User talk:Coemgenus/archive2012-2

More McKinley

I suggest we remove the House of Representatives service from the infobox or else collapse it, it is cutting into the text after the ToC and may raise objections at FAC. I seem to recall there's a way to collapse in an infobox, I seem to remember it being done with California elections. But I'd rather just scrap it. Keep the Prez and the Governor of Ohio service. There are succession boxes in one of the collapsed sections at the foot of the article, anyway. Working on civil rights. Since the rest of the article is generally favorable to McKinley, it will help balance the ticket for FAC. Next possibly "Inauguration and Cabinet appointments", which will also allow me to discuss the Sherman/Hanna hoorah. I think it's going well. At some point, unless you do first, I'm going to take a shot at least cutting back the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not object to you working on the lede; they're my greatest weakness, I feel like they're the part of my writing that takes the most (justifiable) abuse at FAC. And by all means trim away at that monstrous infobox. Those things have a way of growing without anyone knowing, and all of the mid-decade redistricting makes McKinley's House service look more voluminous. --15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article. I did not have access to that when I did Hanna. I probably won't be doing any more writing til Friday or Saturday due to rl.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Which one, the Nichols? I wish I'd found it earlier. I may add it to some other articles where appropriate. As for WMcK, I just got the Gould book, and I'm reading and writing as I go. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The one about McKinley and Hanna's first meeting. Yeah, Gould is very good, very to the point and businesslike. Leech is pleasant but sometimes a bit chatty.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The section on Spanish-American War should be as high in the presidency section as we can conveniently put it. I wrote the civil rights section, for example, as if the reader had already been introduced to the events of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, maybe right after the cabinet formation bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I got to figure that it is what people will be looking for. Perhaps have a section "Territorial expansion; accusations of imperialism" after that (just a guess on the title). That can cover both Hawaii and the keeping of the Spanish possessions.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. There seems to be no shortage of sources on whether or not McK was an imperialist. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt he had his eye on the Spanish colonies from quite early in the war. Whether that makes him an imperialist or not is another question. Typically for McKinley, he exhibited indecision so as to get other people's opinions.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We'll probably never know for sure. McKinley seems to have kept his thoughts to himself and written down very little. I ran into the same problem with Chester Arthur. Not like Nixon with his five or six books, or Obama with his two memoirs before the age of fifty. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nixon wrote eleven books, I think ... yes, McKinley was very cautious about what he wrote down, as was Hanna. Hanna was a difficult article simply because the primary sources are so few that he has not attracted biographers, most of what there were of his papers were destroyed after his official biography was written.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Appointments is done. I'm going to move ahead with an economy section, focusing on the Dingley tariff and the economic boom, then perhaps the 1900 election, which I intend to make short and perhaps combine with a few words on his second term and then do assassination. It is really starting to take shape.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's starting to look good. I'm working through the war today. The section I wrote on tariffs is in there, so if you want to combine it with an "Economy" section, I don't object. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant to say. Use that as one of two subsections.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

On second look, not much more than what you've written is needed for to cover the economy to the extent we need to. I've added a couple of sentences to your fine work.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, works for me. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen [1] reverted your removal of the old foreign policy section. Do you think he feels the specific points removed are essential, or that he just wants a summary of foreign policy?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. That section was non-neutral, rambling, and uncited. I'll try to figure out what he wants. Let's just leave it in for now and I'll see if I can work it into the other sections. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I may be able to transform it into a Boxer Rebellion/Open Door section. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I will do a Funeral and Memorials sections next, and perhaps we should each write a couple of paragraphs of legacy each and merge them.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I should be able to bang out "1900 election" tomorrow if real life doesn't interfere too much. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Lots of images here. I think we should replace the one of McKinley at 19 with one of the ones in here with him in uniform. And perhaps one of the ones with him as a young congressman, he had quite the striking appearance then.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the one on p.4. It was featured prominently in Armstrong, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you get a better scan by using Armstrong? I just checked to see what libraries had the Davis book around me, the nearest (not counting the Smithsonian) is 50 miles away, but driving probably 80 or 90. Not happening.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a better picture of the monument in Columbus, but there some visible barricade fencing and a couple of signs. It seems Occupy Columbus set up right in front, and I had to work around them. The fencing was to keep them from using his memorial probably as a toilet or something.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

