User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 33

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34

Peer review, if you are interested[edit]

I was looking for a peer review of 1907 Tiflis bank robbery to get it prepared for a featured article run. I saw that you were listed as a volunteer on the peer review page for history articles. So if you would be willing to take a look at this article, I would greatly appreciate any thoughts you have on how I can improve it. Best regards, Remember (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Navbox overlinks on 1.1 million pages[edit]

Thank you for taking time to read "WP:Overlink crisis" and I apologize for not warning you that some people "hate" that essay, because they were adamant that the overlinking would not prove to be true. However, the article "Tramadol" (by April 2010) was one of those reality-trumps-naysayers examples, when the navboxes in the article contained 17x(!) times the wikilinks of the article itself. I created the bottom table of "Related navpages" there, because I could not, in good conscience, keep those extra 3,250 wikilinks as navboxes, just to prove "I was right" in predicting navbox links would overpower typical wikilinks in the upper article-text. However, your initial reaction to the essay was correct: the overlinking has been almost irresistable to some people wanting a "subject-in-a-box" view of numerous articles related to a topic. I think the average impact of "navbox-cancer" is 2x times the base size: the navboxes typically double the size of average article contents (hence, making each article load 2x times, twice, as slow: an article formerly displayed in 9 seconds now requires 18 sec). Over 1.1 million pages currently contain 1, or more, navboxes. After 10 years, Wikipedia has not had articles about 3 major books written by Albert Einstein, but it has millions of navboxes. Meanwhile, there are bigger storage problems: the rise of new discussion-pages makes the growth of wikilinks seem trivial. Although English Wikipedia gains nearly 910 new articles, every day, there are an average of 10,700 new pages created every day, including discussions about the articles, redirect pages, complaints, and deletion discussions. So, I guess it is difficult to worry about the "overlink crisis" when the "discussion-page crisis" is flooding storage with over 10x more stuff, per day, in English Wikipeda. I was hoping there would be some type of "purging old stuff" (based on priorities of importance); however, everything is kept (even deleted junk pages), because admin time, currently, is more valuable for retrieving deleted pages, than the cost of storing thousands of unwanted trash pages. The quickest solution: obviously, restrict access to trusted users & trusted IP addresses, and see if the volume of trash pages drops, drastically. We know over 90% of vandalism edits come from IP addresses, so restrict that access, and block over 90% of storing those trash revisions. -Wikid77 06:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for James Learmonth[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


You mentioned during the discussion on the FAC talkpage that you can log in to ODNB articles simply by entering your library card number. Is this because you are a registered user? I have to go to the library to use my card no. - at home, it is unrecognised. Can you explain exactly what you do? It would be most useful to reach the ODNB (and Grove Music Online, perhaps) from home. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I type my library card number in the section marked "library subscribers" (or something). Maybe it is different for different libraries? Mine is City of Westminster (London), FWIW (anyone can get an account there, you don't have to live in the borough, though I do work in that borough, I think, I'm a bit hazy on where the boundaries are). I was told about this when this offer came up from the WMF at some point last year, some free subscription trial thing, and I went for supporting the UK public library system instead (this was, of course, before the cuts). Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been to my local libary (Lincolnshire). There is a slight trick which they've shown me, and now from home I can access ODNB, Oxford Music Online, Who's Who and much else besides! So whoopee, and lets hope that this is a service that survives the cuts. Brianboulton (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Malmö FF FAC[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your image review. I've replied on the FAC page. --Reckless182 (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll reply there. Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi I've replaced an image with another in the article, could you just quickly check that the license is OK, it should be. I have written a comment about this in the FAC under the image review section where you wrote previously. Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have responded to your comments on the FAC page. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herbie Hewett/archive1[edit]

Just a note to let you know that I have replied to your comments: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herbie Hewett/archive1, and am seeking some further advice. Harrias talk 18:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll reply there. Thanks for the note. Carcharoth (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Replied again, seeking clarification on how it stands now? Harrias talk 18:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Eric Rideal[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter[edit]


So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to Cherokeenationalflag.png The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Bavaria Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


