User talk:Iridescent/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

More punnery than you can shake a stick at

Aqui. --Moni3 (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think if I mentioned that the etymology of "gaol" is from "gay hole" (true, check your OED) Peter's head might explode? – iridescent 23:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I had the good sense to leave that "gay hole" gaol alone. I'm sure if Sandy were entrenched at home she might prod me to do something with it. --Moni3 (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't want to get into the gay hole—there's potentially something fishy about it. – iridescent 23:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, not to contradict you, but I'm quite sure the gay hole is populated by people attempting to avoid fishiness. --Moni3 (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that in general, the more people enter the gay hole, the fishier it gets. Although you may find that hard to swallow. – iridescent 23:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hate to spoil your punning party, but the OED actually says "jail" comes from Latin caveola "little cavity" (though admittedly, gayhole is one attested Middle English form). Ucucha 23:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The OED does say, also, that "In helle is a deop gayhol." Ucucha 23:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite (although both do ultimately come from "cavea"/"caveola": the section of the OED entry in question is:

ME. had two types, from Northern or Norman Fr., and Central or Parisian Fr. respectively:

• 1) ME. gay(h)ole, -ol, gayll(e, gaill(e, gayl(e, gaile, a. ONF. gaiole, gayolle, gaole (mod. Picard gayole, Walloon gaioule);
• 2) ME. jaiole, jayle, jaile, jayll, a. OF. jaiole, jaole, jeole, geole, cage, prison, F. geôle prison (Besançon javiole cage for fowls) = obs. It. gaiola, Sp. gayola (also, from F., jaula cage, cell), Pg. gaiola cage:{em}Romanic and pop.Lat. *gavi{omac}la (med.L. gabiola, 1229 in Brachet) for *caveola, dim. of cavea hollow, cavity, den, cage, coop: see CAGE.

Of the two types, the Norman Fr. and ME. gaiole, gaole, came down to the 17th c. as gaile, and still remains as a written form in the archaic spelling gaol (chiefly due to statutory and official tradition); but this is obsolete in the spoken language, where the surviving word is jail, repr. Old Parisian Fr. and ME. jaiole, jaile.

Hence though both forms gaol, jail, are still written, only the latter is spoken.

So, what you have is separate etymologies for the written "gaol" (from Norman—ONF in OED-speak) and the spoken "jail" (from Old French), with earliest variants of the Norman version being gaiole, gayolle, gaole; the Norman pronunciation then dies out, but (because of Norman French's status as the language of English government) the Norman spelling remaining the "correct" one despite the French pronunciation being the one which survives. Meanwhile, both forms die out in France, and the French (Norman and Parisian both) is "prison". – iridescent 23:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

More pertinently, it also includes the quote "Some again are..boring their very Noses with hot Irons, in rage that they cannot come to a Resolution, whether they shall say Face or Visage; whether they shall say Jayl or Gaol; whether Cony or Cunny." From 1668. Plus ca change… – iridescent 00:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Your question on ANI

[1] Fact is, the range he uses is larger than any administrator, checkuser or steward can block, and there are literally tens of thousands of other users on the same range. I know it's a pain in the neck. Risker (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Better tens of thousands of innocent users should be blocked than a single guilty one go free...." Neither of the IP addresses I've been caught by this block on shew any history of being used abusively. Now, the ISP can tell who was on a particular IP address at a given time. If WMF took this issue seriously and made abuse reports we might find that they were prepared to listen. Surely WMF trustees should be acting to protect the Foundation's assets. DuncanHill (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a valid point here, and it's one that's going to come up more and more often with the advent of Iphones etc. Cellphones are by their nature going to have dynamic IPs, and rangeblocks are a very crude tool—3 Mobile, the network blocked in this case, is one of the biggest phone networks in Europe. Special/Block still has that big warning notice not to block Qatar's IP address; knocking out one of the big British networks, for however short a time, almost certainly does considerably more collateral damage. (A lot more English speakers in Dorking than in Doha.) Someone really does need to rethink the way blocks are applied, and start officially (that is, from the WMF) notifying ISPs of problem users. Otherwise, the Massachusetts situation is going to end up spreading to cover all networks, and we'll end up with compulsory-registration by default. – iridescent 09:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

And a lot of 3Mobile users won't be on their phones - like me they'll be on their PCs. Pay as you go and one month contracts are likely to become more common for internet access in the current economic situation and these are accessed through mobile networks, and as Iridescent says the proliferation of mobile internet devices such as iPhone and iPad will also increase the number of editors accessing via dynamic IPs. To get back to the WMF - I don't know the position in American law, but in Britain charity trustees have a legal duty to act to protect the charity's assets - failing to make abuse reports for at least the most serious sockvandals strikes me as not fulfilling that duty. A robust approach to making abuse reports (and reporting on the response) would help protect the encyclopaedia, protect innocent users who may otherwise be caught in rangeblocks, and improve goodwill. DuncanHill (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the way these things are approached needs a rethink. Playing devil's advocate, most phone companies and ISPs aren't going to listen to anyone not actually from the WMF (if me, you or Risker approached Hutchinson and asked them to block someone's SIM card, they'd quite rightly tell us to fuck off). However, the WMF has (I think) a staff of five, and Wikipedia gets a lot of vandals.