HA! I didn't realize there was an Occupy Columbus. The pic of the memorial in Canton is mine from a few years ago, but if you see a better one somewhere that we can use, I won't be offended. My scanner has been giving me trouble, but I'll see if I can't get it to spit out a scan from Armstrong. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, swell. I will see if I can get Davis on ILL, there are a couple of copies in Virginia. The day I was at the memorial in Canton it was utterly pouring and there was no chance to get a good image (Columbus was two days before).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

How does this look? I'm not happy with the color, but I know almost nothing about photo editing. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll talk to Connormah, he's helpful on images. I am pretty helpless with a camera, beyond the basics. There's also the graphics lab on Commons, which are good people.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I know you like the judicial appointments. Maybe we could move it to a text box? There's really not that much to say about it, and no matter where we put it, it's going to be a prose stopper. It might raise eyebrows at FAC, but such is life, I don't think anyone would fuss that much.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering how little there is to say about it, I wouldn't mind moving it wherever. I thought there would be more to it, with McKenna being a Catholic and all (and a graduate of my alma mater, by the way) but the biographers seem to regard the nomination as a non-event. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. I'll play with it. Can you add a couple of paragraphs somewhere in the Legacy subsection dealing with foreign policy and expansionism? I'm not wedded to ending the article with that quote. I may add a couple of sentences someplace in that section about the increased interest in McKinley because of Rove thinking 2000 was going to be a realigning election and him having studied McKinley under Gould. See much more needs adding to the article? Other than images. Some of the images from Davis are in McElroy, though they are misleadingly credited Stark County Historical Society (they published the book, I bought it at the McKinley museum).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a crack at that Legacy bit. Images aside, I agree: we're nearly ready to go. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll work with the lede next, probably tonight. Then polish, consistency, all that good stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a significance to the order you put multiple-source references like <ref>Norton, p. 112; Jameson, p. 1.</ref>? If there is not, I suspect we should put them in alphabetical order to head off comments at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I tried to imitate how you were doing references, but I see you do not add periods at the end, and I do. Also, you do not put refnames in quotation marks and I do. Suggest we do one each way. --Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

ref conversion

(lurking ref consultant) Quotes on ref namess are really proper form; they're flat-out required in order to uses spaces or most other non-A-Z,0-9 characters. Omitting them can also confuse scripts that process the code trying to make improvements. The periods, uh, ease migration to {{sfn}} (which always appends them). {sfn} also gets rid of the whole mess of naming refs. *coughs* and done. Alarbus (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Much as I hate to reverse myself, I'm kind of coming around on the sfx thing. I never knew how that template worked before, and had always done the links "by hand" which was a pain in the ass (look at Rutherford B. Hayes to see what I mean). If sfx is as easy as it looks, I'll be glad to change them over. I do have a couple of concerns, though: how does it work when I cite a sentence to two sources? Does it make two separate footnotes? That seems messy. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Great. The form used on Hayes, and a lot of other older articles, is much like {sfn} but tedious as hell and error prone. Using {sfn} is simply a short form of ref tags containing {{harvnb}} and a period. When used singly, the footnotes automatically collate without the bother of using named refs. It does this by consistently generating duplicate named refs that MediaWiki takes care of combining. If you code two instances of <ref>Smith, 2006</ref>, MediaWiki will combine them with "a", "b" uplinks. However, if you code <ref name="murder">Smith, 2006</ref> and also <ref name="murder">Johnson, 1875</ref>, you'll also find them combined (as whichever comes first in the page), which is actually a fairly common problem.