The 'Background' section to which the discussion at WP:RFArb refers is in the original ArbCom announcement of Rodhullandemu's desysop, at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#User:Rodhullandemu. Despite making several very serious allegations and appearing on their noticeboard, the statement is not actually endorsed by the Committee. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I see now what the references to 'background' are referring to. Thanks. While you are here, can I just say (without causing any offence, I hope) that your statement at the RFAR was a touch legalistic. Far too many legal terms are being thrown around and people forget that ArbCom is not a court. Getting Xeno to change "expects" to "anticipate" was also a bit pedantic (though that kind of change would never happen in a court, of course). If I seem rather more sanguine about all this, it is probably because I can read between the lines here more than most, having seen probably similar things play out when I was on the committee. But I've promised myself that I won't speculate (and from the looks of things, all should become much clearer soon). Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama[edit]

Hi Carcharoth, you asked about the freedom of panorama discussion. If you can make head or tail of it, your input would be much appreciated. See here. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a gnarly one, but from what I can read, the problem is that the plaque itself has no artistic value. If it had a groovy shape or a weird texture or some motif other than simple presentation of information, then it would be an artwork and you could take a picture of it and give away that picture. The artwork itself would be on public display (freedom of panorama) and you would exercise creative control of your own image (stand in one particular spot, set your shutter speed, wait for the right lighting) - in essence, you are artistically capturing one aspect of a work of public art. But it's not a work of art, it's an informational plaque. You've not actually photographed a plaque, you've photographed a bunch of words. Those words are (presumed to be) copyrighted, like all other words arranged creatively by a human. One way to think if it would be "why is this different from taking a photograph of a newspaper sitting on a news-stand?" - for the newspaper case, the paper would still definitely own the copyright, right?
Interestingly, the plaque itself explicitly states that all the other plaques are artworks, so presumably images of any of them could be uploaded under a free license, just not that one. It does seem a little weird, but that's often how life works. :) From the looks of it, you are better to switch it to non-free licensing and provide a fair-use rationale (unless you want to claim that the plaque is in some way a work of art, which would be a pretty steep hill to climb). As non-free, it can't go in a gallery (such use is not essential to understanding the topic), you would need to move it into the article body - but then the image itself is not needed, since you can just quote the text on the plaque. This is not "increasingly arcane rules" really, this site has always been about producing as close to an absolutely free work as possible. It does take an awful long time to sort it all out, for sure. Don't know it that helps at all... Franamax (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Franamax, I really do appreciate your time, but I stand by my argument that this is madness. :) SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
So it fits in quite well with the rest of en:wiki then... ;) I certainly do admire the folks at Commons who are able to navigate through the total mess that is international copyright rules. Direct more of your ire at Mickey Mouse though, if the Disney corporation hadn't decided to protect that revenue stream we would have many thousands of awesome images coming out of copyright every day.
Now that I think of it though, I'm not sure why British rules of copyright apply anyway, since the image is hosted on en:wiki, served from Florida. Commons has a different way of looking at things than en:wiki, so I'm going to have to do some more reading, and hopefully Carcharoth will have some input more sensible than mine! :) Franamax (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Franamax. See also Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom. The first questions I tend to ask are whether something is in the public domain or can even be copyrighted in the first place. I then ask how old it is, and what is known about who created it. If you know all that, it is usually possible to work out what to do. Someone probably did once explain to me why Commons:Category:Blue plaques is OK, but I forget what they said. There is also Commons:Category:Round plaques and Commons:Category:Plaques, or more specifically Commons:Category:Plaques in the United Kingdom (some of those are public domain by age, don't forget). For an example of the detail sometimes needed, see my half-finished attempt at Commons:User:Carcharoth (Commons)/Review and see the talk page there as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This strikes me as another example of purely notional copyright enforcement, that is, being overly strict to prevent theoretical infringements of copyright that it's unlikely anyone would actually claim. At the same time, there are threads elsewhere saying that we should vigorously resist removal requests by copyright holders who are actually asserting their rights. Of course I am not saying that our image policy should be "use what we can get away with," but I do find myself sometimes questioning our priorities. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles[edit]