Although it smacks of running-to-teacher, it might be worth asking Sue Gardner or Mike Godwin for their opinion. When it comes to something like that, their opinions are the only ones which matter. – iridescent 09:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right that reports would need to come from the Foundation not from mere mortals or even admins - but it needn't involve the Foundation staff in excessive extra work. The legwork of identifying the prolific vandals is already done by volunteers. Wikipedia is a big enough internet entity for ISPs to be likely to take reports from the Foundation seriously. I think Uncle G made a similar point on one of the board threads. It does strike me as a win-win and a double-dip. Both WMF and the ISP can give each other lots of jolly back-slappery (We're working together to protect our users/customers from disruption") and for those who do get caught if some range-blocks are still needed are more likely to react positively if they can be told that all is being done to overcome the problem. DuncanHill (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you think that they'd do anything even if it came with an WMF imprimatur, and it doesn't do a lot for those vandals who hop ISPs (which is many of them - maybe they're all doing the "pay as you go" process too?). Speaking personally, I'd never sign my name to something like an abuse complaint to an ISP without having personally reviewed and verified the information myself. Here's an idea though - since you two are the ones affected by this range block, how about considering making your own complaint to your ISP? Most companies care a lot more about complaints from their paying customers than they do about those from external sources, even if it's a popular site like Wikipedia. They may be more willing to solve a problem if their customers tell them it's a problem. Risker (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's customers are telling Wikipedia that it's practices are causing a problem.... Do ISP hopping vandals result in a range of ISPs getting blocked? And why are some networks apparently immune from rangeblocks? If you think that me writing to 3 and saying "Wikipedia is blocking me because they can't find an efficient way of dealing with one of your customers, I can't give you any details about the IP addresses that person has used because Wikipedia won't reveal it, and they won't complain because they might have to check their facts" then 3 might do something, but I doubt it. Would Alison reveal all the IP addresses used by whoever triggered this rangeblock, together with the timings and details of the vandalism to me, so I could write a more effective email to 3? Of course not. It needs to come from the Foundation, and it needs the sort of details that I do not have access to. DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• (ec, re Risker) Firstly, because they'd need the checkuser data and exact times, to allow them to cross-check against their records to identify the account in question; secondly, because after the Virgin Killer farce no British ISP is going to listen to anyone in the context of Wikipedia who can't demonstrate that they're acting in some kind of official capacity. Besides, I was there for Jeremy, A—w, Genius, Archtransit, Poetguy and Horsey; someone else can have a barrage of abusive emails from complete strangers for a change. – iridescent 14:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough about the abusive emails; believe me, I know of whence you speak. I know that at least one of the ISPs that I use would not hesitate to contact Wikipedia saying "Why are you blocking our customers?", but then again I've heard some pretty remarkable tales of so-called customer service from several British ISPs. (Do they compete to see who can give the worst service over there?) It was pressure from AOL customers that got that ISP to change its practices of assigning IP addresses, not pressure from any of the sites from which those IPs were blocked. ISPs don't care if Wikipedia blocks people for what we consider vandalism (which in a lot of cases wouldn't come close to meeting their definition) and the certainly don't care if *we* aren't benefitting from the edits their customers might have made; they only care if their customers decide the nuisance caused by *their* practices results in lost customers. And it is *their* IP assignment practices that are resulting in the need for large range blocks; even if a stable IP isn't assigned, the fact that enormous pools of IPs are available to every single customer every time they log on is what leads to this problem. Risker (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Give me access to all the information used to justify this rangeblock and I'll happily make a complaint to 3. Without it it would be pointless. DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It'd also help to have the number of attempted edits from IPs in the range, so I can give 3 an idea of how many of their customers are affected. DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate, the people to be addressing this to are Sue Gardner and Mike Godwin (suewikimedia.org / mgodwinwikimedia.org); because this would be a change from a reactive to a proactive policy regarding the way Wikipedia deals with checkuser rangeblocks and handles potentially sensitive personal data, it's a decision neither Risker not I could take regardless of whether or not we wanted to. – iridescent 16:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I know, I was just a bit narked by Risker's "nothing to do with us, guv" suggestion. Whether or not I can be bothered to get onto Mike or Sue I don't really know. I'm sure Wikipedia will survive without me or other 3 customers, and certainly there don't seem to be many admins bothered by the current "solution". Nothing radical ever happens here without the right few people backing it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hiberniantears

Come on Iri... is a little fact checking next time too much to ask? I made two edits, not one, and the "controversial" edit was the first edit, which included an edit summary considerably different than the one meco is complaining about. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough—I didn't realise there was an intervening revision. Still not sure it ought to have been deleted, since on looking at it this is an article about his views, no matter how cranky they are, rather than whether his views actually stand up to scrutiny. – iridescent 19:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Equally fair enough, and no doubt the conversation that Meco should have tried to have with me in the first place... :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm truly embarrassed

I just don't know how this could have happened. Must try to be more careful. Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

And on a current FAC, too… Just be glad M didn't spot it first. – iridescent 20:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I had a quick look through the whole thing again and found a few other little niggles as well, as the article history shows. Ah well, I never claimed to be perfect. Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Very minor question, but is the existing greyhound stadium the original? If so, the bit about all the buildings being demolished to make way for the car dealer probably ought to be amended. Plus my usual hobby-horse; how did the 1958 closure of Longsight station impact the business? (I appreciate it's probably impossible to separate out the impact of the station closure and the fire, but did it have a long-term "sod it, we'll go to Blackpool instead as it's easier to reach" effect?) – iridescent 20:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's rather a complicated story, but the present greyhound racing stadium is the original, yes, although obviously with additions and updates. The complication is that the stadium was really nothing to do with Belle Vue; they never owned the stadium and they didn't build it. It was built by the Greyhound Racing Association (GRA) on land initially leased to them by Belle Vue (it just so happened that Belle Vue and the GRA had the same chairman, Sir William Gentle), and subsequently sold to the GRA in 1937. The "buildings being demolished to make way for the car dealer" is referring only to the site of the Kings Hall exhibition space. The car auction occupies only a very small part of the former Belle Vue site, most of which is now a residential area. Any suggestions you have to make that clearer will be gratefully received.

You ask an interesting question about Longsight railway station. I hadn't clocked that it closed in 1958, but it's clear that Belle Vue was in a serious decline by then in any event, and the recurring fires weren't helping. I don't recall having come across any discussion about the specific impact of the station's closure, if indeed it had one at all, but there is perhaps a loose end to be tied up about how visitors got to the gardens in their later days. I'll see what I can dig up. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for taking the time to read through the article. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Haven't finished yet—been dipping in and out of it. I remember reading it back in WH's time, but it's obviously changed quite a bit since then. (Speaking of which, I notice a Fearless Defender Of The Wiki has reverted WH's cleanup of the insanity of Lordship Lane, Haringey. Mustn't let those Evil Uncivil Banned Users prevent The Kid In Africa™ from learning that "the awning on the used car dealer resembles a cricket pavilion".) – iridescent 21:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

PS, even back in The Old Days, why would anyone have paid an admission fee to see "a captured thrush"? – iridescent 21:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This was Manchester pretty much at its industrial height, so thrushes may not have been such a common sight to a city dweller as they might have to you effete southern bastards. In fact, now I come to think of it, I can't recall ever seeing a thrush, although I may just be displaying my awesome ignorance of ornithology, as I'm not sure I would recognise one anyway. On the other issue you raised, I find the notion that it's OK to revert anything posted by a banned user, regardless of its quality, to be completely contrary to the idea of building an encyclopedia. I also find the attitude that the only people who are allowed to contribute to wikipedia are the people me and my friends like is becoming increasingly common. Therefore, needless to say, I've reverted that Defender of the Wiki. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave up watching that one a long time ago; in my opinion, it's past saving. I kept an eye on it when I was looking at a River Moselle FT (Noel Park, Broadwater Farm, Bruce Castle etc—Lordship Lane pretty much parallels the river), but gave up on that idea PDQ once I took a good long look at White Hart Lane. – iridescent 21:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Another question; is "Klu Klux Klan" the spelling in the original quote, or a typo? – iridescent 21:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Klu Klux Klan" was a typo, fixed. I guess I just like the alliteration. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

And another: "North-West Amateur Brass Band Championship" or "Northwest Amateur Brass Band Championship"? – iridescent 21:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The source says "North-West". Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Murrays

Hi, wondering how can a company without significant coverage in multiple sources be notable? Lionel (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's an argument for AFD, not for speedy deletion. "Operates over 250 coaches, including the Canberra-Sydney express route" is patently enough of an assertion of notability that A7 doesn't apply. – iridescent 14:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

for fixing my spelling of pseudonym. I wish one could make typos pseudonymously. David in DC (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting a dab page

Hi. I want to delete Winchmore Hill (disambiguation). It contains only two entries. I just added "For the district in North London, see Winchmore Hill." blah blah to both of them. What is the normal { { db - zapme } } tag for this kind of thing? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G6, I would say - general housekeeping is said to include "deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages". In fact, I've already zapped it to save Irid the trouble... Bencherlite^Talk 13:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G6, noted. Thanks for that, the little fix, and the quality zappin'. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This month's Metro

I do like that gallery—I think it's a nice departure from the usual "line-up of blurred photos of trains". – iridescent 17:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that

You're more diplomatic than I; I was inclined to leave an edit summary recommending that he take his own advice. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already blocked him for an (unrelated) legal threat, so that should be the end of his short Wikipedia career. – iridescent 18:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

He'll be back - he's an incredibly persistent sock. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And we block them again… and eventually someone gets annoyed enough that they rangeblock his ISP. Not at that stage yet, though. – iridescent 18:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting there - I've seen him on newpage patrol three times in as many days. I'm not that observant, and even I've begun to figure there's something up.