To handle the citations to multiple sources, it is simplest to just use two (or more) {sfn}, generating multiple ^[17][18] links to footnotes. You're doing a fair amount of this and I can understand not wanting to go there. The same situation arises if you want to include a brief bit of extra text such as "quoted in" {Bryan 1899}. The simple approach to these cases looks like: <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2006|p=123}}; {{harvnb|Johnson|1875|pp=75–79}}</ref> and <ref>Sung by {{harvnb|Jones|1967|loc=Track 3}}</ref>. These won't automatically collate much as they are most likely going to be unique; if there are duplicates, using a named ref will still work.

Since you've a fair number of these, I'm thinking it would be best to name them and keep the long form in the references section inside the {{reflist}} structure. The names here would not be of the author-year form but be per the topic being sourced. The template {{r}} can be used to simplify the inline markup: {{r|assassination}} with <ref name="assassination">[7 cites…]</ref> appearing down in references. There's also the template {{sfnm}} ('m' for multiple), but I don't really like it. I'll probably give it a try but expect to prefer the first option I suggested.

I'll take a close look at the article, and probably do a bit of light prep. This will all be fairly easy. When you and Wehwalt are at a fairly close to final form, I can flip things over in a couple of hours. Alarbus (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me, subject to Coemgenus's approval. I think Coemgenus still has a bit to add to the legacy section, and I still want to give some of the sections a detailed read, but I suspect we'll be talking about peer review in the next few days. That would be a good time to go through it, if Coemgenus agrees.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK by me. I'll give that legacy section a shot tomorrow, if Hayes being on the main page doesn't keep me too busy. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll tread lightly today. I had not realised that Hayes was going on the main page today; what fun. I'll keep an eye on that, too, and have nudged it along a bit. On McKinley, I'm thinking more prep of the refs section and a few examples. {sfnm} might actually be the way to go as I was not thinking that you can use unnamed template parameters (just "Smith" between pipes ("|"). I may drop a few examples in; somewhere far away from the Legacy section. Alarbus (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sure it will not be vandalized by angry Tilden supporters. I'm finished for the night, so don't worry about me ecing you. Thanks for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK; Have a good night. I'll keep an eye on both. I'm thinking get McKinley flipped before you ask for a PR. You're welcome. Alarbus (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done a block of refs starting from the beginning; forty-odd. The fn#1 is using a pair of {harvnb} in the reflist and named refs inline; I'm thinking not-this-method as it's just extending the named ref scheme (the most apt names for these will be elusive, too). Mostly I used {sfnm}. See fn#191: Nichols & Gould. This is using the standard harv form, which includes year. Since the sources used are unambiguous when using just author name, that's what you two have been using in plain text refs. To omit the year, the citation definition should use {{sfnRef}} and I've done so for the batch I've done (the rest are set to ref = harv for the moment). This works quite well and allows a bit of formatting if need be. Mostly it is for sources without an author (and this use! it's legit). About half of the ones I've done are using {sfnm} (others being {sfn}) and the output is the same as what you've been doing. {sfnm} requires that the unnamed template parameters for the years be provided even when they're not used; but you *can't* pass the years as that will break the yearless-shortened downlink to the full citation. This means that you *must* use double pipes {"||") after the authors. This is annoying while editing and will result in hard-red errors and "{{{4}}}" in your footnote when you forget a pipe. {{sofixit}}. {sfnm} also needs to have the page parameters numbered to indicate which author they go with: |1p=, |1pp=, |2p=, |2pp=, &c.

So, this is what this approach will look like. fn#1 and fn#191 will get kicked in line and the other 200 or so need doing. Alarbus (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Should we unbundle the references with multiple sources for the sake of simplicity then?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

robust structure

Meh; it really up to you guys. I was concerned a bit because I'd been thinking that {{sfnm}} required the long form with each parameter named (see top of documentation). The double pipe is odd; an unfortunate interaction of the yearlessness and how that template is built (I've not looked; it's by Ucucha); have a look. It might be changed, but maybe not and maybe not without breaking current uses. I think it more important to unbundle from the named refs; once that's done, you can fiddle with the bundling simply by tweaking the authors and pages (and {sfn} vs {sfnm}). This becomes trivial (albeit with care for the syntax required). If you adjust the templates, the collating of the footnotes simply adjusts.