On the Medals and Honors section, this is more neat, but it would look better off to the right or left. Could that be done with the Buckles/Bush picture moved elsewhere? - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 00:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably. I'd be happier to see that table go, as it is awkward to fit in. I'm adding some other stuff there at the moment, but feel free to try out other layouts. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Okie Dokie, I will see what I can do. In the meantime, please see this and this. Both are from the newspaper that was closest to Buckles' hometown. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 01:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
How about we do something kind like this. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 01:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. Carcharoth (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Slight problem. I can't find a site (yet) where I can confirm that Buckles received those medals other than a couple pictures. I am still looking though. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 01:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
After going past OVER 9000 blogs, I found a source. Oddly, it is from Australia. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 01:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Specific searches for each medal in the Google News archives should work. I did this search for the Legion of Honour. Carcharoth (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
There was confusion (on my part) on whether the actual medals were decorative or not. So, I just copied, with credit, the ribbons and put it in a "thumb" picture on the page. This makes things ALOT more compact. Also, I moved the pictures around so they aren't over the dividing lines of the sections. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 02:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Heh. I've been reading about that all day. But I only just now found this, where you can search for Buckles and see what Congress and the Senate have been saying about him. Stuff like this and this. Sadly, though, those links look temporary, meaning they may evaporate at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a PDF on the top of each of those pages that doesn't look temporary and are from the GPO or United States Government Printing Office. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 01:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Good point. I will go and change that. Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Related Question[edit]

I was wondering if I should put the Frank Buckles article under WP:VIRGINIA as well since he will soon be laid to rest at Arlington, which of course, is in Virginia. What do you think? - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 05:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Er, up to you, I suppose. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I would normally wait, but as bad as my memory is, I would probably forget, so I am going to add it now. I would, though, probably have waited until he was actually laid to rest, but that is just me. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 05:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for all your recent involvement at FAC. Your thorough reviews (especially of images) are very much appreciated. We are always interested in feedback on the FAC process from nominators and reviewers, so please feel free to share your thoughts about it at any time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laser brain (talkcontribs)

Thanks. I do have some thoughts, and will try and give some feedback at some point soon. Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
(belatedly) one of the headaches I find when buffing an article up is when you have a term which needs a bluelink...but the intended link article is sorely lacking, which then begs the question is working on the links an integral part of making an article the best it can be as te material is strictly not on the article page but important for understanding..this also highlights for me just hoe many gaping holes there still are.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I do think articles being linked to should be of a minimum standard (a brief scan to make sure they make sense), but not held to a high standard. My rule of thumb is asking whether a reader following the link would get confused. Red-links are another matter. Red-links are good, but sometimes creating new articles due to seeing red-links in articles submitted for review is even better, if you have the time to do them properly. Carcharoth (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Mount Cleveland[edit]

Hey, can you check back on Cleveland and start to cross out some points? I'm very nervous having an FAC without clocked comments. I've had them shut in my face before for that. ResMar 04:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in BLP, saying ethnicity and gender of EGRS doesn't apply to living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I remember you as having been very involved in years past.

They also are trying to remove the notability and relevance criteria for EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

One more thanks[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your thorough review and efficient, consistent, and in-depth responses at this FAC. Your involvement has been a bit of a wake-up call for me, and I have every intention of paying more attention to accessibility in the future. Regards, Juliancolton (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles (Part 2)[edit]

There is a bunch more information about his viewing and funeral here. Also, do you think that we should break up the lowering of flags to subsection of "Commemoration" or leave as is? - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 05:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You could call the section "Burial and commemoration". I'm logging off soon, so go ahead and make changes as needed. Better to discuss on the talk page. I'll have a look later. Carcharoth (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Did a little updating. Added about his vistation and burial in the coming days (actually starting today, the 13th) and a blurb that he was a Freemason and Shriner. All were, of course, sourced. I have some information about his home, Gap View Farm, which I am going to work on as well. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 06:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: Change to ITN[edit]

