issue with Ketelbey, but perhaps if we leave a new nomination till I clear a few around the end of the week since the list is on the long side right now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ian, Not a problem at all - I'll give Beeton another couple of read throughs and a ce in the meantime to lessen the pain of the FAC! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

ANZAC

So, I've found what's apparently quite an iconic photo in New Zealand of the Maori Battalion. Thinking it would be a good ANZAC day FP, if I get it done in time, and that'd probably be different enough to get an Australian FA in the article list. Sound good? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds very good! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bowie

If in arguing against BOLD you would "suggest discussion/consensus before any further change" then, by all means, jump right in. The "accepted for quite some time" image sucks even harder. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well obviously I disagree with that last sentiment but I welcome further discussion on it and have now found time to have my say at the talk page... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

My edit changes the assertion that people "have forgotten how to reproduce".People CANNOT forget how to reproduce. What has been lost in the post-apocalypse is the (as I stated) the notion of courtship. The ravers are watching romantic films, not pornography, with naive ideas of awkwardly shrugging, putting one's arms around someone, turning off lights, uncertainty, and love. Please revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spycoops (talk • contribs) 02:22, 24 May 2016

As I said at the article talk page (where this discussion belongs), your interpretation isn't supported by the cited source; if you have a source that says something different to what's there, you can always add it as an alternative interpretation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for No. 1 Initial Flying Training School RAAF

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 4 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF

The article No. 4 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 4 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

File:AshesToAshes3.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AshesToAshes3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum

Although my own FAC, I request it be closed because it's been open for long. I don't care whether its a pass or fail, but based on the number of supports and opposes, you may close it. If the final outcome is "archived", please note what FA criteria was left unsolved. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I'd like to think we can resolve it one way or the other, and have left a note at the FAC page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Doubt

Hi, Ian. Why Juan Manuel de Rosas hasn't been promoted to FA? The nomination is three months old. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Things do get slow around Xmas / New Year; in this particular case though, has anyone conducted the source review I mentioned a while back? If not best put a note at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Ian. I didn't know we could ask for a review. I just did that. Have a great day, --Lecen (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

We're done with the source review! --Lecen (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Useful resource

I just spotted that this newish RAAF publication has the first comprehensive order of battle for the force I've seen in years - including several new entries for List of Royal Australian Air Force wings! Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Great stuff, ammunition with which to revisit/verify all the current wing articles -- tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It also looks useful for all the new/renamed squadrons Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

help needed

dear mr rose, can you help us reach a conclusion on this long debate going on about freemasonry's goals please? [3] thank you much Grandia01 (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Jefferson Davis; Hawkeye7 on Australia's war in Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses British World War I conscription Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/February 2016/Articles

You might need to clean it up a little, but the FPs are done.

The only note is that I've presumed "Your Motherland Will Never Forget" will pass - It has five supports (a quorum) and no opposes, so it's almost certainly going to. There's nothing else that can pass in time to matter for January. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 4 Service Flying Training School RAAF

The article No. 4 Service Flying Training School RAAF 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:No. 4 Service Flying Training School RAAF for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peripitus -- Peripitus (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for No. 1 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 8 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF

The article No. 8 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 8 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Some advice on FAC

Hey mate. I've began restoring "All I Want for Christmas Is You" to its former GA quality, and have been expanding it further to possibly nominate. I have only one concern, which is if you look at the bottom of the article, there's a long list section of celebrities, singers etc. that have covered the song over the years (live and on record). Mind you when I wrote this thing over 6 years ago, it was written out in text in a few paragraphs like "During a 1998 holiday appearance on TODAY, Shania Twain sang an acoustic version. the song was included on ""s" album in 2002" etc. it's repetitive and is gonna be a stumbling block either way. The list is pretty long lol. How do you suggest I present that section to the FAC process? Cheers bro. Ps. Maybe create a new article list page and expand on all the covers and be able to alleviate that messy burden off the main article--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 19:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'm afraid I'm not up on the preferred layout for covers lists (FAC would usually defer to the song project's standards for such things, or you could check some recently promoted song FAs) but at the very least it passes the test of everything being cited (though I haven't checked the reliability of the sources). One thing on a quick scan of the article, I couldn't see a review/rating table, which seems to be standard for song and album articles, usually in the Critical Reception section from memory. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas White (Australian politician)

The article Thomas White (Australian politician) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thomas White (Australian politician) 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for No. 4 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Prashant/Krish!

You, Cassianto and SchroCat may remember this editor from the Indian FACs such as Priyanka Chopra and her filmography I think and remember that he behaved extremely childishly and demonstrated basically that he didn't have the mentality for FAC or wikipedia in general. Years down the line, he continues to display absolutely no indication that he's growing up, and still acts the same way. Again his edit warring with Krimuk90 has resulted in Krimuk requesting an indefinite block for himself in frustration. This comment too in which he calls my fair attempt to mediate the situation at Talk:Shahid Kapoor "an outburst", blaming me for it all basically, which I also find most infuritating. What should we do about him? IMO he's demonstrated on enough occasions that he lacks the maturity to edit here and frequently clashes with other editors. I don't know what he's been contributing of late but overall to me it seems he's outstayed his welcome here as time and time again he demonstrates that he just can't discuss things maturely and interact with people. As you might remember he takes the smallest things personally, such as failing to respond to a review request within 48 hours. I've really had enough of him, and however much I think Krimuk90 overreacted with him, I do understand how infuriating this Prashant can really be. Do we think his overall contribution to the project is more valuable than his frequent clashes with people?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Prashant, should be blocked for a substantial amount of time until he learns how to behave in a mature way. I've never liked him, and have found him to be more of a hindrance to the project than an asset. Unfortunately, he is not the only one; Caden, who some of you will know for being my number 1 troll, echoes many of the hallmarks that Prashant possesses. And Caden has been allowed to pray continue for months now. Cassianto^Talk 14:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, Caden. The commenting against in discussions for the sake of it, whether or not he really cares about the issue or not. Just read the tone of Prashant's message here though, you can tell from that alone the immaturity in his thinking.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Blofeld I didn't say your outburST. I meant Krimuk's outburst, so correct yourself. And, I was discussing as per the guidance of Wikipedia and Krimuk over-reacted. Plus Kailash called me a "LUNATIC", which is against wikipedia guidelines. I just reminded him that has was bad mouthing about me since a long time. I don't know why people are misinterpreting everything in which there was not my fault. Any answers Blofeld?Krish | Talk 15:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You said "The discussion on Shahid Kapoor was started by Dr. Blofeld and everything was going smooth until his outburst to what he thought was right." Clearly you're referring to me as Krimuk didn't give an outburst on what he thought was right.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What I meant to say to Kailash (he was calling me a lunatic, Vensatry warned him not to) that whatever Krimuk dis was not my fault but Krimuk's own fault. Dr. Blofeld started the discussion and everything was going smooth (me and you had discussed the need of that claim in two separate relies), until his outburts (Krimuk's): "I'm not interested in editing this article anymore. I'm sure Mr. Krish can do a much better job at this than a fucking retard like me! Good luck.". I never meant for you. Why I would in first place because you and I had a smooth discussion. I think my text was confusing so you thought I was referring to you.Krish | Talk 15:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The question is, does Prashant's work on here override the negative aspect of his personality and inability to interact with others without conflict or taking things personally?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it does not. I have been following his interraction all throughout his time here in Wikipedia, and it has never changed, rather I would say it has worsened. Previously it was just childish, now it has borderline become intolerable. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 23:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Advertising an FA source request on a WikiProject talk page

Hi Ian, I asked this over on the nomination page for Black American Sign Language but haven't gotten a response from Laser Brain (and just assuming they're busy). Anyway, my request for a source audit has been sitting for about a month (probably because they're mostly offline sources on a specialized topic) and want to know what the general feeling about asking for input at WikiProject talk pages is. Thanks, Wugapodes (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Pls feel free to ask there, tks for checking. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: The Man Who Sold the World

I've opened an RfC regarding your concern --> Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)#RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover? Dan56 (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

FA review

Hey Ian, can you review Ride the Lightning for an FA on its nomination page? The image and source reviews are done so far, but I haven't received a prose review yet. I think it won't take you much time to read it. All the best.--Retrohead (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Tks for asking -- I can't guarantee I'll find the time to do it but if I can I will. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Nom rq

Hex Enduction Hour‎ has been hovering at the end of the pile, this last week waiting for a source review now supplied by Wehwalt, with demands met. Can I go again please basically; I want to get in tonight so I have tomorrow and monday to respond to first comments, should I be so lucky. Until Friday I'm really stretched with RL job stuff. Article is Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin. Ceoil (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, I expect I'll be closing Hex and others this morning (Sydney time) anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Photo requests in Sydney

Hi! Do you do photo requests in Sydney? There are some articles on Wikipedia about Sydney schools that need pictures.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I'll have much time to oblige for a while but if you let me know some specifics I'll keep them in mind... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok! I have two in Terrey Hills, one in Maroubra, and one in Meadowbank

• Lycée Condorcet - 758 Anzac Parade, Maroubra, NSW 2035 AUSTRALIA
• German International School Sydney - 33 Myoora Road Terrey Hills NSW 2084
• Sydney Japanese International School - 112 Booralie Road, Terrey Hills, NSW 2084 Australia
• Italian Bilingual School (no Wikipedia article yet) - 30-32 See St, Meadowbank, 2114. - Map

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid I don't get to Terrey Hills much but Maroubra and/or Meadowbank are certainly possibilities -- will let you know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Dammit...I just drove past that place in Maroubra....will be working there next week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Bugle subscription

Hi, Ian. I know you're a busy man but next you update Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News as you do often, please also update {{Bugle-subscription}}. There's a comment in the former to update the latter and that code is meant for editors like you. The ed17 made the Bugle subscription template and although I'm probably the only user, your actions aren't encouraging wider use. Thanks for what you do. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this was a colder message than it needed to be, Chris. A simple request might get a better response. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought this was a "simple request". I actually made the verbiage nicer than my initial thoughts which I guess goes to the disconnect I'm feeling with humanity as a whole. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It could have just been me? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well there you go, that comment never registered with me for some reason -- surprised no-one mentioned it before. Anyway, noted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Grammar question

Do you think some readers will take "In the Battle of Greece, he became the only Australian general to face the Waffen SS in battle" to mean "He was the only Australian general to face the Waffen SS in the Battle of Greece"? I think it's possible, but I'm not sure. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I recall that the previous wording included "ever" to emphasise "only" but I felt that wasn't necessary (like "best ever" instead of simply "best"). I reckon it's clear that the key part of the sentence is that he was the only Australian general to face the Waffen SS, and the opening clause simply gives the context, i.e. in which battle this unique confrontation took place. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas White (Australian politician)

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Page ranges

I feel like a bit of a doofus, but can you point me to the policy on page ranges in citations? ie is it 181–182 or 181–82? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Never feel that way about WP policy... ;-) Seriously, I can't point you to a guideline, but I'm quite sure that either format is acceptable provided consistency is maintained within the article. I always use 181–182 and have never had it questioned in reviews, but I often see 181–82 in FAs that I'm monitoring and similarly there seems to be no issue as long as it's consistent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, I have a feeling it has been organic in the past, but someone keeps changing it in articles I watchlist, so I've suddenly become aware of it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If someone arbitrarily changes the established format within an article then it might come under WP:CITEVAR, meaning consensus should be sought for the blanket change since there's no simple right-or-wrong answer regards the style... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)... I've even seen ranges omit the "p." and "pp." so it looks like this "Bloggs, 87." My preferred style, like Ian, is the full page range. Cassianto^Talk 09:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