What that says about me, I'm not sure, exactly. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You've seen...

this one? Eight watchers currently. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoine Dodson. If it weren't for the inevitable delete-create-delete-create-delete-go whining to ANI cycle, I'd have done an out-of-process speedy on that, on the assumption that The Jimbo would back me up when the complaints started. – iridescent 18:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't even going to try a deletion discussion. I mean, the man has a Twitter. And a Facebook page. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of AfDs, any here have idea what to do with the dozens of articles starting "Libertarian perspectives on ..." (they can be found at Category:Controversies within libertarianism). Most of them were created within the last few days by Tisane (talk · contribs). While some such as Libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights and Libertarian perspectives on abortion have been around for years, the new creations are concerning. I think is probably a case of content forking, and that the various views are actually notable they should be integrated into the main article, but I'm unsure where to take this issue. I don't have a huge amount of faith in AfD. Nev1 (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Then you have more faith in AfD than I do, as I have none. I think there are many articles on wikipedia that for your own peace of mind you just have to pretend don't exist. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What I generally do with things like that is ask User:DGG. If there is a good reason to keep them, he'll come up with it; if he can't think of a reason to keep them, they're almost certainly not worth keeping. – iridescent 20:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Henry of Normandy is one that just came up on my radar - I have never heard of this person, and the liklihood of him actually being free to hunt in the New Forest (before 1120) when his uncle Henry I of England was actively hunting down William Clito, is just a bit suspicious. It's "sourced" but to two "amateur" genealogy sites. Nor is this "Henry" mentioned in current biographies of Henry I or either of the biographies I own of Curthose, his supposed father. But, the liklihood of me managing to get the article GONE is .. zilch. "It's printed somewhere..." argh! Even if the child existed, he's not worth his own article! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's quite possible that I completely misunderstand the purpose of wikipedia, in fact I'm becoming almost convinced that must be the case, but my faith in AfD as a rational process was shaken by a lad who died aged 11 who may possibly have influenced one his father's plays with a similar name. Robert Dover's AfD just sealed the deal for me; AfD is just a playground for the article rescue squad, whose motto apears to be "no article shall go unsaved". Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This descent into stupidity is what's doing it for me right now. There are five places in a half-mile radius of this place with their own Wikipedia articles (Broadwater Farm, Bruce Castle, The Mall Wood Green, Noel Park and our old friend Lordship Lane), and I wrote four of the five—I like to think that if there was anything to say about the place, I'd know it. The "keep, it exists" brigade have always been with us, but lately they seem to have mistaken everyone else giving up in disgust at their antics for some kind of endorsement. – iridescent 21:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I got motivated to actually search, and some others are chiming in so Henry of Normandy might actually reflect the actual nature of scholarship soon. Anyone wanna tackle Larry Pierce (jockey) which I prod'd in Feb as you can see in the history. I'm not thinking that being in the Washington State Racing Hall of Fame is exactly going to meet WP:ATHLETE, but what do I know? Or Oliver Skeete also deprod'd back in Feb? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

With my admin hat on, I'd decline a {{prod}} on Oliver Skeete without hesitation, and I'd vote to keep in an AFD; aside from Pippa Funnell and Princess Anne, he's probably the only showjumper 95% of the British public could name. He's distinctly non-notable as a showjumper, but he spun a reasonably successful media career out of it and gets quite a bit of coverage for being the first significant black figure in a traditionally entirely white sport. – iridescent 23:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

More and more, I'm wondering if these people actually aren't notable under the ridiculous current standards or if we just don't want these people to be remembered for the future. I guess that's the problem with trying to judge notability as events happen. As much as I don't want to see an article on Antoine Dodson (and majority ("consensus") opinion at AFD may ultimately back that up), he's now got a single on iTunes, which probably makes him more "notable" than, what, 25% of current BLPs? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this does apply some of the time--a judgment that something will not be remembered in the future can be partly a value judgement and partly an objective opinion, and the !votes in many cases seem to line up accordingly. My own vote on this one is somewhat affected by my total distaste for this sort of reporting by the sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

quite a mixture of problems. Since I've been mentioned, from my perspective (and I must say I feel a little like a Capulet who's wandered into the Montague household):

Hamnet as a first order relative of a famous author is notable because a/he's been much written about and b/the close relatives of authors generally do influence their work and always their life--there are a number of cases where children dying young have been particular influential--Anne Darwin is a particularly famous and considerably more important example--and that's the reason they've been written about. The extent we should go into it depends on the importance of the author,and the minimum qualification here is "extremely famous"

Roger Dover has a full bio in the ODNB, which is accepted as a sufficient RS for notability (indeed, generally the best possible RS to prove notability), just as for other selective national biographies--how someone aware of that could have supported the deletion puzzles me. How someone aware of that could regard it as an exceptional dubious example of notability really astounds me.

As for Dodson, I think it as excellent illustration of what we should exclude with BLP 1E, and I said so at the AfD earlier today, though I don't say delete on this grounds very often.

As for the place mentioned, I made a sufficient comment at the AfD about local opinion on notability of neighborhood places.

But as for the libertarian perspectives group of articles, in general I think we ought to permit splits such as (Buddhist or Hindu or Moslem or Jewish) views on Jesus Christ, or on abortion, etc. though I'd word them the other way round as Jesus Christ--Hindu views etc. I'd think we ought to do this when there was a really major topic with sharply controversial views and sufficient documentation. It clarifies the presentation; it helps readers form their own opinion by indicated clearly what the likely biases are; it eliminates a lot of futile argumentation over whether we say N.M., the conservative commentator, wrote ... or to say N.M, wrote... ; it makes lack of balance easier to determine; it would greatly diminish the tendency to interpersonal conflict on political./ethnic/religious/nationalistic grounds. But all these are oughts. I personally think this change would help NPOV, but it is very clear most people have not thought so. There are many more important changes I think should be made, and many more important things to work on, than trying to alter this policy. At present, it is against standing consistent Wikipedia practice, and so i would not make any such article, or support them, unless there were really critical reasons for having it as an exception (though it practice, we do sometimes find a way to do something like this, by calling it "religious aspects" or the like.)