Simple: "kilometers" isn't ENGVAR neutral.  狐 FOX  10:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd also point out that "devastate" is more than enough to cement the impact.  狐 FOX  10:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a reasonable explanation (I had thought your edit summary referred to two separate things: ENGVAR and NEUTRAL, not realising you were trying to be ENGVAR-neutral, something I'd never heard of before). To be clear, I know about ENGVAR, but I thought the idea was to use one or the other, not avoid using the word kilometres altogether. The true ENGVAR-neutral term, preserving the original meaning, would be "km". I'll raise this on the main page talk page at some point, as I don't think the approach taken here was the best possible approach (though it was reasonable). I will be suggesting that km is used instead in future. Carcharoth (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't expecting you to reply here, sorry. At ITN we generally try to avoid differing terms entirely, as far as I'm aware. "km" would be good, too, but I maintain that the impact isn't made with that particular aspect of the blurb.  狐 FOX  23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Carcharoth. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You Earned It[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote the article Frank Buckles to good article status.

- NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 21:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It Passed![edit]

The Frank Buckles article will be mentioned on ITN soon as it was marked ready (or passed) a moment ago. Awesome! :) Thanks for your hard work on ITN to get it passed. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 08:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, I don't think it has enough support. Eraserhead supported it, so whether he or she should be marking it ready, I don't know. Possibly you are misunderstanding what "ready" means. I would say it needs to gather more support first, and it is only being marked as ready in the event that it gathers support. Anyway, I'm in the middle of reviewing an article, so need to do that. Will try and check in later, but unlikely to get back to this for another day or so. Carcharoth (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Probably misunderstanding what "ready" means on ITN. I don't have much (if any) experience on ITN. I just kinda dove into the discussion. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 08:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It didn't pass. Eraserhead had to unmark it "ready" because of an editor who has an issue with me (cause I stood up for an admin he was complaining about) !voted oppose. Actually tried to say it was non-notable. Another user !voted oppose, so away it goes. Figures. Anything to keep war, earthquakes and other things that happen everyday on the ITN section. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 08:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Silly folks - especially the argument that three potential people (now two) would be "too many." And I found dozens of mentions across the world to boot. I opined. Collect (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Returning to this after the day or so I mentioned above. I'm holding off on commenting on the main issue for now (it was always unlikely that the item would pass, and it will be archived soon), and will comment elsewhere on the other matter Neutralhomer mentions above. Carcharoth (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I marked the article [Ready] as it had only positive support and an appropriate update - its something we've just started doing as a response to this discussion. And while I am disappointed by the opposes they were at least reasonably well argued.. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I asked Eraserhead if it still had any chance on ITN and he said too much time has passed for it to get on ITN. :( Damn. Thanks for trying though. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 16:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles PR[edit]