C/e on RTL

Thanks for the work so far on the album Ian, I really appreciate it. If you can find some free time and check the other sections it would be awesome. I'll understand if you're busy.--Retrohead (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

King Kong Plot

So I noticed that you reverted my edit on the plot for the 2005 remake of King Kong. Just thought I'd let you know that I replied to your comment in the article's talk page that explains the whole thing. You might want to check it out.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Mohanlal filmography

Hi Rose, I have nominated this list to FLC. Can you help with that. --Inside the Valley (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Australian Air Defence Areas

Presumably you are intending to delete the article not the talk page.--Grahame (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Heh, yes, I got a big message in red on the talk page when I saved -- sorry you got that spurious notification. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppenheimer image

Must we employ the same image used in the J. Robert Oppenheimer infobox for the sake of the 'looking inwards' guideline (not policy AFAIK) when we already had a good-quality image that was judged acceptable at FAC?
Certainly not. I regarded the change as an improvement, but I don't believe that it "must" be carried out (and while my reasoning is described in the aforementioned guideline, I didn't perform the edit for the sake of compliance therewith.)
Suggest get consensus first...
Fair enough. However, if your main concern is image variety, you might consider self-reverting for the remainder of the day (given that the current photograph accompanies the main page blurb, which most of today's readers will see first.) Your call. —David Levy 05:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the above, David. I'm kind of used to blurb images being from the article (though I know that's not required and wouldn't try to enforce it for its own sake) so when I said I liked the variety of images I was thinking of between this article and the dedicated Oppie article, rather than between the mainpage and article images for the hearing page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ivor McIntyre

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ivor McIntyre 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 4 Operational Training Unit RAAF

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 4 Operational Training Unit RAAF 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If you don't mind.

I'd like to put The Phantom Tollbooth up even though Huguenot-Walloon half dollar remains pending. Although there's an editor who started a review but did not return to it, aside from that I see no impediment to promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead -- wasn't sure anyone had checked source formatting but I had a quick look at that myself so I don't think there's anything standing in the way; I'll probably do a closure run later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I took the last line of Ceoil's review as a source review. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

FAC ...

"FAC has a specific policy that there are a limited set of people whose opinions matter regarding NFCC." I was not aware of any such policy at FAC? Have I been out of touch that long? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Heh, not that I know of -- responded accordingly at the nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ivor McIntyre

The article Ivor McIntyre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ivor McIntyre 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 4 Operational Training Unit RAAF

The article No. 4 Operational Training Unit RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 4 Operational Training Unit RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Reg

Hey Ian, I noticed that your latest nom isn't on the FAC page. I would do it for you but I wasn't sure if you were holding off for some reason. --Laser brain (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Just an oversight actually -- must've got distracted after penning the nom -- slotted it in now, tks Andy! Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Your close at Austen

The late Wadewitz plan for the featured article for Austen was based on the FA for Chekhov and not the FA for Ian Flemming. If you meant to endorse the opposition stated against using the FA model for Chekhov in the Austen article, then this would bring to an end the late Wadewitz plan for the form of the article to be based upon the Chekhov FA approach if that was your intention to replace and restructure the article toward the Ian Flemming form of a featured article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not sure how picking up on a reviewer's comment about the format of recent author FAs by offering a specific example (and only an example -- as I said, there are probably others) that includes a style and themes section should constitute some sort of assault on Wadewitz's vision. I think she would recognize that things might have progressed since Chekhov attained FA status way back in 2007 and that perhaps there's scope to build on its format. I suggest you re-read the commentary at the FAC and consider it in terms of good faith attempts to help you improve the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Certainly in good faith, and I have read all the comments along with the separate FA article which Wadewitz wrote on the Austen Legacy at Reception history of Jane Austen. In the spirit of Wadewitz, she realized that the extensive legacy of Austen could perhaps be more effectively served by writing it as a separate sibling article first. In case you did not know, she did successfully bring the Austen legacy article to FA status (it is a fine article) and sadly passed away before being able to complete her plan to bring the Biography article to FA status on the model of the Chekhov article. It is my high regard for the quality of the FA article of the Austen Legacy that draws me to this point of giving her ideas for Austen a full assessment. If you did not know of the Reception history of Jane Austen Legacy article then its well-worth a read. Wadewitz realized that the very large size of the Legacy article made it impractical to include in the Biography article. She took the sibling article approach out of her love of Austen in the best sense of improving her Biography article. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

FRWL

Hi Ian, Many thanks for your comments and edits on From Russia, with Love. As you've probably spotted, it's now at FAC should you have any further comments to make. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

January to March 2016 Quarterly Article Reviews

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 13 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period January to March 2016. Thank you for your efforts! Anotherclown (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Ian, I think you might have missed my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Newsroom#April edition :) Could you please handle that? (obviously OK if you don't have time until the weekend though! - neither do I). Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nick, should be all done now but if you get a chance to check first thing Saturday, pls feel free, as I'll be aiming to despatch mid-morning. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, that looks good to go. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn FAC

Ian, FYI [4]. Graham Beards (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 17, 2016

I'll start work on this one today. You nominated the article at WP:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi mate, I spent a fair bit of time finetuning the blurb during its TFAR nom and would prefer to leave as is, but it is admittedly a little bit longer than the preferred length of 1150. I suppose if I had to lose something then "Born in the Riverina district of New South Wales" could go, I just happen to like the name "Riverina" so I enjoy seeing it displayed prominently...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure ... I'm happy to defer for any number of reasons, but I don't need to defer in this case because it's already perfect ... except for the post-nominals. (Two reasons: the broader Main Page readership, and I never repeat information unless necessary.) Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

God, that was complete oversight on my part... I know full well we don't use post-noms in TFA blurbs, I'd just forgotten when I did this one -- tks for that, it cuts a few more characters too... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious again, your "country boy who became a World War II bomber pilot, ... managed to get out of all manner of scrapes in the air war over Europe, survive the conflict, and play a part in the post-war RAAF, but still died quite young"!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Northern Command (RAAF)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Northern Command (RAAF) 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Northern Command (RAAF)

The article Northern Command (RAAF) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Northern Command (RAAF) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

a question

Hey. I'm working on a project. It will take months to finish; it is still in the initial stages after months of work. I have downloaded & read scores (not kidding) of journal articles etc. The topic could very certainly be dealt with in a surface, dramatic way. But I keep digging and digging and digging, and in the end (if I do it right & well), I'm practically gonna end up writing a deep textbook-level analysis. So... in the end, will reviewers be put off by talk of semi-feudalism, subinfeudation, Anglo-Indian legal system, Ricardian rent, etc etc etc?Tks  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes ;-)

The trick with that kind of article is to make it understandable for someone who is not an expert in that topic area, since this is meant as a general-audience encyclopedia. If you can do that, you'll get a lot more reviewer interest than if it's ultradense and a slog to read through. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. :-) The thought just suddenly struck me like lightning, as I looked at Nikkimaria's reply, that the densest bit is in the Background section.... explaining why India never had an agricultural revolution, why there were so many millions of people whose lives hovered at or near the starvation level even in the best of times. In theory, that discussion could (and.. a purist might even say "should") be moved to History of agriculture in the Indian subcontinent#Colonial British Era (1757–1947 CE), and put a {{Main}} atop the Background section of the famine article. But that article sucks sucks sucks. It has had 50 (count them, 50) edits in its entire lifetime. I dread walking into that morass... BUT... the 2 million deaths discussed in the famine article are not done justice unless the agricultural history is laid out. Argh. Super argh.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

File:FlyingOfficerDavidEvans1948.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FlyingOfficerDavidEvans1948.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

William Brill (RAAF officer)

Thank you for writing the nice article on William Brill (RAAF officer). Extremely well done! --♥Golf (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I think though that the edit re. the military panel wasn't really an improvement so as the article's still on the front page I've gone the BRD route and hope that if you disagree with the reasoning I've given in the edit summary then we can discuss further on the talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 3, 2016

And here's another one. Feel free to do the TFA summary if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2

Sorry, I didn't read the edit history. I was under the impression that Australia is like Britain when it comes to the definite article. Thanks for educating me! Yoninah (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It probably is, most of the time, but the military has its own ways. I mean you might get away with "the 1st Brigade", but not "the No. 1 Brigade", for instance... ;-) Anyway, tks so much for changing it back promptly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Northern Command (RAAF)

On 22 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Northern Command (RAAF), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that RAAF Northern Command was going to be an area, then became a command, then became an area, and then became nothing at all? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Northern Command (RAAF). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Northern Command (RAAF)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe

The writing of this biography is sexist and I am surprised you felt it necessary to keep it that way. Okay improve what I wrote fine, I just think to assume blondes are thick is particularly offensive. It is written that way and I personally think it needs improving to remove the negative male approach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrypinkwoman (talk • contribs) 13:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Saying that Monroe played dumb blondes is not the same as saying all blondes are dumb, and reporting that Monroe was famous for playing a sexist stereotype is not in itself sexist. The article has had several reviews, the latest resulting in its Featured status, and while that status doesn't mean it can't be improved further, I think you should consider whether your edits are improving its prose while accurately reflecting mainstream sources, or are instead attempting to right great wrongs. In any case, the best place to discuss it would be the article talk page, where more eyes are likely to see any concerns and weigh in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Bugle

I started work a little late on my MILHIST images for this month (I'm trying to get at least two a month), and it looks like only Birney will actually pass this month, but McCallum (presuming it reaches quorum - it's at 3 out of the required five supports at the moment; see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Daniel McCallum) should pass on 1 June, and I could easily put him into this month. Should I?

For next month, I've found a treasure trove of notable Meiji-era Japanese photos, see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/乃木希典 for an example. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add McCallum. Encourages me to do more MILHIST stuff in June. Checked and found a couple reasonably MILHIST-y other FPs, so added them =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Tks for note, Adam. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries! Anyway, that's my part of next month's Bugle done. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

A yes for No?