I noticed that the bundling is mostly in the first five sections. That would seem an artefact of authorship. Coemgenus, you did most of those sections, right? You guys probably should iron out that sort of pattern in the referencing.

If you're both fine with where this is going, I'll crank on more tomorrow. Feel free to help ;) this is a simple example of taking a less used source to {sfn}; note the {sfnRef} at the end. The other edits I made today show a bunch of {sfnm} conversions. Alarbus (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Who's Miller? Stubbed here. Finding this sort of inadvertent omission is one of the key reasons to structure references with positive connections. I also fixed two misspellings: "Philips", "Armstong". I'm going to refactor the 1st fn done with harvnb/LDR and the one using years and convert some more. Alarbus (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to insert that one. Fixed. I'm considering spending some time with the Assassination of William McKinley article, it is in very good shape.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just go ahead and do what you think will make things smoothest.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for Miller; I knew the video wouldn't have page numbers and figured it would be an easy fix rather than looking they guy's works up; more reliable to ask. Consider a future version of MediaWiki: it simply won't let you enter undefined references; this kind of cross checking will be built in. The problem is the chaotic community's resistance to doing things properly. Covering Czolgosz at the same level would be good. I'll look at it. Alarbus (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Coemgenus, you should install:

• importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
  • User:Ucucha/HarvErrors — doc here

in your User:Coemgenus/common.js (or which ever of User:Coemgenus/vector.js or User:Coemgenus/monobook.js you prefer) Wehwalt's User:Wehwalt/monobook.js is mostly per my suggestion and he's lovin' it. nb: some of that assessment stuff you've got ATM is now available as a gadget in prefs... Alarbus (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think highly of it. It allows me to see some of my more stupid mistakes.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

To keep that separate. Could you look at the question of the Third Party System that Rjensen desires to have in the lede? I don't find this to be that common a term.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm satisfied. I'm working on getting a copy of that 1901 book, to get better images, but that needn't delay peer review once Alarbus has done his magic.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am too, for now. I couldn't think of what else to add in the legacy section, but I'll look back during the week. No reason to hold up PR. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a bit from Phillips about his foreign policy and the beginning of the co-operative relationship between the US and UK? But either way. I think it's turned out quite well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Peer review started. I've asked Brianboulton to give it a look. I'm hopeful a few of the editors who have shown an interest in Gilded Age articles will look in. I went through the images and cleared up the obvious licensing issues that an image reviewer is likely to look at.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is going to take more trimming. Suggest more focus on the McKinley-Hayes relationship, don't cut any of that, but I think it probably needs about ten percent. Really, we should try to get it down as close as 12K as we can. Expect that we will probably have to add bits and pieces to satisfy individual demands, and that Rjensen will add material as well, though certainly his participation is quite helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take another pass at it tonight. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

As a suggestion, maybe mention changes in command only when it becomes relevant ("who by then commanded ..."). It will be fine. By the way, the Davis book from 1901 came last night so we should be OK on images once I fire up the scanner.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears the good professor has done it for me. Lovely. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice of him. It is painful cutting one's prose ... Certainly you could write a fuller version, say William McKinley in the American Civil War or some such.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I could, but I don't know if it warrants its own article -- or that anyone would want to read it! I may work up an article on the regiment, though in the second half of this year. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well worth it! Quite the regiment, considering. Certainly no other regiment every had two presidents in it, ever, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried shortening a couple of "your" sections, but there wasn't much fat to trim. I'll keep poking around. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter

Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Miyagawa (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, 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 would 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 (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