As things are, the introduction of this group of articles seems a poor idea, and I think mostly an attempt at propagating a POV through the multiplication of articles on it. There's a special problem, relative to the category heading. There is a possibility that controversies with the movement on a particular issue might be relevant. (This would seem to apply to only a few of the article; almost all of them are where there is no controversy whatever, as with National Debt, or only a fringe position, like the one on abortion.) In general, where there is no controversy, it just repeats elements of the platform, and is an unwarranted split of the main article on the movement. At most they do no more than state the predictable opinion of different significant people in the movement--many of them seem designed to highlight Murray Rothbard. Such material should be integrated into the article on him and the other theorists. The lojng-established abortion article seems to have survived only by being un-noticed--as with other problematic old articles. As a basic concept of how to work at Wikipedia, I don't support making this sort of insidious attack on established principles. If we want to change them, we should start the usually slow process of discussing them. (I have sometimes been accused of giving my own views at AfD as if they were policy--looking back, there might be some justice to that for a few of my earlier statements, but nowadays I try to be very careful to say specifically when a comment is a public attempt to question the policy or to apply IAR. Certainly when someone asks my opinion or when I act administratively, I give the orthodox advice & enforce the orthodox standard--witness my deleting according to BLP prod, though I have consistently opposed its use.) My advice about what to do with these is the same as what I advise people for any somewhat related group of articles, whether or not I support them: try to delete or merge the weakest, and go on from there according to the expressed feelings of the community. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Roger Dover has a full bio in the ODNB, which is accepted as a sufficient RS for notability (indeed, generally the best possible RS to prove notability), just as for other selective national biographies--how someone aware of that could have supported the deletion puzzles me. How someone aware of that could regard it as an exceptional dubious example of notability really astounds me." You clearly haven't read Dover's ODNB entry; it's almost entirely about the Cotswold Olimpick Games, which has its own article here on wikipedia but obviously couldn't have an ODNB article. Rather similar in fact to Myra Hindley and Ian Brady. Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Malleus on that one. Taking the full text of the ODNB entry, and stripping out those parts which are about the Cotswold Olympick Games rather than the man himself, one is left with:

Dover, Robert (1581/2–1652), was born in Great Ellingham, Norfolk, the second son of John Dover, gentleman. He went to Queens' College, Cambridge, as a sizar, matriculating on 15 June 1595, but left without taking a degree. In 1599, at the age of seventeen, he was examined at Wisbech Castle as a gentleman's son, sent by his father to serve one of the priests held captive there. On 27 February 1605 he was admitted to Gray's Inn and was called to the bar probably six years later. On 23 May 1623 he was further called to be of the Grand Company of Ancients of Gray's Inn. By 1611 he had followed his sister Anne and his brother Richard to the Vale of Evesham, Worcestershire, settling initially at Saintbury, Gloucestershire. Some time before he had married Sibilla Sanford (d. 1653), daughter of William Cole, dean of Lincoln and at one time president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and widow of John Sanford, a Bristol merchant. They had four children, Abigail (b. 1611), Sibella (b. 1612), John (1614–1696), and Robert (b. 1616), who died soon after his birth. Dover lived and undertook legal work in the Cotswolds or the Vale of Evesham for almost the rest of his life, residing at Saintbury and Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, and from 1628 at Childswickham, Worcestershire. He remained at Childswickham until 1650, serving as steward for the court of Wickhamford, and then went to live with his son, John, at Barton on the Heath, Warwickshire. He died there, at Shirley Farm, and was buried at Barton on 24 July 1652; his wife died fifteen months later.

That is to say, aside from the Games, even his biographer has nothing to say about him other than birthplace, family, and the fact that he lived in Gloucestershire and practiced as a lawyer. I don't always agree with WP:BIO1E, but it is Wikipedia's accepted custom and practice, and Dover is pretty much a textbook case of it.

Regarding The Roundway, I think you're misunderstanding what constitutes a "major road" in the Great Britain road numbering scheme. Four-digit roads (in this case, A1080) are minor roads which run between the radial A-roads. A short section of the eastern end of the Roundway is designated as part of the A10—which is a primary road—but it has no connection to the historic Hertford Road; the renumbering is purely an artefact of a scheme to reduce traffic jams on Hertford Road by encouraging traffic to take back-routes. (In practice, this entire area is now bypassed by the A1055 road, and only local traffic uses the North London sections of the A10.) The people claiming that it's some kind of major highway or dual-carriageway are incorrect; it's a completely ordinary narrow suburban back-street, with no notable buildings or significant history. (This photograph of the road in question may make the "this is a narrow and little-used residential street" point better than words can.) As I said at the AFD, there is an argument for having an article on every road in the world (similar to the argument successfully used for having articles on every railway station), but it isn't and never has been Wikipedia practice. – iridescent 11:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:72.234.61.173

Hello, I see you blocked this IP for vandalising John Demartini. Just to let you know that they have returned to vandalise the article ‎again. All of the users contributions are on this article and all appear to be vandalism. GainLine ♠ _♥ 09:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, but it looks like the IP's got bored and gone away. – iridescent 14:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Spilling over

Just to spread it around, I'm really offended that a discussion of the oldest twat on Wiki never included my name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd have voted for you. Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Twat! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that Wikipedia's collective mind invariably accepts "health problems" as a legitimate excuse for any kind of obnoxiousness? We had exactly the same thing with Mattisse and LGRDC. Certainly, everyone can have bad days, but in any real-world job if a grown adult repeatedly acted like a school bully, but whenever anyone called them out on it claimed they were too ill to reply, after a while even the mose generous employer would show them the door. (Notice how the swarm of Arbcommers and Civility Police who watch your page have all gone strangely silent on this one, incidentally?) – iridescent 11:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

They generally turn a blind eye when one of their own does what they'd be queuing up to block me for, so no surprise. On the health theme, I find this rather telling. Malleus Fatuorum 12:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I intend to blame you for my kidney stone and ruining my health ... after all, you did vote me a twat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't you know that if you're not "discussing admin duties", you're not allowed to post on talkpages? Another of the non-existent policies RHE appears to have invented. (If he'd actually bothered to read that WP:UKNATIONALS page he kept citing as 'proof' that 'Wikipedia policy is always to use "British"' when talking about English people', he'd have seen that it actually says 'Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency—making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities—is strongly discouraged.') – iridescent 16:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of page watchers: SG, 363; Iri, 280; MF, 274-- MF, you're slipping! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I'm currently not even in the top 50, I'll have you know. – iridescent 16:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Some of those count reductions will include me. I tend to unwatch user pages when it gets bitchy. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh goodness, now we have old twats and bitchy twats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tend to watchlist talk pages when they get bitchy, so I guess we cancel each other out. MastCell ^Talk 17:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A d'livery from one of your watchers

A wet, rubbery smack to the lot o' ya for vanity and basking. :) (P.S. When I come begging for some help, I want you to forget all about this post.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish my liver looked that good. MastCell ^Talk 17:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen your liver? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Only in my mind's eye, but it's not a pretty sight. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"People watchlist talkpages when they get bitchy" is now citeable. Unless everyone's checking in to read about Norman French etymology. – iridescent 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That spike is known as the "Organ Effect", first noted back in 2005 when someone slapped Jimbo's talk with a pancreas. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

spammy question

spam spam spam spam. Every contribution, a link to "Rhapsody blog" or other. Suggestions? Parrot of Doom 21:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:COIN is the official place to raise this kind of concern. I'm not the best one to ask; I formed a quarter of an unlikely group alongside David Shankbone, Rootology and Greg Kohs in a failed stand against the WP:COI policy (and am the last member of that quartet not to have subsequently been airbrushed out of the official Wikipedia history). My dislike of the British Museum project stems from their hypocrisy in unilaterally deciding that the agreement thrashed out there need not apply to them despite all those who were on the losing side in that debate (yes, even Greg) accepting the consensus even though we didn't agree with it.