Hi Ian, You have previously been good enough to review one of the previous Bond novels; I have recently filed Dr No, Fleming's sixth Bond novel, at PR for further consideration. If you have the time or inclination, I'd be grateful for any comments you may have. No rush and no compunction at all, obviously. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Another of my fave Bond novels, will certainly drop by PR if I have time, otherwise I'll see it at FAC and comment there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey

1999 had to be the year the movie picked up right after the Dawn of Man scene. With 2001, the title, being the year the odyssey itself actually occurs. Eighteen months before 2001 had to be sometime in 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzzer (talk • contribs) 03:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"Had to be" is original research, no matter how obvious it may seem to you (or me for that matter). Since we don't generally cite information in a plot summary, it's always best to relate only what is explicitly stated or clearly shown in the film itself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of RAAF Transport Flight (Japan)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article RAAF Transport Flight (Japan) 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

engvar B

I hope the command article engvar change wasnt an affront to great articles - it was something that when I see an obvious au being stated as a B - I tend to get stroppy in my edit summaries - nothing personal - they are indeed good articles !! JarrahTree 07:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and no offence taken -- admittedly I tend to be a bit less concerned with the diff between BritEng and AusEng than that between either of those and AmEng, but at the same time I can't think why offhand I had BritEng instead of AusEng in these. Thanks for your diligence! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

np - maybe some high edit awb usual suspects were applying brit eng for a lot of oz arts until very recently JarrahTree 07:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for RAAF Transport Flight (Japan)

On 7 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article RAAF Transport Flight (Japan), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when RAAF Transport Flight (Japan)'s last C-47 departed Iwakuni in 1956, it left ground staff and Flight Lieutenant Raleigh, a small dog who liked flying and had been at the base since 1945? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/RAAF Transport Flight (Japan). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, RAAF Transport Flight (Japan)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz

A community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, the review of which you commented on. The reassessment page can be found here, if you would like to comment on whether the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Blue circles with A in the middle

On the top of your userpage you have given links to articles with symbols. I have seen other userpages where they keep these links. I know that the brown star symbol links to featured article. The Green circle with + sign in the middle links to good articles. But the blue circles also link to good articles. Then why are they different from green circles? X-Men XtremE 15:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, that symbol means the article has been assessed as "A-Class". The A-Class assessment system is not Wiki-wide like the FA and GA assessments, but is run by individual Wikiprojects, like the Military History project, the Roads project, and so on. Not all Wikiprojects employ the A-class review system, so it kind of runs parallel to the GA system (although A-Class assessment has higher standards than GA, particularly regarding depth of coverage). The upshot is that an article can be both GA and A-Class simultaneously, but both are trumped by FA. Hope this helps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

FAC and citation styles

Hi Ian; I'm contacting you in your capacity as FAC coordinator with a rather tedious issue (also tagging Laser brain for the sake of completeness). A particular user with whom I have not previously had dealings has commented over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory/archive1 with some rather odd citation-related concerns. In addition, the user twice changed my citation style on the article without discussion (mine, theirs, the result is inconsistent) and repeatedly denied that they had done this (see my talk page). (There were, and probably still are, a variety of other issues; the page history and talk page discussion will illustrate some of them, but this is the particular problem) After a rather long, frustrating discussion, it became clear that the user in question literally didn't/doesn't know what a citation style is. (Two choice quotes from this user: "There are basically two kinds of citation styles: plain-text or template style. Changing from one to the requires consensus. One style should be used throughout." and "I have come to the conclusion that you do not understand that there are two basic ways to cite: (1) By template (2) By plain text".) I certainly don't want to drag you into the discussion, which I think both of us (for different reasons...) are now happy to abandon as a lost cause, but I have two comments/questions/concerns: First, I'm asking for permission to remove/strike the user's comments on the FAC page. Second, somewhat concerned about the fact that this user is making similar edits on other FA candidate articles and similar comments on other nomination pages, despite the pretty clear misunderstanding. I've tried to make clear the issues, but I'm not sure if they will be taken on board (this might be down to me; I'm no diplomat), and I'm stepping away from this now. As such, I just wanted to make my concerns known. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not normally the type of thing I'd think to get involved in as an FAC coordinator, but there is actually a pattern here that extends beyond your nomination. I've noted this user doing similar bot-assisted or semi-automated edits on quite a few nominations, and this isn't the first time I've seen them make mistakes that indicate they don't understand citation styles and the actions their tools/bots/scripts/etc are taking. The only reason I think it might fall under the remit of FAC coordination is because the activity seems focused on candidate pages. I'm interested in Ian's thoughts, and I need to spend a bit of time thinking about how to approach this. --Laser brain (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Tks Josh and Andy. I spent a bit of time after this was posted looking at relevant FAC and user talk pages. I've seen the user in question at many FACs, and in most cases hadn't noticed unusual concerns being raised, but as an editor I believe guidelines like CITEVAR should be respected. It also looks prima facie in this case that there's a fair bit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the user's part. Because the user doesn't seem to actively oppose noms based on citation style (not that I've seen anyway), I would normally expect this issue to be handled by BRD and, if necessary, admin action (I notice Ed has become involved at the article per BRD). OTOH I agree with Andy that FAC seems to be a magnet for them, we may need to weigh in at Josh's nom to try and reign things in a bit. In answer to Josh's specific request to strike the comments from the current FAC, at this stage I think leaving the comments and responding as FAC coords would be preferable, WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ed got involved on a different article; while I was trying to explain to the user the problematic nature of their edits, they started to deploy their scripts on another article linked to the one I have at FAC. The user was not happy that I reverted them, and left a template warning for edit warring after rolling back my edit. The user has also left further comments at the FAC page, so I'm not sure how sincere they were about disengaging. Again, I certainly don't want to drag you into anything, but I'm not particularly keen to engage with the user further at this time, on the FAC page or elsewhere. I'm happy with whatever actions you do/do not take; I'm glad that you are now aware of my concerns. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I see now that Checkingfax has again reverted me. While I suspect that you will not want to contribute to the thread (and I certainly don't expect you to), I have been forced to raise this at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Checkingfax. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Tks Josh, I don't usually visit AN/I but will try to keep an eye on it, as well as the FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Hi, Ian Rose, Laser brain and J Milburn. I have been very transparent in my edits and my motives. I edit in good faith. Laser brain said:

I've noted this user doing similar bot-assisted or semi-automated edits on quite a few nominations, and this isn't the first time I've seen them make mistakes that indicate they don't understand citation styles and the actions their tools/bots/scripts/etc are taking. The only reason I think it might fall under the remit of FAC coordination is because the activity seems focused on candidate pages. I'm interested in Ian's thoughts, and I need to spend a bit of time thinking about how to approach this. --Laser brain (talk) 4:57 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)

Laser brain: Please direct me to these cases for both of these points you reference that I have highlighted for your convenience. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, One edit I noticed is here, where you used a tool to make several changes to an article and ended up changing the Notes and References headings (an accepted and standard citation system) to References and Bibliography, which is incorrect and goes against the article editor's preferences. Your edit also added an extraneous "External Links" section which is not needed just to list portals. These edits indicate that you may not understand the capabilities of your tool, or may not understand citation styles. Either of those being the case, automated or semi-automated edits to FAC articles should cease. When I said the activity is focused on FAC, I meant that I have seen you participating on quite a few nomination pages. "Focused" was probably the wrong choice of words. --Laser brain (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I was about to leave a note on Checkingfax's page when I saw this. I'm also concerned about his involvement in FACs – making unwelcome changes, asking for things not in WP:WIAFA. It wastes time and upsets nominators. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Laser brain (with courtesy pings to SarahSV and J Milburn). Thank you for the Diff.

There was no good place to put the portals so I created the 2nd choice spot which is External links. The followup edit to delete that section and convert the portal box to a portal bar was an elegant solution and I concur with it. I will try to do that in the future. That is a manual edit by me. It is not suggested or implemented by any tool.

One point about portal bars: Many Wikipedia editors hate their appearance (I do not). In this instance, on this article, I think the portal bar is the best looking way to integrate a portal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkingfax (talk • contribs) 19:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The Notes section did not have any page numbers that I saw right off so to me it is a Bibliography. That was a manual edit by me. It is not suggested or implemented by any tool. I was not aware of the Wikipedia MoS for that. Please direct me to it so I can get it right. (e.g.- there is a Wikipedia MoS for section layout: MOS:LAYOUT).

You mention the "article editor's preferences" dictate section heading names. Where is this rule? I have never been afforded that level of ownership over an article. The ones I know about are overall datestyle and overall reference style. Those are not to be changed without general consensus.

I fully understand the capabilities of these Wikipedia tools and the need to check their output. They are not my tools. Issues with the tools should be taken up with the tool developers. When I see the tools causing trouble I report it and the developers adjust their tools.

I make a good faith effort to proof read after running tools by using the Changes button and the Preview button in the source code edit window. Sometimes they suggest changes that I do not completely agree with so I strike those manually. All in all, if I find something I do not care for I try to work with the developer to change it and if they agree with me they do.

I have my Wikipedia user Preferences set to enable wikEd Diff (wide Diff view) which integrates the view of changes so it is easier to see what the changes are.

Below that is the old style side by side Diff view and I check that too.

The edit summary is transparency to show which tools were run on the article and to attribute the tool developer for their assistance. It does not indicate which or if any edits were made by a tool. In this case, the changes by tool were minimal and the rest were done manually by me.

For instance, the date harmonizer was run, but no dates were changed. This means all dates were already in harmony and that can be checked off the to-do list.

I do not go to pages just to run tools. I run them as a helper to minimize repetitive tasks and to create harmony in the article and the underlying code while I am doing other refinements.

The only bot I run is the one that every Wikipedia editor has in their source code edit window. I still do a good faith proof reading of the changes to make sure I agree with them.

I manually fixed a couple of typos that I spotted.

I was expecting you to show me a Diff where some bad things were going on and I am relieved to know it is simple stuff.

To my knowledge I have never changed the citation style on any page on Wikipedia; at least not intentionally. Per WP:CITEVAR we are encouraged to improve citations and when I see opportunities for improvement I take action if I am so inclined and have the time.

I just checked the review page for the Mac Arthur page and Hawkeye7 did not express any umbrage with my edits, nor did he ever contact me about anything. I was pinged by Dank.

I hope my reply clears up some issues you have with my efforts to improve articles. I look forward to continuing this discussion so we can move forward collaboratively. Talk page stalkers are welcome to join in with constructive observations, suggestions, and criticisms. See you around the Wikis. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Reping J Milburn {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, I think the point of much of this discussion is eluding you. I accept that you have reasons behind all of your edits. However, I feel that various editors have been trying to convey to you that many matters of style boil down to personal preference. In those cases, it's just good manners to mind the preferences and prevailing style put in place by the principal editors at the page. This is especially important at a venue like FAC where nominators have put quite a bit of work into preparing the article and polishing it up. As SV pointed out above, making subjective and unwelcome changes to an article (at FAC or anywhere else) just wastes time and upsets those working on the page. I'd ask you to voluntarily stick to fixing clear, unambiguous errors and stop making subjective changes to articles at FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Laser brain (with courtesy pings to SarahSV and J Milburn). Thank you for another reply. Nothing is eluding me.

Who are these "various editors"?

Which styles are hallowed ground?

I was transparent and upfront in the edits I made.

SV has never pointed out any specific issues with my edits or suggestions.

I fix many unambiguous errors and while I am at it I do some polishing.

What are these "subjective changes"?

All my edits are made in good faith and to advance the project. If I make a mistake let me know so I won't make that mistake again. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, I'd suggest two things going forward. First, refrain from editing articles while they're at FAC. Or, if it's faster to show a change than to explain it, make the edit then revert yourself, or invite the nominator to revert you, perhaps in the edit summary. Second, read the featured-article criteria carefully and ask only for changes that comply with those criteria. I think if you were to follow those two suggestions, it would make your input at FAC more helpful. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, SlimVirgin. Thanks for that but you did not answer a single question I put forth.

Then, your first option is for me to butt out of FAC.

Since I have nominated an article at FAC I feel it is my obligation and duty to do some QPQ. Nobody has complained before; even got a few "thank yous". Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how you managed to extract "your first option is for me to butt out of FAC" from my comment above. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, SarahSV. Maybe I read too much into this: First, refrain from editing articles while they're at FAC.