James G. Blaine

Hi. I'd not realised you were looking to FA this article. Interested in the same ref clean up? I could do it in a few hours and it might flush out a few minor issues (or not, I've can't tell until I'm in there). Alarbus (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if you feel like it! There's a lot of the double and triple cites that I now realize are unnecessary and cumbersome, so if you want to wait, I don't blame you. If you want to include the year, that's fine, but I don't think you need it -- I don't have more than one source by the same author. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Let me know when you're done editing it and I'll step in. I'd stick to the current grouping, but once it's converted, that can be revisited. It's a balancing act between the automatic collating and how you like things. I'd omit the years unless there's a need to distinguish works. Note that that need can arise if a new work is introduced, which means that the other "Smith" would need to get a year. You don't have to use years; see the Nixon Library footnotes on RN's page; I used italic titles of web pages. Alarbus (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you're sure you'd prefer them unbundled, it's probably faster to just do so in one go. Up to you. Alarbus (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems you went offline; I'm thinking you meant you'd prefer them unbundled and will do so. The article has [edit] so it can always be shoved back. Alarbus (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually do like them all in one note, if it's all right with you. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OK; I was focused on "unnecessary and cumbersome", above. I'll use {sfnm} and they will look pretty much the same, it will result in consistent ';' and '.' I've be doing prep work, as I'll have seen. Alarbus (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's  Done. I did a double check of the prior rendered footnotes, and the current ones, and they match; there were five trivial punctuation anomalies. Not a single name spelled incorrectly or a source undefined. There is on cite that I'll call out: "Muzzey, p. 294 n." seems worth mentioning.

From here, you're free to fuss with the bundling as you like. I believe the named ref system tends to encourage chunky-bundling (amongst other ill-things). If you refine the {sfnm} to target the sources more specifically than before, the collation should simply adapt. Be careful with the {sfnm} syntax: double pipes after authors, digits before "p=" and "pp=", e.g.

• {{sfnm|Muzzey||1pp=12–14|Russell||2p=8|Crapol||3p=2}}

Rutherford B. Hayes tomorrow? Alarbus (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You work quickly! Sure, if you want to make over Hayes's refs, I certainly don't object. I'll check that Muzzey ref; it refers to a footnote on that page, but it should have a number after the "n". --Coemgenus (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I try, although that went longer that I expected. See the 'exactly' diff at User talk:Wehwalt#United States Bicentennial coinage for an example of how these templates allow honing of citation targets. Will work on Hayes today and was also peeking at the latter Harrison. All Teh President Men in due time… Poor Grover Cleveland doesn't even have cite templates in the source section. Alarbus (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hayes is also  done. And dessert. There were a few bits of punctuation and four [[#trefouuse|Trefousse]] typos; those downlinks didn't work. There was also:

• <ref name="hoog265">Robinson, pp. 64–68, 90–95</ref>

which became:

• {{sfn|Robinson|pp=64–68, 90–95}}

This was probably some old tweak (or vandalism;). Another problem with named refs is it's tedious to update them as the cituation [sic] changes. Alarbus (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Input requested

A current discussion concerning possible inclusion the Huntsman line within the chart at Romney family (U.S.) here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_7#Template:Selected_Jared_Pratt_descendants.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Roosevelt

" and Roosevelt believed it would be an excellent stepping stone to the presidency in 1904." I'm not sure it's as clear cut as all of this. At least some sources say he wanted renomination as governor, which Platt was set to deny him. Remember, no post-Civil War veep had become president except Arthur.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of that, too, -- few vice presidents achieved anything but obscurity -- but I thought that's what Gould said: "Close friends such as Henry Cabot Lodge, along with such political allies as Senator William E. Chandler, told Roosevelt that the vice-presidency offered the best chance to become McKinley's successor." p. 216. I'm open to better language, if you want to change it, but I don't think it misrepresents the source. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William McKinley/archive1