Probably, just by posting here you'll incite one of the 280 watchers to go and clean up the worst excesses. If you really want to hurry the process along, just pick anyone who was particularly froth-mouthed in their "the purity of the Wiki must be defended against the capitalist hordes!" fanaticism here, and ask the same question of them. – iridescent 21:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh God that looks like a form-filling nightmare. I think I'll just revert any edits he makes to articles I watch, and leave it to someone else :( Thanks for the reply though, interesting reading. I don't have a problem with paid editing (etc), so long as what they edit is true, and unbiased. Parrot of Doom 22:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

RFA

I'm just trying to check on the connection between your comment and mine above it. Did you intend to agree with me that it should run for the full time, or did I give the impression that I disagreed with the 7 day timeframe? No worries, just want to make sure I didn't give the wrong impression.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, Just saw the edit summary that you were adressing the person above me.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec but posting anyway) I'm agreeing with you that it should run the full time, and explaining to Peter why that should be so. Peter's more used to FAC-style discussions, which stay open until a consensus is obvious be it three days or three weeks. In terms of how Wikipedia processes work, RFA and AFD, with their strict time-limits, are actually fairly counter-intuitive if you're not used to them. – iridescent 20:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks for the explanation (but I guess you can understand my naive comment). Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

RFA talk

Hi there, do you think some of the resolved sections should be manually archived? I'm sure you'll agree the page is ridiculously long, and might cause people irritation trying to navigate it. I actually want to start a new section on something but I don't want to make it even longer! Aiken ♫ 17:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've archived most of the "799 active admins" thread (leaving just the poll) - there was one comment from 14 Aug, but since that, no comments since 11 Aug. –xeno^talk 17:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with that; that thread had obviously died. Threads at RFA and AFD stay open for a relatively long time for a reason; the vast majority of Wikipedia's editors only drop in once or twice a week (if that). They get (rightly) annoyed if the "regulars" stitch things up in their absence. WP:TINC is one of the more ridiculous essays on Wikipedia; every organization has a formal or informal group running things. It's important that people who aren't part of this group don't feel squeezed out—virtually every point at Criticism of Wikipedia can be summarized as some variation of "it's run by a small clique, and that clique discourages input from anyone who isn't a part of it, even if that person is trying to help". – iridescent 17:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

you are reverting my edit.

but i am certain that 78.09% of earth's atmosphere is not nitrogen-- because we humans are not very good at breathing nitrogen, so i assume we must be breathing oxygen. that is why i am making this correction. i also have strong visual evidence, looking out my window right now, that suggests that most of the air i see outside appears to be either oxygen or hydrogen of some kind. so please do not make this change unless you can prove that what i am looking out at is nitrogen. -sio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sio6627 (talk • contribs)

The atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% other. Oxygen is highly explosive; if the atmosphere were 78% oxygen, life as we know it wouldn't exist and nor would other things which oxidise, such as rocks and metal. You've already been warned repeatedly about introducing your pet theory into Atmosphere of Earth; if you continue doing so, you'll be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – iridescent 18:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

On a related note Irid, Standard Dry Air needs loving. I have no knowledge of this subject. –xeno^talk 18:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Vaughan Pratt is the one to talk to. My atmospheric science is all 20 years out of date; I wouldn't want to touch it myself, as I've forgotten too much to be useful. – iridescent 18:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

uh,,, but isn't nitrus/nitrogen/nitrides/etc usually a big component of nitros? (the part that is very explosive) -- and oxygen might be flammable, but only when it is under extreme pressure or super-concentrated. (i've never run into any flammable oxygen, certainly none that will explode readily)-- i mean, yes, oxygen is necessary for a fire (why we use oxidizers in space rockets) but isn't 'explosive' or 'flammable' the same way in which gasoline is. -sio. (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oxygen is not flammable; flammability is the measure of something's ability to react with oxygen. My patience with you is running very thin; I would strongly suggest you stick to editing articles on topics you understand. – iridescent 18:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

and where is all of this nitrogen coming from, anyway? i'm sure your aware of oxygen-producing plants but where is the nitrogen coming from? -sio. (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Go read it for yourself. My patience with you is exhausted; any further posts from you on this page, or unconstructive posts on article talkpages, will be reverted. – iridescent 18:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

MF magnets. How do they work? --Moni3 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I was sorely tempted to say "God put it there" just to shut him up. – iridescent 18:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Earth's atmosphere is 78.08% nitrogen (N₂) per Earth and its source for that statement, Williams, David R. (2004-09-01). "Earth Fact Sheet". NASA. Retrieved 2010-08-09.. Also, "Elemental nitrogen is a colorless, odorless, tasteless and mostly inert diatomic gas at standard conditions, constituting 78.08% by volume of Earth's atmosphere" per Nitrogen. Please stop disruptively claiming otherwise unless and until you can produce verifiable reliable sources proving otherwise. Thank you.   — Jeff G.  ツ 18:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Any rational discussion of the composition of the earth's atmosphere requires a statement defining the earth time were are discussing. This present discussion concerns the current composition; during the Proterozoic for example, there was less than 2% free oxygen in the atmosphere --Senra (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that information, but a key word in my post was "is", as in "present tense".   — Jeff G.  ツ 19:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"we humans are not very good at breathing nitrogen". Actually we humans are very good at breathing nitrogen, so much so that it's a favoured method of committing suicide. It doesn't cause the panic to breathe that carbon dioxide does, and it results in a very quick loss of consciousness. Just thought you'd like to know that. Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Careful.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, now I've seen it all. When discussing the properties of a gas it's forbidden to mention that it's quite commonly used as a method of suicide. I'm quite frankly gob-smacked. If you're so concerned Newyorkbrad you might like to address this euthanasia device, which is quite comprehensively described here on wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Brad, how come the veiled threat of a block for taunting wasn't wheeled out for RH&E's crude baiting attempts at Malleus's talk? Since you commented there yesterday, I presume you're aware of them. – iridescent 21:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I was assuming it was glossa in bucco Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

For gosh sake, my post here was a joke. But I suppose no one remembers any longer that my first encounter ever with the Arbitration Committee, as a rank newb, was opposing Fred's proposal?? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that a joke that eludes everyone and has to be explained isn't much of a joke. Sorry everyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Tricky area to play for laughs; when it comes to threatening Malleus with blocks, it's happened too often in reality, for even more spurious reasons, to have much comic potential. Although he doesn't like to mention it, I distantly recall that he was once blocked for using the word "sycophantic". – iridescent 21:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I was indeed, and I never tire of mentioning it. Interestingly the admin who blocked me removed the block an hour later with the edit summary "consensus seems to be that many admins are indeed sycophants", which I have never said and has never been my view. I'd been referring to admin wannabes in general, not admins. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In an environment where one lacks the requisite skills to succeed on one's own merits, sycophancy is an effective alternate strategy, and as such is probably evolutionarily conserved. Which is my way of saying you are so right. :P MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Lingua in buccā - dammit, now I am confusing Greek and Latin :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Iridescent and Malleus - I think you both need to take a step back and review NYB's comment that, to me, did not even vaguely come over as a veiled threat. As a high quality joke it's debatable but I do not see any malicious intent in it whatsoever. I'm assuming no-one needs a pretentious twat like me to link to the assume good faith piece... Pedro :  Chat  21:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? You honestly can't see how linking to '"Giano is banned for one month due to aggressive taunting involving a suggestion of death", immediately following a post which could (by the more ardent members of the Civility Police) be interpreted as "taunting involving a suggestion of death", can't be interpreted as a veiled block threat? – iridescent 21:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I also think that blue links are very helpful for a twat like me. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Perhaps it's just jealousy that I am able to do so much work here" is my personal favourite. Although "I'm busy dealing with many image backlogs. I do not have time to argue tiny points" has a certain charm. – iridescent 21:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of gases I suppose we could all breathe some Helium and speak in funny squeaky voices...but I don't think that'd work too well in text. ^{MAybe like this and just pretend...talk in funny voice} Sorry, this discussion has gone well and truly pear-shaped :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Just don't take too much. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not the only thing that's gone pear-shaped. It seems that almost every day now I'm threatened by yet another administrator with nothing but cloth between his ears. Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In an effort to maintain NPOV (but probably OR; a google search of en.wikipedia.org reveals