Regardless, I do not think any other editors follow such a protocol. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 3, 2016

Hi, I'll start trimming this one later today. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer: my brain is fried from reading infobox debates, so I can't promise much until I recover, but it looks okay to me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, that looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 06:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Tks Dan, sorry to hear about the infobox debates, I must've missed the latest round somehow... ;-) BTW Brian, tks for selecting the article for TFA -- I've gone through it today to ensure all links are up to date, should be good to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The latest is done and waiting for my close, at WP:VPP#Closing. Getting up to speed on the history of the mess is giving me a headache, but someone's gotta do it. - Dank (push to talk) 06:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being the someone. It's not the typical infobox debate, - this Wikidata in+out. The typical was also closed, finally. (Can't help thinking how much more writing power could have gone into content if that harmless little box had stayed in place - where it was for 10 years - and just the debated nationality parameter had been removed.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course it goes both ways, Gerda -- think how much could've been saved if people weren't so wed to the little box that not all believe is useful in all articles... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel addressed. I add infoboxes to operas where they are welcome, and to people I care about, accepting a revert when it happens, then discuss, see Peter Maxwell Davies and Pierre Boulez. The pro-infobox-flashmob is a myth I don't like, - unsourced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It's very much sourced, Gerda. If you want to remind yourself as to why you are associated with this name then visit your contributions list over the last two weeks and you'll see behaviour indicative of someone who has a twisted obsession with Infoboxes. Cassianto^Talk 19:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

life is too short

I get associated with infobox, but how does that create a flash mob? I take "obsession" better than "morbid". My contributions today were mostly to the German Wikipedia. The image is on display there on the Main page, because someone translated an article I wrote, and I nominated it for their DYK equivalent. My contributions over the last two weeks were mostly compositions by Ketèlbey, music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imelda Marcos/archive3

Hi Ian, I've just posted a "strong oppose" review here which edit conflicted with your closure of the review. I've posted it after your comments as I wanted to get this on record, but please re-arrange if I've messed up the procedure! Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I never get tired of saying it -- great minds! I'm sure that review will be helpful and you've posted it before the bot went through so there should be no issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

TFA 10 July

User: EnigmaMcmxc, the nominator of the current FAC 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division, has asked about the possibility of reserving 10 July as a TFA date for this article, bearing in mind the centenary of the Somme and this unit's role in the battle. The article may well not be promoted before the required date, but if you or one of your MilHist colleagues are prepared to suggest a placeholder pro tem, I'll be happy to schedule that for the 10th, and to replace it should the 38th's promotion come in on time. Can you help here? Brianboulton (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure Brian, I could put up No. 90 Wing RAAF, which has the date connection but it's not a round-number anniversary so no worries if it gets replaced by the 38th. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian, I'll use this when I schedule next week. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Since this is a placeholder, I'll leave it alone for now. You're welcome to do the TFA, Ian. - Dank (push to talk) 21:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Tks Dan, the lead is small anyway (as befits a shortish article) so all I changed for the blurb was adding the exact day of formation to make the date connection clear and it comes to 829 chars by my calculation. The only word I was considering changing was "overarching" for "umbrella" (could also use "superior" but I think one of the former two might be better) -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:ITN has occasionally complained that they had to pull news articles if our column was too short, so my bargain with them is that I keep it a bit higher, generally between 1075 and 1175. Can you get to 1075? "Overarching" and "umbrella" both sound good to me. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Heh, I don't like adding detail for its own sake but I guess we have to keep ITN happy -- I'll leave it for a while just in case 38 Div gets promoted and it becomes academic... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/38th (Welsh) Infantry Division/archive1, it won't make it by the 10th. - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yup, will have a go at expanding the blurb in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of RAAF Transport Flight (Japan)

The article RAAF Transport Flight (Japan) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:RAAF Transport Flight (Japan) 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Military history A-Class medal with Diamonds
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Diamonds for your work on promoting North-Western Area Command (RAAF), Ragnar Garrett, and Eastern Area Command (RAAF) to A-class. Thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service

Please go ahead - I will hold off making any changes for now. Hammersfan (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your comment at the nom -- I probably can't return just at the moment but I'll see how I am for time later this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Rajinikanth filmography

Opened earlier this month, and only one user has posted comments (which have since been solved). If more editors don't comment on it, it may fail FLC. To avoid votestacking, I request you to alert more editors to post comments on its FLC page. Ditto for Kerala State Film Award for Best Actor. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Kailash29792: Ian Rose is an FAC delegate; even FLC delegates are not bound to do such things. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

ISBN

Hi Ian, Thanks for fixing the ISBN error in the Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service article - I'd checked the ISBN but couldn't figure out how to fix it, and was hoping someone else would know once it went live! Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

WWI directory and Bugle articles

Hi there. You may have already seen my note on the MilHist talk page, but I am sending this short note to the regular writers and the editors of The Bugle to point them to a WWI projects directory that I've started (in my userspace for now). Would you be able to look and see if there is anything you might be able to add or advice on what is most useful? You'll note that I've pulled together Tom's timeline articles (which are wonderful, along with the op-eds). Maybe a proper index on the archive page of The Bugle would be useful, plus links allowing readers to navigate through the series? I have also tried to list all the WWI-related book reviews (but only from 2012 onwards), so please feel free to add to or copy that somewhere as needed if not already listed somewhere else. (I also dropped off notes on Tom and Nick's talk pages) Carcharoth (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 37 Squadron RAAF

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 37 Squadron RAAF 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 75 Wing RAAF

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 75 Wing RAAF 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 37 Squadron RAAF

The article No. 37 Squadron RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 37 Squadron RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Timeline

Greetings Ian, I amended the Somme timeline to take out the French who weren't involved but I would add French captures south of Maricourt and on the south side of the Somme, such as the capture of the Flaucourt Plateau. Keith-264 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me -- Tom? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It's cool. @Keith-264: As an FYI, I take the information from the Timeline of World War I page, so if its there, it usually gets mentioned in the bugle. You may want to cross check the two just in case there is a discrepancy there as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Done; I was a bit puzzled because I thought you'd got it from the articles. French operations south of Maricourt aren't as well told in English but Philpott has done a lot to resurrect them. Even French books tend to use British writing as the framework, hence in the sections in the Somme articles about the Sixth and Tenth armies, the French don't seem to have named their battles. Shame I couldn't finish them all by 1 July but I've had so many health problems since last September, that I lost headway.Keith-264 (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 23, 2016

Another one of yours, Ian. Do you want to do the honors? - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed... Hope I'm (or rather the RAAF's) not getting too much exposure on the front page -- John Balmer on 3 July, No. 90 Wing RAAF on 10 July, Ian McLachlan on 23 July, and (assuming the nom I put in before McLachlan was chosen goes through), Jerry Pentland on 5 August -- you guys sure about all this...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

There's a big backlog on these Aussie articles, and I've been trying to push a few through in what was, until very recently, a rather quiet TFAR season. After Pentland we'll give you a break for a month or so. Brianboulton (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Heh, no prob. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Next one

I'm not sure when you're going to wade through the pile of the FAC for the Hawaii half dollar, so would you mind if I went ahead with the next one? I think everything's done with the Hawaii.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I did have a look at that one and it seemed to me that one support was only on sourcing, so I'd prefer to see someone else give the article a comprehensive review. It's certainly near the finish line, though, so given the list isn't huge right now I have no objections to you adding another. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 75 Wing RAAF

The article No. 75 Wing RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 75 Wing RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for No. 37 Squadron RAAF

On 15 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article No. 37 Squadron RAAF, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that No. 37 Squadron RAAF (C-130 Hercules pictured) transported the popemobiles on John Paul II's 1986 tour of Australia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No. 37 Squadron RAAF. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, No. 37 Squadron RAAF), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ping for an update?

Mind having a look at my entry at the bottom here? I'd like to keep this one moving. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Noted, tks, will return when I get time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Question on FA review process

Hi Ian. I see you're one of the FA coordinators. I just nominated Gospel of John for FA status. It's my first FA nomination, and I see there's a bit of a backlog, so I was just wondering about how long the typical turnaround time is before the review might be started. I'm not in any particular rush, just looking to know what to expect. Thanks! Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 06:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, if a FAC is particularly well-prepared, and well-patronised by reviewers, it can be promoted in less than two weeks. Generally it takes a good deal longer, at least a month -- there is in fact a discussion and some stats on the subject at the bottom of WT:FAC as we speak. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of No. 75 Wing RAAF

Hello! Your submission of No. 75 Wing RAAF at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 15:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A class reviews

If you have some time, consider having a look at the A class reviews of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service and Mark XIV bomb sight. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick Question about FAC

Hello, I have a quick question about the FAC process. I have placed the episode "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" as a featured article candidate near the beginning of the month. Unfortunately, it has not attracted any attention after being open for a couple of weeks, and I have a feeling it will be archived soon. I was wondering if you have any advice or suggestions on how to attract more attention to a featured article candidate. I have voted on a few featured article candidates as I thought that would help. I understand that there is not much that can be done, as it is really up to a user's preference and interest on whether or not a FAC gets attention, but I would appreciate any advice (especially since I am still relatively new to Wikipedia). Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner, Aoba. You'd think that episodes from popular TV shows would attract more attention, wouldn't you? There's not a great deal more to do when you notify relevant projects, and try to do some FAC reviewing yourself (the return from which can take time to kick in). You could perhaps check recently promoted FAs for TV shows and try nominators or reviewers of those with neutrally worded requests for comment. If we do end up archiving the nom simply for lack of commentary, the usual two-week waiting period before re-nominating can be waived, per a clause in the instructions at the top of WP:FAC. If that did happen, though, I always like to suggest people get as many eyes on an article as possible before FAC, so although you've put it through GAN, I would try a Peer Review (again notifying relevant projects) before trying FAC again. We're not quite at that stage yet though, it will probably remain open a bit longer. Good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, and I apologize for any inconvenience. I would like for the FAC to be kept up for now as there is still the possibility someone will respond to it. I just wanted to make sure I did not mess anything up for the nomination. Hope you have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

No inconvenience at all, this is one of the things the coords are here for. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for the intrusion again. I have two quick questions about the FAC process. How many days will the FAC for "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" be left open if there are not any additional comments/reviews? While I do not want to sound pessimistic or rude, but I highly doubt this is going to get any more comments as it is pushed further down the list and it is the summer where a lot of users may be away from their computers.