Just so you're aware, you can submit conominations. J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Good to know! But I'm going to keep this one out. Wehwalt probably wrote more than half of the text and I wouldn't feel right about it. Besides, assuming James G. Blaine passes, I'll have enough points to make the next round. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It was about 50/50. No objection if you want to.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Want to take a shot at the images? Meantime I'll check out what Rjensen did with Klinghart, hopefully JSTOR has it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I have to straighten out some image tags on Blaine, anyway, so I'll be in the right state of mind. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the 1900 poster, I see it was originally uploaded by Rjensen, so possibly he has additional information on where it came from. Another idea would be to substitute this, though I would closely crop all of the white around it. It does rather succinctly sum up the 1900 campaign; McKinley had made himself a flag figure even more than in 1896, and there was really not much Bryan could do about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind asking him about the source? I don't think he wants to hear from me right now. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, no one ever said FAC work was undramatic. Let me take a bit of time to see if I can find an independent source first.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

He heard from me. I've a mind to review WP:COI re his use of his own book. The 1900 poster should be rotated about a half degree and re-cropped to lose the slivers along the edges that will result. The LOC image Wehwalt's linked above had a banner waving off into the margin down-left that would be lost in a crop. And it has a nasty book fold right across the middle which could be worked on but is tedious and I've only modest skill at that. Alarbus (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I plan to bring it to the graphics lab at Commons if we use that one instead. The White House portrait of McKinley was by August Benziger (died 1955) and painted in 1897. There is a really good description of its painting here. Assuming it was displayed before 1923, or that Benziger was a federal employee for the limited purpose of painting that painting, it should be OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The poster there now is great, and I'd hate to lose it. I'm sure the copyright is PD, if only we can substantiate it. As to the painting, as I understand I can't imagine it was hidden away for thirty years but, again, the substantiation is a problem. Our nation's copyright system is a fucking joke -- protect everything, register nothing. I blame Disney. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm sure in 20 years they'll be trying to extend Disney's Mickey Mouse empire further. A google books search found some discussion of it pre-1923, so it must have been exhibited.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a source should be necessary on the poster. What difference does it make what book Rjensen got it from, the point is, it was displayed in 1900, thus PD, end of story.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That's good enough for me, I just didn't know that it would pass muster with the powers that be. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

On the poster?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You guys use too many colons to indent; && (edit conflict)

Mickey will never fall into the public domain as long as Hollywood buys the legislation. I was looking at the Philippines flag and the png is much older than the original en-version was here:

• log of old image; deleted

The svg was created from that or the copy on commons. Anyway, I've a plan to deal with this complaint: ✄ Alarbus (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't view those template images as "in the article" anyway, and they can be devilishly tricky if the template creator is prickly.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've had trouble with them before and I never think to check them out. I've left an explanation about sourcing that I think clears things up. As to the colons: improper indenting is a pet peeve of mine, too, but this morning's edits have been by cell phone on a train, so mistakes arre bound to happen. Thanks for cleaning up! --Coemgenus (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You see I blanked most of the page for a moment trying to get an edit in ;-> Alarbus (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

navbox templates are part of the website structure; that's why colouring them up is inappropriate. And look I fixed the zebra striping in that one and cut the wp:flagcruft. I can be rather a prick myself. Alarbus (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(in other news: Ms spotchecks-not-done just lost an edit war on Wikipedia:Civility over (not) including this link. Alarbus (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC))

• Assassins (musical)
• http://lyrics.wikia.com/Stephen_Sondheim:Ballad_Of_Czolgosz
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oDTqPYPNg0

Alarbus (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I see Czolgosz lives on, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at your map and trying to find the Tower Of Light... I saw the Playwrights Horizons production, uh, a lot. There's also

• http://lyrics.wikia.com/Stephen_Sondheim:Unworthy_Of_Your_Love
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPBhLu3P4_s
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgL6988XoNk better version

This is a duet between John Hinckley and Squeaky Fromme only he's singing to Jodie and she's singing to Charlie.