• Malleus Fatuorum = 1,260
• sycophant = 122
• Malleus Fatuorum + sycophant = 4

--Senra (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(re Cas) Given that this thread began with "i also have strong visual evidence, looking out my window right now, that suggests that most of the air i see outside appears to be either oxygen or hydrogen of some kind" ([sic] throughout), I'm not sure it really could have gone any further downhill. – iridescent 22:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(re Senra) You'll get a very distorted view if you use Google to research Wikipedia's internal bickering. About 95% of the pages in question are (rightly) noindexed and thus invisible to Google and Bing's crawlers. The gaggle of squabbling cranks who run Wikipedia may be, well, a gaggle of squabbling cranks, but they do have enough common sense to know not to air our dirty laundry in full public view. For the benefit of the tape, this was the legendary "sycophantic" comment that got Malleus blocked. – iridescent 22:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

@Cas, make yerself useful and start passing out drugs (re: Tony on my talk).

@Iri, I knew if I waited long enough, your talk would be better than mine.

@MF, hugs and kisses.

@NYB, Moni can be a great help in the humor department!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This thread was a good read, though, to lighten up my very quiet and long day at work. (Not that I am condoning or condemning any of it.) 67.136.117.132^{Also 174.52.141.138}15:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK

...that a cock was once burnt at the stake, for laying an egg? Parrot of Doom 21:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, somewhere in the records there was a elephant executed by hanging, which if true, surely raises more questions than it answers.

At some point, I'd really like to get Saint Guinefort onto the main page, but I suspect it ain't gonna happen—my devotion to Jimbo's Glorious Project certainly does not extend to working with mediaeval Provençal. – iridescent 17:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

IRC?

Hi, i'm curious as to if you were on IRC earlier today (and right now)... sorry if this sounds like a strange question ;) Pilif12p :  Yo  17:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No. – iridescent 17:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, someone was impersonating you... Pilif12p :  Yo  17:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So nice to have fans. They saying anything interesting? – iridescent 17:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It was me. I did my best to represent you flamboyantly singing and dancing in the style of Carmen Miranda, complete with songs obsessing about bananas and the fruit-hatted peoples of Central America. --Moni3 (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I just hope I didn't let slip my secret passion for [redacted] – iridescent 18:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA

• Charles Domery, Food, or Culture and society? Seems notable for "food" issues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Either History or Medicine, I'd have thought. Wherever it goes Tarrare ought to be the same place. – iridescent 09:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know where to put it, since it fit in so many, and I'm going to be out for a few days. Would you have time to open a discussion at WT:FA, and then move it accordingly? Otherwise, just put it wherever you think best, and if others disagree, discussion will ensue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thread here. The more I think about it, the more I think Health & Medicine is probably the best fit—if it weren't for their illnesses (physical or mental) then Domery (and Tarrare, and Lambert) would just be three ordinary non-noteworthy guys. The disadvantage, of course, is that H&M is underrepresented at TFA and thus listing them there would pretty much guarantee all three being mainpaged, and all three of them will probably have a fiesta-of-stupid of Wife selling proportions as TFAs. – iridescent 18:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange And Intriguing People From Centuries Past

I really love your articles on these strange/intriguing folks from centuries past; I'm not sure if you noticed this thread on MF's talk page. Jack Ketch seems like a good candidate for your 'series', if you've the time or inclination. (Maybe something for the Oct 31 mainpage, if you can work fast...) –xeno^talk 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Virtually impossible, as almost nothing's known about the man. His current DNB biography—in full—reads "Ketch [Catch], John [Jack] (d. 1686), public executioner, is in himself an obscure figure. Neither his parents nor his date of birth are known. Parish and probate records provide a little information. Ketch married a woman named Katherine, who survived him, and he and his wife are probably the John and Katherine Catch whose daughter Susanna was baptized on 1 June 1668 at St James's, Clerkenwell, the parish where he was buried eighteen years later. At the time of his death he was living in Spread Eagle Court, which lay on the east side of Gray's Inn Road." Any article about him would essentially be entirely "Jack Ketch in popular culture", and essentially just be a list of mentions; if it weren't for the (virtually dead itself) Punch & Judy tradition, he'd be completely forgotten. – iridescent 17:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sad face. Thanks for taking a look. –xeno^talk 18:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to try PoD—if there is anything about him, he'll probably know—but from what I can see, there'll only ever be enough for a stub. – iridescent 18:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Observation FAIL. Parrot of Doom 18:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good point well spotted. Everyone here just blurs together after a while; whenever I see a "poop", I just pick someone at random and block them for incivility. (I'm very taken by this defense of the wiki's purity.) – iridescent 18:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, censorship taken to new levels. Aiken ♫ 18:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Depressingly, not a new level but an all-too-familiar old level. – iridescent 18:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That may have been was apparently a result of some locally-installed browserhelper unbeknownst to the editor. –xeno^talk 18:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Like you Iridescent, I don't think there will ever be enough on Jack Ketch to do much with it, but I've been nibbling away at William Calcraft, who was just as incompetent an executioner in his own, apparently quite unable to work out the correct length of drop for his victims, which meant that he either had to collect heads or rush underneath the trapdoor to yank on the legs of his hapless victims. His article really doesn't do him justice. Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That Calcraft article reads like it was written by a member of his fan club. "He was of kindly disposition; was very fond of his children and his grandchildren, and took a great interest in his pigeons and other pet animals" doesn't chime with the DNB's "he was described as surly and sinister-looking, with long hair and beard, in scruffy black attire and a fob chain", and it fails to mention that he abandoned his own mother to the workhouse, eventually being summonsed for his continued refusal to support her… – iridescent 18:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not great, no. I have the impression that most of it's been copied from that PD version of the ODNB. Malleus Fatuorum 18:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I'd kill myself with spoons if I ever found a plugin on my Chrome that removed swear words. While you're all here, what think ye of the structure taking shape here? Parrot of Doom 18:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

TPS checking in here. Looks good, obviously apart from the citations needed for the last part. Was HDQ really only an English punishment? Or is this just the English-focused version of the article? Skinny87 (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