For my second question, could I immediately nominate a different article for FAC once the one about the Charlotte King episode is removed or is there a hold period? I have been prepping and expanding several articles for FAC consideration so I was just curious about that (and hopefully the future ones fare better). I hope you have an excellent day. Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I have to admit it is looking more likely that we'd have to archive the nom simply because we don't have enough commentary to say there's consensus to promote. At the same time, we don't generally waive the usual two-week waiting period following archiving unless there's been little to no commentary, and this one is not necessarily in that category. Can I suggest that if you have some other articles that you think may be FAC-ready, try putting one or two of them through Peer Review now, along the lines of my recommendation above, to a) try and prepare them even more, and b) hopefully garner some interested reviewers who you could ping to take a look when you do eventually bring these articles to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I will try putting some of the articles through Peer Review, but I am not that hopeful on that front to be completely honest. I do not have much luck with Peer Review with attracting feedback or comments in the past. I am also pretty disappointed in the FAC process where it seems that nominations receive more comments/reviews based on the reputation of the user rather than the actual work. I do not mean to come across as negative or pessimistic, but I was really proud of my work for "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" so it is disheartening and disillusioning to see that it barely received any attention at all. Aoba47 (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess I spoke too soon as I have fortunately attracted a few comments and votes since the last message. I shouldn't be so easily disheartened. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Quick question: how many votes are required for an article to be promoted to FA? Aoba47 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Jack Verge - FAC

I've just seen your archiving of this FAC due to calls for a full copyedit. I think the call for a full copyedit is completely unreasonable, while I accept that some improvements can be made. We have one oppose and a few supports. As it's my first FAC, I don't know what it takes to be promoted, but the nomination was open a long time with nothing but supports and no further comments until the last reviewer popped up. The way you've handled this seems to me to be unfair not only to me, but to all the others who put in effort at this FAC. It's also completely ridiculous that you take a presidential approach to a collaborative process. You have made this an unpleasant experience. FunkyCanute (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

A presidential approach? Well, I've heard everything now... Anyway, I'm sorry if you've found the experience unpleasant, but it's not uncommon for one reasoned oppose from an experienced reviewer to derail a long-running FAC, as deflating as that can be. I offered a suggestion for helping prepare the article for another nomination -- there is unfortunately a fair distance between the GA and the FA criteria, and PR can be a useful way station; given his military service, MilHist A-Class Review might be an even better route, as it can often attract more reviewers than a PR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 15 Milhist articles during the period March to June 2016. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Tks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wolfgang Lüth

Hi, I've been thinking about reassessing the above article due to less than reliable sources being used:

• 12 citations to Karl Alman aka Franz Kurowski
• 12 citations to a self-published source Florian Berger
• 6 citations to Gordon Williamson (writer)

Please also see: Wolfgang Lüth#In popular culture. I've tagged the article accordingly.

Since you reviewed the article back in 2009, I wanted to check in beforehand to see if there would be any concerns. If you could let me know that would be great. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Garage rock article

Hello, this is Garagepunk66. For over a year and a half, I've been working to expand and improve the Garage rock article. Last November the article became listed as GA. I have since done a lot of additional expansion and improvements. I am thinking about nominating the article for an FA review. But, before I submit the article to peer review, I'd like to first get some feedback on the article's prospects. Perhaps you could read it over and tell me what you think. Should I proceed with a peer review? Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I had a very quick look over it last night before I hit the sack. It's certainly appears comprehensive at first glance. Although a rock fan in general I don't know enough about the subject to comment too much on content. Some of the expression seems a bit journalistic rather than encyclopedic, although of course that can also make for more engaging prose -- it's a balancing act. There are some obvious MOS issues like the year ranges (we use ndash, not hyphen, and only the last two years in the second part, e.g. 1964–66, not 1964-1966) but that's pretty minor stuff. Taking it to PR before FAC is an excellent idea -- I think do that and let anyone you believe might comment (individuals interested in rock history plus relevant projects) know about it. Good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, one other thing before even taking to PR... If you haven't done so already, I'd take a look at a recently promoted similar article, New Wave of British Heavy Metal, just to get a comparison on structure, level of detail, and so on. You could also do worse than check the article's FAC nom to get a better understanding of how the article reached its current form. After that I think you should be armed with all you need for PR and, later hopefully, FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks mentioning the New Wave of British Heavy Metal article--I'll definitely take a look at it. Throughout the peer review process and candidacy phases, we will have a chance to iron out any imperfections in the Garage rock article now has. I know that it is a process and will work for the best. My first step, of course, was to do what I could for the expansion, which is now pretty much done. That effort was such a huge undertaking, that I'm sure I overlooked a bunch of things. So, now is a chance to look back over it objectively. In the coming stages, we can go back and improve and refine what is there (and of course add anything that needs to be added) in order to make it the best article it can be. Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for No. 75 Wing RAAF

On 26 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article No. 75 Wing RAAF, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an officer appointed by North-Eastern Area Command to investigate Vultee Vengeance aircraft accidents at No. 75 Wing RAAF, crash-landed in a Vengeance on his return? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No. 75 Wing RAAF. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, No. 75 Wing RAAF), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the A-Class Medal with Diamonds for your great work on North-Eastern Area Command (RAAF), No. 37 Squadron RAAF, and Western Area Command (RAAF). Keep up the good work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Tks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

My recent changes to the Serong article

Gday Ian. Sorry to make changes to the article whilst it is being reviewed, I hope they haven't caused you any issues. I have to admit that one of the reasons for a few of the changes was because I ran the Earwig tool (which I should have done before putting it up for review in hindsight) and it detected that some of the language used in places was a bit too similar to that of one of the sources (the Obituaries Australia source). I'm unsure if I added this text or if it was in there from a previous editor to be honest. Hopefully the changes I've made are now sufficient but it is probably an area you will need to check as part of the review now in light of this (if you didn't plan on doing this anyway). All the best and apologies for any inconvenience. Anotherclown (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

No prob AC, I still hope to review this w/e but hadn't begun in earnest yet so no inconvenience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The Dawn of Love

Hi Iain; just to say my comments at the end were not grandfathering; these articles represent an uniquely unfortunate period in English art history which I am recently captivated by. Especially the contemporary critical analysis is worth reading, though I wish Iridescent might now release us all from this hell. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Heh, no prob -- the subject may be painful but the FACs are generally mercifully smooth... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

A fear amonst the 1980s art wank community is that a series of lesser Julian Cope albums will follow from this editor. Do you know any admins. Ceoil (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"Wholesale changes" under Wikipedia policy/77 Sqn RAAF

Hi Ian,

I have left a message to you regarding the above matters at User:Grant65/sandbox.

Regards,

Grant – 05:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Hi Ian,

Thanks for replying.

My response is at the same place.

Grant | Talk 08:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

---

I'm happier with the general content of that section now. I think I'll leave the article alone for a while.

Thanks for your help.

Regards,

Grant | Talk 10:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Problem with FL

See Talk:List_of_Asian_American_Medal_of_Honor_recipients#Herbert_K._Pililaau. I've asked the MOH society to send me a list of the 33 names. Pililaau being added should not be a problem. If they send me the list how would the article get fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:ad00:9c9d:6ab3:cbf8:a317 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not an expert on US military history or MOH awardees, but generally speaking it would be reasonable for you or any editor to add a name to a Wikipedia list such as this, as long as the award (and in this case, I'd assume, the recipient's heritage) can be cited to a reliable source. I don't know if the CMOHS is counted as such a source, but it may be. Let's see if anyone replies to your message of the article talk page while you wait for the list to be sent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I got an answer already! They sent a PDF with 34 names on it. I said a big thanks and suggested they update that web page from 33 to 34 or even put up web pages with the lists. The email they sent explicitly said 34 is the correct number. I only dabble in wiki by making small helpful edits but will see what I can do about getting the article up to date. The list they sent says 4 are "native Hawaiian" and also has an ethnic Chinese (Franics Wai) who was born in Hawaii. 2600:8805:5800:AD00:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_Asian_American_Medal_of_Honor_recipients&type=revision&diff=734901475&oldid=734844598 no wonder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:AD00:9CA3:541A:7FB0:A1A8 (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

C/E advice

Hey Ian, is it correct to use "a three-bill tour" for a tour that features three bands? Asking in case if can be interpreted as paying three tickets for the tour or something else.--Retrohead (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, good question... I wonder if "triple-bill" might be preferable to "three-bill" -- I'm sure I've heard the former term used to mean three bands in the one show, so if you added "tour" to "triple-bill" I think it'd get the point across reasonably well. Perhaps even "triple-header"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Just checking

Ian, I noticed your edits and wanted to make sure you knew that number was the number of FAs at the time of the nomination, not as of now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mike, you mean the number I corrected for myself at the time of 90 Wing? Yes, I assumed it's as you said and it was just an error before -- did I get that right? BTW, the reason I wanted to update is to get Brian's percentage at the mentoring proposal up-to-date as of 1 Aug noms and earlier. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was an error; thanks for fixing it. (I was trying to decode the diff on my phone, so I misinterpreted it.) FYI, I will probably keep that table up to date for a few months after we start the mentoring, just to see if it makes a difference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC closing same day as latest reviewer?

Ian Rose, it was in quite bad form the manner in which you closed the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gog and Magog/archive1. Your comment that "after six weeks or so I'd expect this to be closer to consensus" as if issues raised weeks ago remain ignored. But that is not the case here.

In fact, you artificially made the archived review look like 20 issues were left open-ended; they were only posted yesterday by JFH and you closed the FAC the same day! --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll just mention I thought about saying the article is not ready for fac but didn't because I'm a little new to these reviews. I can see how the fact that someone brought up so many issues late in the process made it clear that it won't pass any thing soon.--JFH (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Tks JFH. As for Kiyoweap, your wild interpretation of a straightforward note that offered explanation for the closure and guidance for a future nomination does you no credit. If I believed that the nominator was ignoring comments I'd have said so plainly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

What Ian Rose said was: "Sorry, but after six weeks or so I'd expect this to be closer to consensus ... please work on resolving outstanding issues outside the pressure of the FAC process"

But these "outstanding issues" being yet unresolved were an artificial circumstance of your making. You closed the FAC only <10 hours after JFH's new issues were posted.

Up to few days before that, there was no lack of willingness to "resolve" open issues by editors presently involved.

However, we just didnt get the fair opportunity to respond to the last ones.

JFH's list, contrary to how damaging and long he thinks it is, is quite typical of the lists of minor defects that are brought up routinely in FAC.

Usually, the FAC candidates are given fair opportunity to correct or address them, and the FAC able to move on.

So, what I dont see is the mechanism whereby the candidate(s) were deliberately denied such an opportunity on this occasion. The process is opaque, and does not have the appearance of fairness and impartiality.--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Kiyoweap, after 6 weeks you were the only support, with 4 other commenters, some old, some new, who had not yet declared. Archiving seems fair and usual in such circs. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod, yes, I am seeing there must be some sort of a six-week cut-off rule being instituted.

Whether six-week cut-off is unfair, I'll discuss below. Whether the remark contained unfair characterization, was discussed above. These are each issues on their own.

You also advise that after 6 weeks we needed to have collected more votes. But in reality, how?
Random walk-in reviewers may not vote at all. We have no control.
A regular FA reviewer this time (FunkMonk), who problably would have voted, but got cut short.
Clearly then, to ensure votes got cast within that time, candidates would have had to garner a group of FA reviewers, pre-arranged ahead of time, so they would participate and vote without time loss.