Alarbus (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah so. I will look at them later on. You need the full poster for the Tower of Light, therefore I didn't see a great need to include it. The sites mentioned in the Assassination article that play a major part in the shooting are shown. Coemgenus, we are imposing on your talk page to discuss the partial map of the Exposition grounds I added to the Assassination article as a panorama. I've also fixed some of the image difficulties at FAC, including the Rjensen poster.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I was just looking at that page. Nice work. McKinley will be well-covered by the time this year is over. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope so. There is no point in underusing the sources! Also a panoramic artist's conception, don't know if you saw.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:Ucucha#sfn/sfnm; he's updated {{sfnm}} to support |p= and |loc= simultaneously . It's not a tweak; he did the whole thing over using {{sfnm/core}}, which is new. I think McKinley && Hayes have a few uses of loc that should be tweaked, so I'll be in there. Alarbus (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me that we should probably have a sentence or two about the Philippine insurgency, and about the harsh measures used to suppress it. A mention of Taft wouldn't go amiss either.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It couldn't hurt, as long as it doesn't add too much to the length. It certainly merits mention. Also, I noticed you answered the question about that poster's source and then reverted yourself. Did you change your mind? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Must have accidentally self-reverted. I've put it back. Do you want to write the Phillipine stuff or shall I? I was thinking stuff like "Many Filipinos sought independence rather than U.S. rule, and continued the insurgency which they had begun under Spanish rule. The United States harshly put down the revolt (adverb negotiable!) and in 1900, McKinley appointed federal judge William Howard Taft to build a civil administration in the islands."--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be glad to work up something along those lines, but I can't get started until tomorrow at the earliest, so if you want to jump in earlier that's fine by me. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

William W. Belknap

Hello Coemgenus. I have been working on the William W. Belknap article, President Grant's Secretary of War (1869-1876). Edward S. Cooper wrote a biography on Belknap, William Worth Belknap: an American disgrace, possibly the first official biography on Belknap. Cooper has a degree in Electrical Engineering. Do you Coemgenus believe Cooper's book on Belknap has merit? I have been attempting to balance the Belknap article in terms of adding information on his American Civil War carreer and his tenor as Secretary of War. Please, Comegenus, feel free to review or edit the William W. Belknap article. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you're giving that neglected article some attention. I hope to take a look at it this week. As to the book, the title certainly doesn't suggest objectivity, but it still may be good. Sometimes great history books come from outside academia -- I recently read a truly excellent biography of John Jay written by a lawyer. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. I personally believe William W. Belknap has been ignored by historians. I do not have access to Cooper's book at a local library. From what I have read on Google the book sounds good, however, I can't make a complete assessment until having access to the book. I have been using other sources on Belknap. His war record is quite remarkable. As Secretary of War he was very smart, although, his dealing with the Fort Sill traderpost was corrupt. I am attempting to learn more on his role during Reconstruction. He apparently supported both Grant, Emory, and Sheridan. McFeely tends to view Belknap as anti-civil rights. I am not so sure concerning that. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added more to the Belknap article. Do you Coemgenus have any suggestions on improving the article? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You've fleshed out the article nicely. The part about his war service was interesting -- the only thing I knew about the man was his cabinet tenure. One minor thing I'd note is that you refer to the subject as "Sec. Belknap" a lot. I think the MoS convention is just to say "Belknap". --Coemgenus (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. Adding information tends to make Belknap more human, rather then a corrupt official caricature. His years in Iowa could be interesting also. From reading Cooper through Google online, Belknap apparently was not successful at any private business ventures. The War seemed to make Belknap in a sense like the War made Ulysses S. Grant and many other men. Thanks for the tip on the "Sec. Belknap" subject. I am going to attempt to add more on his early life using the Cooper book and possibly more on Reconstruction particularly the controversial elections in Louisiana in 1872 and 1875. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Coemgenus. I had a question. Did the Secretary of War appoint the Superintendant of West Point Academy? If so then Belknap's appointment, Thomas H. Ruger, reduced hazing among black cadets and enabled Henry O. Flipper to graduate. Flipper entered West Point at the same time Ruger had reduced the hazing of cadets at West Point. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Beats me. But it might bear looking into. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I believe Belknap would deserve partial credit for reducing hazing at West Point, if he did appoint Ruger, the Superintendant, since Ruger reduced hazing at West Point during the time when African Americans enrolled in the Academy starting with Smith's enrollment in 1870. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If he appointed Ruger and if he appointed him because he thought he would fix the hazing situation, then I'd say yes. Otherwise, I think it's best left to Ruger's article. --Coemgenus (talk)