When I was briefly skimming over Lollard history as background for the current "rural Buckinghamshire" series (for a variety of obscure reasons, the generally sleepy Chesham was and still is a hotbed of heresy), most of the sources seemed to be saying that burning at the stake and HDQ were generally administered posthumously, even in Ye Olde Dayes, and that the intent wasn't so much the ritual humiliation, as to guarantee that they wouldn't be in a fit state for resurrection (and presumably, thus unable to taken their place in Satan's legions) when the Millennium began. If that is true (it may have just been a specific policy towards Lollards, who were generally quite respected citizens aside from their heresy, and might have been treated as a special case to avoid antagonising the locals by torturing their friends), it possibly warrants a specific mention. – iridescent 18:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(re Skinny) I suspect it may be a specifically English thing—it's a combination of the Norse death-by-mutilation, the Catholic death-by-burning and the Saxon death-by-hanging, and that particular combination doesn't arise anywhere else. – iridescent 18:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Right now I'm concentrating purely on the English aspects, but the sentence was used in other European countries, and possibly the colonies. I know that in France the quartering was done with 4 ropes, and 4 horses, whereas we did it with a bloody big knife. We've always been more civilised than the French :P Parrot of Doom 18:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've spent all day messing around and adding to the first two sections of User:Parrot of Doom/Hanged, drawn and quartered. Before my head explodes, would you mind reading it and letting me know if it makes sense, and doesn't hop skip and jump around? Parrot of Doom 20:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • A curious synchronicity. I've been working on William Calcraft, one of the most prolific and incompetent hangmen there's ever been. Do you think there might be something wrong with us? Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Quite possibly. Maybe its just some kind of subconscious desire for attention, as these articles certainly get that when front paged in any way. What strikes me is a sentence I wrote in the lead - "For reasons of public decency, women convicted of high treason were instead burnt at the stake." Oh, so that's ok then. Parrot of Doom 20:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I think they were almost always hanged beforehand though, or sometimes garrotted, so they didn't miss much. One of the less pleasant aspects of hanging (are there any pleasant aspects?) is the tendency of the victims to void their bowels, considered in medieval times to be a sure sign of death ... I'm digressing. Your HDQ article looks good. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

All makes sense to me. A few driveby comments:

• Your summary of the Treason Act doesn't mention the crucial last point: "And because that many other like Cases of Treason may happen in Time to come, which a Man cannot think nor declare at this present Time; it is accorded, That if any other Case, supposed Treason, which is not above specified, doth happen before any Justices, the Justices shall tarry without any going to Judgement of the Treason till the Cause be shewed and declared before the King and his Parliament, whether it ought to be judged Treason or other Felony." That's the bright red line which separates "Anglo-Saxon justice" from "Norman rule by fiat"; it meant that, rather than formally codifying treason, it defined treason as "whatever the King says it is". (Reaction against constructive treason and attainder was one of the driving forces of the American Revolution, and the reason Article 3 Section 3 limits "treason" so explicitly and narrowly.);
• "London Bridge, for centuries the only means by which travellers from the south could enter the city" isn't true; "only bridge" (not even necessarily true, depending on where one draws the line; there was a perfectly serviceable Thames bridge at Kingston Bridge by this time) doesn't equate to "only river crossing". Old London Bridge was so crowded and had such a high toll that it was generally quicker and cheaper to use one of the numerous ferries, while the Thames in London is famously fordable (the reason for London's existence)—when dredging was suspended during WW2, it was possible to walk across the river at low tide despite all the centuries of dredging and embankments. The bridges in this period were used mainly for livestock, carriages and bulk troop movements. (Similar situations with crowded expensive fixed crossings vs cheap fast ferries still exist today, in Hong Kong and across the Channel.);
• My previous question about burning alive; how common was this? (Malleus touches on the same point above.) My understanding is that the burning was generally after the execution, rather than the means of execution. – iridescent 20:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, and another very minor one: Who is Maeve Jones, and why is her opinion important? (Not saying it isn't, but it needs an "execution expert Maeve Jones", or whatever.) – iridescent 21:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the bit about "I'll decide what treason is, never you mind" a few times but I didn't think it was important to mention. Do you think it is? I'll change it if so. Was London Bridge the main route into the city then? The source for that statement is a book on executions in general, its more or less accurate but its author could probably have worded it better.

As for burning, I haven't bothered to check up on it, as its a different sentence and not strictly relevant. I think you're correct. In most cases the executioner had discretion to conduct the execution how he liked, and certainly later in history women were usually strangled before being burnt, however there's one example I came across where the executioner fumbled the rope, burnt his fingers, and was unable to strangle the poor woman before she succumbed to the smoke/flames. Parrot of Doom 21:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Maeve Jones - not sure what she is, maybe a student who studied the subject in detail. Certainly her work is impressive, judging by the number of sources she quotes in her essay. I've tried to look at those sources online but they're all snippet view. I may try to get print copies, and reduce my reliance on her essay. Parrot of Doom 21:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the "treason is what I say it is" part is important—but that may be the American in me showing through, as arbitrariness was possibly the sin laid against Evil King George by the Brave Patriots, in the mythic version of American history. (Who really gave a shit, now or then, about "taxation without representation"? Every country in the world, including the US, has TWR.) You might want to see what Malleus's opinion on its relative importance. – iridescent 21:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important, as it adds to the dreadfulness of this punishment to be reminded that it could be applied arbitarily by the monarch. Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Malleus hits it on the head. Even the harshest rules have a legitimacy when they're administered fairly, and "if you do this, this or this you'll be executed, otherwise you won't" is fair provided that really is the case. (While people disputed its necessity, nobody seriously disputed the legitimacy of the Bloody Code.) Between the Conquest and the Civil War, that social contract broke down; part of the fascination with the long line of hanged witches and severed heads that characterises English history is that so many of these executions were on spurious grounds, resulting in a 600-year parade of martyrs. – iridescent 22:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a bit but its very incomplete. I've got loads of sources, I just have to look through them all again. Parrot of Doom 23:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Think I got it now - 3rd para onwards. I also changed the bit about London bridge, what do you think? Parrot of Doom 19:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There's some interesting discussion in a recent book on Isaac Newton's pursuit of a prominent counterfeiter concerning the mechanics of executions, including such nuances as who was entitled to be executed before the bodily mutilations as opposed to afterwards, how hanging evolved from a slow death to a fast one, and why being "dragged on a hurdle to the place of execution" was yucky. I'm sorry I'm not quickly remembering the title of the book, but if it's of interest I can try to track it down. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it Newton and the Counterfeiter: The Unknown Detective Career of the World's Greatest Scientist? Looks like an interesting book. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that's it. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Signpost column