It goes to show the compromised integrity of FA which has been turned into a gamed system. --Kiyoweap (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kiyoweap: Your insinuations of "bad form" and "compromised integrity" are a bit on the bizarre side and I'd suggest you tone down the hyperbole if you expect to have a productive conversation with someone. I am the other FAC coordinator and I fully support Ian's decision to archive this nomination. I would have done the same. We do allow some leeway when nominations have not received sufficient feedback to make a determination, but this nomination received quite a bit of feedback and almost no compelling consensus for promotion. Such nominations are archived, sometimes even sooner than six weeks. It's the way FAC has always operated. --Laser brain (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Not really. New reviewers may well be put off by having to read a long series of comments & discussion. Better to spend 2 weeks or more sorting out the points raised so far, then renominate. The rough cutoff is necessary simply to stop the FAC page from getting too long - we don't want to look like GAN, with stuff sitting for months. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Finding a solution

Hi. @SchroCat:, @Cassianto:, @Laser brain:, @We hope:, @Tim riley:, @Brianboulton:, @Ssilvers:, @Sagaciousphil:. I think it's become very clear that this infobox warring situation has got out of hand. It seems to drain most of the energy of a lot of us on a daily basis now. Rarely a day goes by when I don't see a mention of an infobox. It's become an impossible situation to deal with and has grown out of control, especially when articles written by one or two editors are systematically targetted. It's become a form of bullying on here. Even more concerning is that the way that articles are targetted especially once they're promoted to FA/GA. We're in danger of losing FA contributors because of it. I think it's high time we did something about it and propose a change to the arb ruling which protects quality content contributors from non contributors trying to "force" an infobox. I think we need a serious discussion on what we can do to address this problem because it is a problem, a permanent one, and the only way things are going to change is if it is formally identified as disruptive behaviour on here and content contributors protected from the "cult". Or at least something to start with which changes what one can do with "infobox proposals" once an article is promoted to FA. Editors who work hard to promote articles don't deserve to have to deal with this. How do we put an end to this current situation?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for me to comment here whilst there is yet another bloody ANI thread that has just been started for saying "lol" and, perhaps more embarrassingly, spelling "playwright" wrong (auto spell, honest). Cassianto^Talk 21:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I spotted the ANI thread after I posted here, even more justified now, and it's more potential time wasting! I'm sure the pro infobox lot think an infobox is of vital importance and that the site is better off with one in every article like a uniform. That's fair enough. But what's not fair enough is targetting articles by a small groups of editors who dislike them in arts bios and non editors ganging up to try to force something that people who've spent weeks and months improving something don't want. The time wasting, hostility and disruption it causes is the reason that it should be stopped, not that people aren't entitled to their opinions.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I asked for Discretionary Sanctions to be authorized for this area and was supported by several editors, but I'm rather unimpressed with how ArbCom has (not) dealt with this. One of them requested that the call for DS be its own amendment request, so I may do that this week if I can find the time. There are several behaviors going on that I believe would be sanctionable under a DS system, and the problem would go away quickly. I've said before that the real loss is the distraction from creating content. --Laser brain (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Would something like an INFOBOXVAR, along the lines of CITEVAR, be useful, if it had Arbcom support? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Lazer brain. Perhaps I am an uncivil sod at times, but nobody is willing to look at the reasons why I'm an uncivil sod. There's only so much bullshit one person can take. The infobox mess needs addressing. The pro-infoboxers cry WP:OWN at every opportunity, yet it is them who appear to want to OWN the soddin' article when they try and force a box on. The Coward RfC is a complete joke: a bunch of people turn up (who know nothing of the subject, know nothing of its construction, who call the featured text "stupid", and admit that they will probably never look at the article again) and try to force a box on to it for the sake of the poor "reader". They vote "support", and then give sweeping generalisations for justification, not taking into account the actual article they are looking at. Then, when someone challenges that support, or calls it out to be a generalisation, the WP:CIVIL card is played which then gets the backs up of the challenger, which then leads to ANI. In fact, as shown in the last ANI, someone doesn't even have to be uncivil to be reported, as was the case with me. It's a bloody farce! Cassianto^Talk 23:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Mike, I proposed INFOBOXVAR in 2012 on WT:MOS (though not by name), but it didn't gain support. It would be a good solution. That and discretionary sanctions. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Solution-wise I agree with Sarah (and by extension Mike and Andy). FAs are not set in stone, and are subject to change by local consensus like any other article, but those that were promoted to FA without IBs have two aspects that weigh against an IB being added largely through the efforts of otherwise-uninvolved editors: consensus, implicit or explicit, for the IB-free version of the article that achieved the necessary support to promote to FA; and the evident preference for the absence of an IB by the editors who improved the article to FA-level. I disagree with those who say that an IB counts as "content" -- by its nature, an IB should not generally contain info that isn't available in other parts of the article, most often the lead, which is itself a summary of the article. To me it's always been a style consideration, like the format of citations, the variation of English used, and so on. If IBs are not required in every article -- and they weren't last time I checked -- then we should treat them the same way as the citation style and the variation of English: all other things being equal, respect the preference of the main editors and only overturn that after achieving consensus on the talk page. Now, though, it seems like that sort of AGF is losing out to a sledgehammer approach on the part of those who think that in fact every article needs an IB no matter what. So I agree, time for a new approach so those who care about content can get back to building an encyclopedia. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, it seems one thing that shot down your proposal was the "first major contributor" language. How about some language such as "consensus of active content editors of the page"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Mike, yes, that wording would be good. The "first major contributor" principle is intended as a fallback position, in the sense that, if no consensus on talk can be reached, then defer to the first major contributor. See WP:CITEVAR: "it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page ..." But if that's a sticking point, then "consensus of active content editors of the page" would work. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox warring has shown to cause contuining disruption and time wasting. As Laser says it's a clear problem which should be dealt with by arb primarily because it distracts people from writing content, and puts people off wanting to produce FAs and dreading TFA because it means dealing with infobox fanatics. I suggest we come up with a proposal to this because this really can't go on. It drains most of our energy and enthusiasm! What SV proposed should have been enforced years ago. I'm going to approach a few arbitrators and ask them about it anyway. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Before a formal arb request is made, I've brought it up here. I'm sure not exactly what we should do here. Something like SV proposed is much needed, but the fanatics will only turn up in their droves and oppose it again. Ideally we need some sort of intenvention which the fanatics can't control.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If anyone proposes INFOBOXVAR anywhere, please let us know. I would like to participate in the discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

As would many of us on the pro-infobox side. We have rather similar emotions and sense of being drained, we too feel the opposition has an OWNership problem. The Pro-Infobox view is, most likely, the position of the "silent majority" of wikipedia editors, but those who feel strongly about the issue, well... are here, and I think, almost all of them. While a minority view is entitled to respect, there is also a question of whether we have a walled garden problem or people who are holding back the tide. We have seen articles with perfectly good infoboxes be challenged at TfA by a reviewer who demands their removal (one of the Catherine Zeta-Jones FACs was an example). Another problem is the phrasing "consensus of active editors" when we are talking about the question of what constitutes an "active" editor -- the first person to start the edit-war by changing an article that has been stable, but ignored, for several years? My take is that one solution would be an RfC that goes up on the big banner we all get when there is a need for a community-wide discussion. We could get the input of hundreds of editors and maybe from there we could have a crowdsourced solution. Montanabw^(talk) 16:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The difference though is that we don't systematically go across the site removing infoboxes. And removal of an infobox is usually when we've significantly improved an article and see it of no use. On the contrary, the infobox warriors go from one article to the other commenting on infoboxes and trying to impose them on articles they've contributed bugger all to. And it's the same small group of editors targetted time and time again. That's by far more irritating.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved person - for sake of all the gods - can ya'll (on both sides) just ... drop the freaking issue. The world will not end if there is or is not an infobox. If you didn't actively work to improve an article - don't "join up" just because you like or dislike infoboxes. At this point, I'm thinking the "silent majority" of wikipedia editors is probably a lot like me - where I just want ya'll to stop it and quit squabbling. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Erm, Ealdgyth, that's exactly what I'm trying to do, by getting arb to alter the current ruling to stop this happening time and time again. It's not as if the issue is going to go away, it needs to be enforced, so I'm trying to start to do something about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think, Ealdgyth, that if one looks at the issue carefully, one will see that a guideline like INFOBOXVAR would solve the issue and discourage the drive-by shooters. "Active editors" could be defined as the top *content* editors of the article, not counting infobox edits. The fact that Montanabw would define it as s/he proposes above should make it crystal clear that the IB adders are acting in bad faith. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the "drive-by shooters" are on both sides; removing infoboxes that have been in an article for 10 years is also very disruptive, particularly where there is a class of articles that typically include them (i.e. movie stars, for example). The problem was that the ArbCom decision that declared infoboxes to be a case-by-case situation and the general direction WP is going to thrash local consensus in general has created anarchy. What is really going on here is twofold: one one hand, infoboxes are not easy to add for those of us not conversant in all the syntax needed, and the templates are suffering a bit from instruction creep. So the pro-infobox side really does need to make their creation easier. But on the other hand, the anti-infobox side has traditionally been very quick to personalize and attack anyone who presents a pro-infobox position, and some (but not all) mombers of that group have a steadfast refusal to accept the reality that some summary information, preferably in machine-readable fashion is necessary in encyclopedic articles, and they have to understand that only a very small minority of editors are vehemently opposed to infobox inclusion. Montanabw^(talk) 04:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Given that the MoS includes advice on infoboxes as a style issue (WP:INFOBOXUSE), does that place infobox disputes under the MoS discretionary sanctions? They were based on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation:

"Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed" (note: broadly construed).

@Ian Rose, Laser brain, Dr. Blofeld, Mike Christie, Montanabw, and Ealdgyth: what do you think? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That hadn't even occurred to me, but yes, it seems that infoboxes would fall under DS for the Manual of Style. --Laser brain (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Laser brain, I'll wait to see how quickly the ArbCom makes its decision, but if there's delay, the MoS DS could be used in the meantime. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice to see you dodge the point yet again. Your inaction on something so black-and-white just enables this sort of disgusting behaviour. If I went round making similar slurs about the mental state of other editors, I'm sure you'd be joining a queue to slap a block on me, but you refuse to make even the smallest comment here? – Gavin (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added my (scattered) thoughts on the request spot. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Sarah, Will it stop admins from questioning people's mental health? I'm sure you must have missed the ping the NC thread where I provided the link where I was accused of "bad faith bordering on paranoid conspiracism". I'm sure you would have made a comment or taken action if you had seen the ping. – Gavin (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• • Add Gerda Arendt, RexxS, Pigsonthewing and some of the others on the pro-infobox side to get a fuller sense of the matter. But I will say that there is a widespread belief on both sides that the "other side" engages in unnecessary personal attacks, that "the other side" has nefarious motives, and so on. The problem is that I read the MOS DS to be mostly linked to the capitalization and titles battle (which was almost as bad as this one and we lost several good editors because of it), and I am concerned about expanding its scope beyond that; however, if asking there for clarification and amendment would help, I do not oppose doing so. Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Montanabw:, DS are authorized for the entire MoS. That was deliberate and editors have been sanctioned for poor behavior in areas like LQ without issue. --Laser brain (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• • • • Can you link to the specific place where it stated an intent to apply to the entire MOS? Either way, the problem here is that there is just too much emotion going on. DQ is not going to ratchet down the emotion; in fact, it might just create yet more ill feeling. I'd like to see if there is any way for people to just dial it back. Infoboxes are reality and hating them won't change that reality, neither will attacking people for trying to do the right thing, even if no one can agree on what the right thing is. Montanabw^(talk) 23:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have been called. Sorry, I'm at a loss in finding any "sense of the matter". I have no idea what DS means but understand "sanctions" which I oppose. I thought I made a good proposal to not call each other by group names, - it resulted in more colourful group names. I thought I made a neutral list of articles where an infobox was reverted, - it has been described as breeding ground for warriors which needs to be deleted. Sorry, life is too short, I don't want to be involved in the topic, at least to the end of the year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, we've now lost four featured article contributors, Tim, SchroCat, Cassianto and We hope. Who wants to make a formal arb proposal ammendment before we lose any more?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: The matter is being discussed here, with several Arbs already opining that DS should be authorized. I think the best course of action right now is to await that decision and operate within the system (at least in the short-term) to address behavior issues and disruption. --Laser brain (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Well I've had enough of the silly issue for the moment so I'll move on, and just hope these great editors find reason to continue at some point.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King? - featured article candidate

Hello! I have noticed that you are a very active member of the FAC process, and have done a lot of work with television-related articles. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on my FAC ( "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?"). I would greatly appreciate a fresh pair of eyes with this article as I have put a lot of work into it and want to make it the best that it can be (regardless of whether or not it is promoted). I understand that you are busy, so it is completely okay if you are unable or would not like to do this. I have had a few reviewers provide comments to it already (most recently Mike Christie).