I am not sure if this has been studied enough. Grant may have been behind Ruger's appointment because he was getting criticism from the hazing suffered by Smith. I would not put any cause and effect link in the article. I believe mentioning that Belknap appointed Ruger is appropriate, if in fact, Ruger was appointed by Belknap. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Coemgenus. I have continued to expand on the Belknap article, now over 30,000 bytes. I am trying to get good article status concentrating on his War Department years. Do you believe a featured article is a worthy goal for Belknap? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Coemgenus. How much did the arming of Indians contribute to the defeat of Custer? Historian John Koster (2010), The Belknap Scandal Fulcrum to Disaster, on page 58 contends that breach loaders and 300 repeating rifles sold to Indians at trader posts were a factor in the defeat of Custer at the Battle of Little Big Horn. Koster I believe had based this theory on the investigation afterwards that U.S. Military breach loaders had jammed on the third round. Sec. William W. Belknap (1874), Annual report of the Secretary of War, on pages XVII-XVIII stated he gave his troops superior top of the line Springfield breach loaders. Custer had also refused to take Gatling guns that could shoot or fire 150 rounds per minute. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue. But it's an interesting theory. I think Custer had bigger problems -- like being vastly outnumbered -- but the Indians' weapons might be relevant, for all I know. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Quincy Miller GAC

I have responded to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, looks good to me! --Coemgenus (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

When you pass a GA, don't forget to update the templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2012/Submissions/Coemgenus

I'm afraid I've removed Talk:Quincy Miller/GA1 from your submissions' page. While I've no doubt that the closure was a sensible one, these lighter "rubber-stamp" reviews are not eligible for WikiCup points. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.0.115 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter

We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to Matthewedwards (submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to 12george1 (submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Miyagawa (submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you help with an article?

Hi. I'm preparing Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders for an FAC nomination. It is a complex historical topic, and I want it to go through a couple of Peer Reviews before I submit the nomination. User Wehwalt did a tremendous peer review already, and I think one more PR will get it to where it needs to be. Do you have time to read the article and comment at the Peer Review? I appreciate any help you can give. --Noleander (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I hope to be able to look it over later this week. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!! Another editor just pointed out that the requisite 14 days have not elapsed since the first PR, so the 2nd PR must be cancelled. So, would you mind doing the review at the articles Talk page instead? Thanks --Noleander (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.2.33 (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited Historical list of the Catholic bishops of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lydda (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) 10:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter

Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both Matthewedwards (submissions) and Grandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen again

He's running rampant on William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896. He's adding stuff that isn't in the references. I won't be writing anything more in his era, this is it for '96. He's impossible.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he pretty much ruined the Gilded Age for me, too. Too much drama. I wish he'd never come back from Conservepedia. I'll take a look at the '96 article and see if I can help you guys derive a consensus. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It survived. But thanks. Have left the Gilded Age for a time to work on Avery Brundage, that cannot possibly interest him.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on getting it to FA! I checked in a few times, but the controversy seemed to have died down. I've been absent from Wiki for the most part lately, but when I get back to constructive editing, I hope to work on Battle of Antietam to get it FA in time for the 150th anniversary. The Gilded Age will eventually drag me back in, but not for the next few months. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Yuengling Lager.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yuengling Lager.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter

We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is Cwmhiraeth (submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, Grapple X (submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. Miyagawa (submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by Casliber (submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, Muboshgu (submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter

Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Scotland missing from Fitzjames template

Qexigator (who came to the article 'House of FitzJames' via Eugénie de Montijo and a line of previous articles: St Michael's Abbey, Farnborough; Napoléon, Prince Imperial; Line of succession to the French throne; Monarchy of the United Kingdom) sees nothing in the edit history to explain the omission in the template of Kingdom of Scotland, which is represented in the second quarter of the armorial.Qexigator (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)