To make sure I am understanding correctly, on your post on the PR page, you think it is a good idea to keep off the biography and documentary information until such a time when it is released? Is that correct? - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 06:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that it shouldn't be taken to FAC until the biography is published and the article can be cross-checked with that. I don't expect everyone to agree with me on that, but I have rather strong views on biography FAs and published biographies, which, thinking on it some more, is probably a bit hypocritical in light of David A. Johnston, which I did a little bit of work on at the time it went up for FA. But the difference there is that there was no planned biography. Here, there is a planned biography. My fear is that our article may get things wrong that an official biographer will get right, as an official biographer will have access to more sources, and will also be more qualified to sift through news sources and other historical records than we are, to get the right balance. I fear that by aggregating news sources in this way, we are attempting to 'publish' his biography first. Anything below FA, I'm happy with, but FAs should be comprehensive and use the best and most reliable sources, which in this case will require waiting for the biography to come out. As I said, this is only my personal view, and you may find others will support taking this to FA before the biography comes out, but I thought it best to say this now rather than later. Carcharoth (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in response, still working on that PR. Normally, I would agree with you, but the biography might come out in late 2011 or early 2012. So it would be alot of sitting and waiting for something that might come out or might get delayed. Plus, knowing how fickle some companies are, they might shelve the whole thing (though I doubt it would happen) and it never see the light of day. So, while I don't mind waiting a short period, I don't want to wait an entire year for potentially nothing. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 07:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I understand, but I wanted to say this now, so if I mention it later I can point back to this and say when I first raised this point. I do hope DeJonge publishes sooner rather than later, and takes the time to do Buckles justice (the 'three years' comment makes it sound like he has a lot of material to work with), and of course I hope it does all get funded, released and published. Do keep an eye out for updates on the status of all this. One more point - you do realise that you will effectively have to write two FAs? One before and one after the biography is published? (i.e. you may have to redo the structure and balance of the article after the biography is published). Carcharoth (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I just don't want to wait on this. I am the kinda person that once I get started, I want to work at an article until the end. Look at Stephens City, Virginia, my first FA. Worked on that for 2 1/2 years (with ALOT of help from others) and worked at it until it was finished. So, I am a "see-it-through" kinda person. I just don't want to take a break from this one and forget about it. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 08:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to wait (sorry if I gave that impression). I'm really just saying that I would wait, and saying why. One thing that would reassure me is if you said you would return to the article after any biography was published, or would you leave that for others to do? Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I would definitely return. I keep the articles I work on on my watchlist. After Stephens City's FA pass, I have monitored it, even updating some of the 2010 Census information (of what there is). So, yes, I will definitely watch the article and come back when the time comes to the biography and documentary to be released. Even if that means going through the FA process again. I have done one, helped with another, so I won't mind. :) - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 08:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • On a related note: I was wondering if you could do me a favor. On the "Commemoration and funeral" section on the Frank Buckles article, User:Wehwalt is suggesting that "[that] section needs some tightening up. It reads too much like a chronology at present." I write in a chronology style, so it is really tough for me to break from that. Could you give that section a look-see and kinda make it less like a timeline, please? Thanks. :) - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 08:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I will try. Trouble is, I write in a chronology style as well. Possibly you have misunderstood what Wehwalt is saying? He might just be saying still write in chronological style, but avoid starting the sentence with the date each time. e.g. start with "x days later, on date, event y happened". Things like that. Just to avoid the "On date" repetition. I'm sure he will make some example changes if you ask him to show you want he means here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I did switch some of those around (that was another point he made), but I am not sure if it is still in a chronological style or not. So, I will mention it to him later on today. Thanks! :) - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 08:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing articles[edit]

Yeah, at either end of articles I work in it is easy. Usually with mushroom or more oscure plants or birds one is struggling to scrape enough infor using every single source available, while at the other end one has medical articles (e.g. schizophrenia) which are huge and that is even when restricting to secondary sources. Medical articles of course have their own specific issues which make us wary of primary sourcing there (spurious studies with unusual fals positives etc.)

Then there are larger articles such as lion, white stork (I am trying to nag Ucucha to do black rat or brown rat for instance) and others where one has an abundance of sources and one needs to step back and consider what is needed to make a well-rounded comprehensive encyclopedic article. So for instance, in this list, there are ones I'd not use, reasons as follows - 1. title indicates not really about White Storks, which suggests there'll only be a passing mention (if not merely a mention in a reference). 6. might just mention that a number of storks were seen at a particular location - if this was in a reasonably central part of the distribution, the article would not benefit by stating that 'X' storks were found at 'Y' lake, hence we can leave it out. 26. might only be a peripheral mention (but will check if I can). Like you point out, spot articles confriming but not adding to info already covered we often leave out (eg individual or small-sample satellite tracking records)

Then there are other articles (actually I can't see any examples for WS), but are common in plant and fungus articles - some of these (for instance) might discuss chemical isolates which are used in indistry, or the fact that certain chemical additives increase yield in agricultural crops (marginal and research related rather than of any practical application or use) - so these would be articles that are highly specialised and of little interest to the nonspecialist reader (Yes, it is a bit of a judgement call...aand luckily we have processes like GAN and FAC where these can be looked at).

So by all means if you see a source and wonder why I haven't included it, you are welcome to ask.

another reason is sometimes we just can't access the material :(

anyway, hope this helps Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review Request[edit]

Could you please take a look at this article I've been working on and give feed back. I fear that I've been looking at it so long that I'm no longer seeing any errors or style weaknesses, etc.

Joshua James (life saver)


Sean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seansasser (talkcontribs) 04:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry not to have followed this up. I'm making a pledge to try and do these peer reviews when asked, as I think these requests come from me having added my name to a list somewhere. It may be too late now, but if you still want someone to look at this, let me know, and I'll see if I have time. Carcharoth (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)