The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?/archive1. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aoba, thanks for your post. As one of the coordinators for the FAC process (along with Laser brain), I do tend to be fairly active in it! While I sometimes make small tweaks to an article before it gets promoted, I don't do too many in-depth reviews because it means I have to recuse from my coordination duties -- in other words, if I review an article in depth, and especially if I then explicitly support or oppose promotion, I can't be the one closing the review (i.e. promoting to FA status, or archiving as not promoted). When I do comment at FAC it tends to be an article I've reviewed previously (e.g. at GAN, or at the Military History Project's A-Class Review, as I'm active in that project). I think the "Charlotte King" FAC may well have had enough eyes on it now for you to just sit tight, I'll probably walk through the FAC list in the next couple of days to check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, and I apologize for the intrusion. I still have a lot to learn about the FAC process lol, so I greatly appreciate the message. Aoba47 (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No intrusion at all, pls ask anything, anytime -- you seem to be finding FAC a worthwhile experience and that's always good to know! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again. I like learning as much as I can about Wikipedia, and I want to try to improve the content that I work with as much as possible. I do find FAC to be a very interesting and worthwhile experience. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

	Thank You
	Thanks for leaving a comment/review on my FAC. The article passed and I just wanted to stop by and say thanks. – jona ✉ 19:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Mentoring proposal

I think we should now go live with the voluntary mentor scheme for FAC. This means I will transfer the instructions for the scheme from my sandbox to WP mainspace. There should then be a prominent link in the FAC instructions, directing mew nominators to the mentor page. I also hope to have a permanent note on the FAC talkpage performing two functions: advising novice nominees about the scheme, and encouraging experienced editors to sign up as mentors.

Ten have signed up so far, which isn't many, but I haven't begun my general recruitment drive yet; the early signers are mainly those who participated in the original talkpage discussion. I hope to double the numbers after my trawl, and perhaps take in more when the scheme is established and there are results to show. Of course, it's not necessary to sign up on this list to be a mentor, and I suspect some who support the scheme may prefer not to sign up formally.

If you have no further queries or reservations, I'll create the WP page approximately 24 hours from now, and will then begin my recruitment drive. (Copied To Laser Brain). Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to advise you that I have now created Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC. A link to this page within the FAC instructions will be important if this scheme is to reach its target clientele. I am currently sending out a note trawling for mentors to add to the list. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps also a sentence in the edit notice that shows up when you create a FAC? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare Op-ed: Hawkeye7 looks at Australians on the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

FAC urgents?

Ian (and LB): any urgents? I might get one or two done this weekend if you want to pick out what needs looking at. On vacation with little internet 9/16 through 9/24 so this will be the last time in September I can put in a chunk of hours. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Tks Mike, I hope to have a trawl through the list tonight Sydney time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mike, four added. There's other noms further up the list that might be "promotable" so I'll probably continue tomorrow and so may add more to urgents as well, unless Andy gets there first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sydney Meetup next Thursday evening

You are invited to the Sydney Meetup!

• Thursday 15 September at 6PM at Petersham Bowling Club.

  (a) accessible by train - Petersham station

  (b) has some nice draught beers

  (c) has some nice food

  (d) has some quiet areas outside and inside...so people can chat without getting a hoarse voice by shouting over 100 decibels of muzak etc.

  (e) accessible by car with straightforward parking nearby

This message was delivered to the invitation list - to opt out of future invitations please remove your name from the list. 04:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A quick note

I replied on Catherine Zeta-Jones. I've been meaning to drop a note for a while. I'm not always around, but I always reply to a ping and try to keep my hand in at FAC. If there are ever any articles that need reviews, or another pair of eyes, or have a source review missing, please feel free to ping me. I'm always glad to wade in! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Tks so much, Sarastro, I'll definitely keep that in mind. On a day-to-day basis, a good place to keep an eye out is at the top of WT:FAC, where we list articles needing source reviews and spotchecks, and the FAC urgents box for those in need of more comprehensive reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

July 2016 Military History Writers' Contest

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the July 2016 Military History Article Writing Contest with 51 points from five articles. Congratulations! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dick Cresswell

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dick Cresswell 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dick Cresswell

The article Dick Cresswell you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dick Cresswell 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Richard E. Cole

Ian, could you take a look at User talk:Nick-D#Richard E. Cole? You can comment here if you want. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, will try and stop by later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Ian. I just wanted to pop over and express my gratitude again for your edits on Sabrina Sidney. I have read through it a number of times and it has always felt not-quite-right, but I couldn't put my finger on why, but your tonal changes seem to have made the world difference. I really appreciate that you've put your experience into helping improve the article and really wanted to say, Thank you. Worm^TT(talk) 20:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

That's very thoughtful of you, thanks -- I'll try and return to the article in the next couple of days. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Dick Cresswell

On 24 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dick Cresswell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dick Cresswell, the first commander of an RAAF jet squadron in combat, was court-martialled for firing a shot at the feet of another officer who had apparently been annoying him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dick Cresswell. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dick Cresswell), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Coordinator of the Military History Project, September 2016 – September 2017

In recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, I hereby present you with these co-ord stars. I wish you luck in the coming year. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, and to you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

FA mentoring scheme

Hi,

You mentioned I do the FA mentoring scheme as I haven't got an article to FA yet. Are you suggesting I do this for Ridge Racer (video game)? I think the FAC demonstrated that if an article isn't popular, it's never going to be an FA, full stop :(. I'm actually beginning to think it's a lost cause, and I just can't help but feel I'll be wasting mine and someone else's time. A similar thing happened with a peer review of Dungeon Keeper, and it seems nobody (apart from myself) is interested in that article. I'd like to think FA is a possibility for Ridge Racer, but the evidence so far overwhelmingly suggests the opposite, and I'd already failed before. What's going to happen the third time? There's no guarantee it won't just stall again. I hope that isn't commonplace amongst FACs, because if it is, then it's no wonder so many fail. If I am going to do this, I need some assurance that it's worth doing. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Adam, the mentoring scheme is new so I can't look to "past performance" to give you an idea of how it would go, but I don't think teaming up with an established FA nominator -- if one agreed to come on board -- could hurt. I wouldn't be too discouraged by the result of the two previous nominations -- the first was affected by your being distracted elsewhere on WP, the second may have suffered from being buried among a somewhat longer-than-usual list of competing nominations. If you feel you don't want to try the mentoring, but you would like to renominate Ridge Racer, there are other ways to attract commentary, such as leaving neutrally worded requests for review at relevant project talk pages, or with editors who have reviewed your article(s) previously at GA/PR/FA, or simply by asking directly some of the editors you've seen round the traps who might be interested. It also helps long-term to review others' FACs, even if a bit outside your comfort zone and even if you don't feel confident to support or oppose, to get yourself more established in the community and perhaps gain more interest in your nominations. Hope this helps! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see your comment until now! I would like to renominate Ridge Racer, but doing so again so soon after the previous nomination might be seen as disruptive. As it so happens, the article is a GA and has been through peer review. Unfortunately, I don't see how I can review other FACs without getting an article to FA myself, as I don't see how my arguments could be credible unless I demonstrate an understanding of the FA criteria. I think there is one person on the mentoring thing who might be interested; should I approach him directly or just do it normally? Adam9007 (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

History documentaries

Hi. I was wondering are history documentaries considered reliable sources and if so what is the best (feature article equivalent) way to cite them here (i.e. what format and template to use). If you don't know the answer to this can you point me in the right direction. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. To answer the second question first, Template:Cite AV media can be used to cite audio-visual documentaries. The documentary's reliability should be considered in the same way as any other source -- WP:RS offers a guide. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Rogožarski IK-3

G'day Ian, the GAN for this article is stalled due to the original reviewer having RW issues and the 2O only being intermittently available. It's not a huge article, but I hope it is of interest to you with your aviation speciality. I wondered if you would mind taking it over and finishing up the GAN? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, the current review's about as long as the article... Okay, will watchlist and try and get to it this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

fake/false

Hi Ian,
In the Overlord article, Deception section, I changed 'fake' to 'false' simply because 'fake' had already been used a few sentences prior to "the broadcast of fake radio traffic" bit.

At the time, I couldn't think of a better word than 'false' - any ideas?

Regards
RASAM (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, tks for taking the time to stop by. Sorry I hadn't spotted that repetition, which is something I also like to avoid where possible. What do you think of "dummy radio traffic" for the second mention? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me RASAM (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Jul to Sep 16

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 18 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2016. Thank you for your ongoing support of Wikipedia's reviewing processes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 1, 2016

I got this one down to 1288, but he had such an interesting life that I'm not sure what to cut next. Can you get it below 1200? - Dank (push to talk) 11:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeez, no rest for the wicked, less than a fortnight after No. 91 Wing... ;-) Okay, Dan, will have a look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Good to go, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring IP at Noel Coward

I left edit war warnings on both of his IP addresses. BTW, I am not sure whether or not I agree with what he is trying to do, but I agree that he needs to discuss it on the Noel Coward talk page, per WP:BRD. Feel free to open a discussion there yourself if you want to give reasons why the roles should not be added to the filmography. I'd be interested to know the pros and cons. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Tks mate. My reasoning was primarily per my initial reverting edit summary, that it's unnecessary bloat, but I'm also quite happy to discuss on the talk page if the IP wants to initiate something there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Trinity (nuclear test)

I didn't mean to prod Trinity (nuclear test), but First Atomic bomb. I got an error message that the tag couldn't be placed, saw that the article had been changed to a redirect and forgot about it. Apparently the prod tag was placed where I didn't mean it. Sjö (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sjö -- no prob, I don't think we've interacted before so I quickly looked at your talk/contribs pages and I did get the impression there must have been some kind of mistake... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The Left Hand of Darkness

But it indicates that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. If an automotive writer describes the VW Beetle as "an excellent example of a low-cost pickup truck", I'd want to warn people who don't know autos that the Beetle is not in fact a pick-up truck. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Help?

Hey Ian, a long time back I added the duplinks tool importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); // [[User:Ucucha/duplinks]] and got the "highlight duplicate links" link in my tools, but it doesn't seem to work. I click on it and nothing happens, as far as I can see. I've tried this in both the editing window and on the main page... question: I still use the Monobook skin, would that be the problem? (I also have craploads of other tools enabled, would this conflict with some of them?). Wha is supposed to happen? Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Heh, TBH the first time I used it I thought nothing happened but then it doesn't give messages per se, it just puts thin red boxes around the duplinks (not the first instance of the links, just the duplicates). I have monobook too and it works on that. Have you scanned the entire article you've used it on to check for those red boxes? I just tried it on Secretariat now and no duplicates showed up, but then I see from edit history that Jlvsclrk went around removing them, so I put one back in and tried it in preview and it displayed as expected. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. Jlvsclrk rocks! Montanabw^(talk) 20:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Re. Pop Warner Featured Article Candidate

Hi Ian, my question is in regards to the FAC review process of the Pop Warner article. Is it going to take place at the article's talk page or at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates forum? Thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, the review takes place on the nomination page that you've created, and that goes onto the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (WP:FAC) page (I've just done that for you) so, in effect, yes the review process is at WP:FAC but there is also a link to the nomination/review page at the top of the article talk page (where is says "leave comments"). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, what should have I done for it to go to the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page before? Rybkovich (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. When you've created and saved the nomination page, copy its name (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pop Warner/archive1) to your clipboard, edit WP:FAC and paste at the top of the list under the Nominations heading. Put two pairs of curly brackets "{{" and "}}" around the page name to make the template link. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Bond films

I want to know if it would be appropriate to add Weapon of Choice, which surely can't be the only fictional Bond film, and if there are more we could start a section of those. It was made in 1964 and starred Sean Connery, according to an episode of Timeless (TV series), and included characters based on people from that series who met Ian Fleming when they traveled back in time.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know Timeless -- are you saying an episode refers to a made-up movie called Weapon of Choice with Sean Connery as Bond? If so, I don't see how that can be added to a Bond films list, which refers to actual movies... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the movie was made up. I was thinking there must be someplace to put that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Allen Walker's talk

Thanks for promoting the article. I have one question though. Talk:Allen Walker is a bit of mess considering it says twice it had peer reviews. Will a bot review or is there a way to combine most of them? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tintor, I'm not aware of a bot that adds PRs to article history, it may just have to be done manually -- I wouldn't combine them if they're separate reviews, they should each have their own line, incl. the date the review was closed linking to the article as it stood at that point, similar to the GAN and FAC review entries. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Peter Sellers

Hey, I can see you've got Peter Sellers watchlisted. Could you keep an eye on SagaciousPhil? She's got a vendetta against me from earlier disputes with her and Eric Corbett and is reverting my edits on sight. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• A quick look at the edit history shows she's made a grand total of two edits to the article—the first mass-reverting my copyedits. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Good morning (Sydney time) CT. I can't remember ever getting into disputes with either you or SP, I think I've always got on fine with both of you, so I can't take sides. All I can do is try to act as disinterested party reviewing each of your edits and perhaps mediate as necessary. In this case it looks like Ritchie has already jumped in as a third party editing one of your areas of concern, let's see how that goes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

History of the Great War

Greetings Ian, may I have an opinion about the use of references to online copies of some of the volumes please?

<ref>[https://ia601606.us.archive.org/18/items/warinairbeingst01rale/warinairbeingst01rale.pdf archive.org]</ref>

Aren't references like this deprecated now? I'd like a method that doesn't require me to copy the volumes again in templates to use the url function but don't know how to avoid it. Any suggestions? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Keith. Yes, the above style isn't very helpful, is it? Because this is simply a scanned/online copy of an old-fashioned paper book, I would cite it the way one would a book, i.e. with author, title and/or year, and page number. The link is of course very helpful for verification purposes, but one only needs to put that in the relevant cite book template under the References section, not for each citation. Hope this helps! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, My revamp has been standing over for months but I've got more biblio information now. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Edward VI of England

My problem wasn't with your edit per se, it was (as I mentioned in the edit summary) that it built upon this edit by another person which changed a figure from 13 to 9 without explanation (and given the editor's (lack of) history, I'm not going to rule out that it was vandalism).

Ubcule (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying. Can you make clear which bit elsewhere you're referring to? The discussion (as requested) is here.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Tks, replied there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Featured Article Selection

Ian - there have been 149 Warfare: Military Biographies which have been Wikipedia home page featured articles. It has struck me for some time how often they are not people like Napoleon, Clausewitz, Haig, Alexander the Great, Hannibal etc, but RAAF personnel. I have put a pie chart at http:www.goodmanely.co.uk/wiki/wiki-warfare-biogs-FA.jpg (couldn't upload it here due to it being, for some reason, dismissed by wikicommons). This shows that almost 50% of the FAs which are military biography are of australians, and 50% of those are RAAF. Does it not seem rather disproportionate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magpie55 (talk • contribs) 9:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sure, but it's not Ian's fault. How's your background in military biographies? Interested in beefing up any of the above? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Tks Curly. Yes, this is the nature of a volunteer project -- people invest their time and effort in what interests them, and in those areas in which they have some expertise, and it's all valid as long as the subjects comply with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The other thing, of course, is that if you want to find decent articles on these famous personalities then there are several reliable encyclopedias and dictionaries of biography out there that will feature them. Those won't have bios on the more obscure but still interesting subjects that I choose to write about, though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Grace VanderWaal

An editor at Grace VanderWaal has repeatedly deleted a variety of materials, including external links. VanderWaal was this year's winner of America's Got Talent, one of the most popular US television series. She also has a YouTube channel which has quickly attracted more than 30 million views of her music videos. Would you kindly take a look at the Talk page and comment there? I think a very formalistic and, really, robotic view of WP guidelines, not just WP:EL, but also about everything else concerning that article, has been taking place even before the edit warrior got there. I have done nearly all the research on the article, but my contributions are routinely deleted by reference to the BLP rules, and then when I add more references, it is claimed that I am over-referencing. Very discouraging. But the current issue is the ELs. You can see my arguments on the Talk page, so I won't repeat them here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the Talk page. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

TFAR

FYI: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service. I'll need to give the article a bit of a tidy up and update, and an extra pair of eyes on it would be helpful :). By the way, I currently have Nelmes' book on the RAAF's B-24s out from the library if you need anything from it (I'm thinking that this could be a good summer project). Nick-D (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it in the proposed TFAR list a while back, be great to hit the 10-year anniversary of a purchase that no-one seems to complain about... ;-) It's still on my watchlist so happy to give the once-over before The Day. Re. Nelmes, tks, I'll try and check if there's anything outstanding re. B-24s in articles I've worked on. I guess the ideal summer project is fleshing out the B-24s in Australian service article... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Garage rock article issue

As you know, I have been thinking about nominating the Garage rock article for FAC. Last year the article went GA. But, right now an editor has made a move to split the article up. Should I wait until the debate about whether or not to split is finished, and how long do such split discussions take before they are decided? I'll be the first to admit that the article needs to be trimmed down, not only in terms of citations, but also in text, particularly in the regions sections, where it needs more summary of the regional scenes, but less mention of bands--and other sections could use a trimming too. I was actually thinking about this before the present debate, and I was optimistic that all of these issues could corrected in a FAC review process. I had a peer review done and no one there mentioned the idea of split. But, sadly I worry that current attempts to split the article will result in a truncated and unsatisfactory piece on a topic that needs broad coverage. I'm worried that the sections about the world scenes, which need to be there, will be siphoned off and others will be excessively diminuated. What should I do? Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've commented at the article talk discussion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Mail call...

Hello, Ian Rose. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota

Hi Ian Rose,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

I would like to invite you for an interview if you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu if you are interested or have any questions.

Thank you, Bowen

Hello, Ian Rose. You have new messages at Bobo.03's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Recent lead image changes

Hello Ian Rose, thanks for the thanks :). I was wondering, do you know a good forum to discuss this issue on a more general level, or have there been some recent RfC's about this question ("nice looking painting vs. more realistic photography")? Blocking the IP every few months isn't really desirable or a solution, so it would be good if we could point him/her to a more definitive source of information about the current consensus. GermanJoe (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joe, I have to admit I don't know any such forum or RFCs... There are some FAs of Australian generals I'm aware of that use paintings, but they went to FAC with those portraits and the reviewers seemed happy with them. I tend to just use the same rationale you did when lead images in community-reviewed articles get changed arbitrarily, whether a painting or another photo is being substituted. In this case with Truman's article, the drive-by editor actually duplicated a portrait already in the main body of the article, compounding the issue... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I'll watch the issue and will open such a general discussion myself, if the images get reverted again. Of course each article is a separate case, but it would be helpful to have a few specific bits of advice to start a case by case evaluation. Unfortunately MOS:LEADIMAGE lacks such practical details and is rather vague. GermanJoe (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Advice on article structure

Ian, if you have a minute I'd appreciate your input on something. I'm working on History of science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950, which has to summarize the material in the many sf and fantasy magazine articles you've seen come through FAC over the years. The article is only half-written right now, and is not worth reading at the moment, but I have a structural question I'd appreciate your take on. Nearly all the sf magazine articles have had the same structure: publishing history, which gives the story of the companies, editors, finances, and so on; and contents & reception, which covers the fiction and art in the magazines, and any influence or legacy. I started working on the history without using this structure, because I felt it would be odd to run through nearly 50 years of history of magazine publishing without mentioning the stories once, and then go back to the early 20th century and start over with the fiction and art. However, I'm finding it hard to make the narrative smooth while trying to integrate the two into a single story -- a publishing boom, for example, may last three or four years and require a coherent paragraph, but then I have to go back through and pick out the important stories that appear during that boom and discuss them. So my question is: as a reader, do you feel that splitting out publication history and contents/reception for the history of scores of magazines over decades is distracting? Or could it work, structured that way? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mike, thanks for thinking of me re. this one. The separate publication and content histories work well for individual magazines but my feeling is that integrating it all into one continuous narrative will work better for an overall survey of the field. I realise that was also your first idea and now you're reconsidering but I think it's worth persisting with. I've found that one can pursue a single main thought in one paragraph and then start a new one focusing on a different but parallel theme as a reasonable compromise, for instance in a unit history one might dedicate a paragraph to a spate of equipment changes, then another looking at organisational or operational aspects that occurred over the same period. The first history of the magazines I read as a kid was Mike Ashley's chapter in Robert Holdstock's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (1978) and I think he put the publication and content/reception info together very well -- actually, that chapter resembles a WP article in several ways, covering a lot of ground without being overly detailed, well illustrated, and divided into subsections ("New directions with Campbell", "The Big Boom", "A Golden Age?", etc)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I think you're right. I may go back and re-read that article; that was the first one I read, too. Thanks for the advice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Cliff Clinkscales

Give me a couple of days and I'll attempt to have a review started by Tuesday. At a glance, it looks like the article shouldn't take too much time to read fully. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ian Rose. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Edit

Please explain why my edit for the article on Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country linking it to the Star Trek: Voyager episode Flashback was deleted. The article in Wikipedia confirms that this is a correct edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashback_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)

In addition, the following links confirm it as well:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708897/

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Flashback_(episode)

Please review this information and reinstate my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayonpradhan (talk • contribs) 06:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I did review those links when I deleted your additions before: IMDB is not generally considered a reliable source, and I doubt that Memory-Alpha, as a wiki, would be considered one either. Further, as I mentioned at the time I removed it, and as other editors seem to have concurred, such a relatively trivial association doesn't warrant its own section in a Featured Article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2016