Hi Iridescent. Tony's on vacation now, but before leaving he said you might be interested in doing this week's Signpost FA "Choice of the week" for the 23 August edition. Are you still up for it? If so, the page should be ready by Saturday for your text. Let me know if you have any questions, or if you are unable to do it. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, will do – iridescent 09:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done – iridescent 19:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of "obscure subjects" ... Deusdedit of Canterbury ... amazing what you can do with three-four mentions in Bede! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Or a couple of fossil teeth. Speaking of that, Iridescent, I wonder what you found particularly dubious about the inferences being drawn from the teeth of Seorsumuscardinus. Dormouse teeth are pretty distinctive; there is not much else that looks like a square tooth with rows of parallel ridges on it. As I think you know, our knowledge of fossil mammals primarily derives from teeth, but perhaps sometimes too much—paleontologists seem at times unwilling to even give much consideration to fossils other than teeth. Thanks for the review and support! Ucucha 19:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I know (hence the "I know it's standard practice"), but I've always been singularly unconvinced by the "we can deduce the body shape from the teeth" mentality of palaeontology. (It's certainly not a criticism of the article; if it's what the sources say, it's what we say.) Teeth are surely just as subject to convergent evolution as anything else—in the absence of other preserved body parts, I don't see how the teeth of (say) a modern ferret can definitively be assumed to be a ferret-size rodent, and not a rat-sized animal with an unusually large mouth, or a beaver-size animal with an unusually small mouth. Ealdgyth or Dana can probably give a sermon here on the number of blind alleys this kind of presumption led in unravelling the history of Equidae before people started to unearth whole specimens in the American west. (Early horses have the ridiculously misleading taxonomic name Hyracotherium, because the teeth resembled those of the Hyrax, not a critter known for its horse-like characteristics.) – iridescent 20:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hyraxes have actually been considered perissodactyls in the not-too-distant past. I don't know the particulars about Hyracotherium, but perhaps we should place it in the general context of 19th-century misallocations—it was not too long before that Linnaeus placed rhinos and bulldog bats among the rodents. Horses are still a mess, though. doi:10.1007/s00239-008-9100-x is quite instructive. Ucucha 20:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Whaddya think?

I'm thinking that one of the most incompetent hangmen England has ever had could be made into a nice little article. There's a lot more on him than on Jack Ketch, that's for sure. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Probably needs a bit more explanation of the difference between short and long drop hangings, and also that crowds then might have been quite used to seeing someone go blue for 30 minutes. Parrot of Doom 22:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly promising, and recent enough that there should be reasonable surviving contemporary coverage. If you want a trade secret for "weird 19th century stuff" articles, Charles Dickens's nonfiction is generally a goldmine—it's mostly overlooked in favour of his novels nowadays, but he churned the stuff out by the yard, had a distinct taste for the unusual, and the fact that he wrote about something is in itself prima facie evidence against even the most hardline deletionists. His nonfiction is virtually all archived online; search Google Books for "Household Words", "The Household Narrative of Current Events" and "As the World Turns". – iridescent 22:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that when I was looking at Marie Manning (murderer). Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Calcraft looks pretty good, actually. I"m sure there's more to find.. but he's WAY past my comfort zone. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

He's right slap bang in the middle of mine. :lol: I think I might try this at GAN shortly, after I've expanded the lead and done a few other bits and pieces. I wonder if there are any hangman FAs? Malleus Fatuorum 13:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, although something could probably be done with Albert Pierrepoint without too much effort. Louis Congo certainly looks an interesting character, although I suspect most of the sources will be in French. Thomas Derrick has the dubious distinction of entering the English language, and probably warrants more than this sorry stub. – iridescent 19:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that Pierrepoint is probably the low-hanging fruit of this genre. Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have Abbott's book Execution until the 27th Malleus, and it contains a fairly decent portion about Hanging as a punishment. Let me know if there's a specific article in which you think it may be useful, before I return it. BTW I copied HD&Q across and nommed it for GAN. Parrot of Doom 19:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen Abbott's book, but the hanging article is pretty poor; I'll try and check it out. Good luck with your excellent HDQ article. I took a brief look at pillory earlier today, which isn't great, but the problem I have is that I'm not much interested in what happened outside England and her colonies. I mean, who knows whether or not the Mongols, for instance, used something that could be compared to a whipping post, which the pillory wasn't anyway, even though whipping post is redirected there. Back to hanging, I've got a copy of the official drop calculations issued by the Home Office for the use of executioners, to make certain that it was long enough to snap the vertebrae, but not so long as to decapitate the victim. Interesting times that ought not to be forgotten. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of what I've read suggests that many of England's medieval punishments were rooted in Roman practices, so they could be more widespread. I did look long and hard for instances of HD&Q being used in other countries, but found mostly similar (but unrelated) punishments, so didn't bother including them.

Anyway, look at this and tell me that isn't the dafest graphic you've ever seen. Parrot of Doom 19:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The children who run this site probably love it, don't be so "ageist". ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I found it hilarious... And perhaps a bit wrong (shouldn't the X on the red icon be tilted?). Good list, though. Waltham, The Duke of 21:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Eels as a form of currency

Trust me on having a long memory, but a while ago here, you (rightly) queried my un-attributed statement "Eels were the predominant species and were often used as a currency". I have no intention of re-inserting the statement, but for my own completeness, would

Eels, indeed, fulfilled many of the uses of currency in the region. Debts were settled by payments of eels; rentals and tithes were defined in terms of thousands of eels or in "sticks" or stickes of eels, every stick having twenty-five.

— Darby, Darby, H C (1974). The Medieval Fenland (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 31. ISBN 0715359193. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

have sufficed? In the same chapter on Fenland Occupations, Darby goes on to list rents paid in fish such as "... Ramsey agreed to render 4,000 eels per year to the Abbey of Peterborough in return for building-stone at Barnack, ..." --Senra (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I am here, on another matter of currency, how should I calculate the present worth of over £4,000 building costs in 1876 for the restoration of Senra/St James' Church? Pugh (1953) VCH p. 155 col. 2 --Senra (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

measuringworth.com is good for that but some people have queried it at fac, not enough to halt promotion though. Parrot of Doom 13:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at notes #5 and #6 in this article to see the best way of handling it and heading off the objectors at the pass. Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

My hovercraft is full of eels. Does that make me a rich man? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha. A passing Esperanto (Mia kusenveturilo estas plena je angiloj) or QI fan I see! --Senra (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

Thank you MF/PoD, and I am still laughing at the wit of Newyorkbrad. Perhaps I should have been more explicit. I am aware of measuringworth.com but am a little confused as to what index to use. I am inclined to use the RPI as: £475,275 at present worth, (Using RPI as describe in Choosing the Best Indicator to Measure Relative Worth) as of 2024. As I have got this wrong before, I thought I had better check with Iridescent --Senra (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I almost always use CPI as the index for inflation figures. As far as I'm concerned, wage inflation is virtually meaningless. (In Europe and North America, typically a large proportion of "income" was traditionally a share of the crop, the herd or the company's profits; formal wages and salaries appear artificially low, and that's before factoring in such distorting factors as serfdom and slavery). To me, most people are interested in "what else could they have bought with that money?", not "how does that compare as a proportion of the average skilled manual wage?". – iridescent 19:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will use CPI (erm, I mean RPI for us Brits) as you suggest. Did you miss answering the "Eels as a currency" query? --Senra (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

CPI isn't a synonym for RPI and the two are often wildly different; CPI measures inflation in the cost of standard household goods; RPI measures typical household spending (the aforementioned goods, but also housing, interest payments, local taxation and so forth).

I'll defer to Malleus and co on the "Eels as currency" question. My personal instinct is that if they weren't convertable (i.e., there wasn't a standard eel-to-gold rate) they were a medium of barter and payment-in-kind rather than a medium of exchange (think of them as wriggly book-tokens), but don't take that as gospel. – iridescent 20:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't buy "eels as currency" any more than I'd buy sexual favours as currency. Sure, you can exchange either for goods or services, or could in the case of eels, but that doesn't make them "currency" any more than diamonds would be today. Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my perserverance here: Let me get this straight, the sentence "Eels were the predominant species and were often used as a currency" Darby (1974) p. 31, even though sourced, would be incorrect? Honestly, I have no intention of re-inserting the statement, just trying to understand --Senra (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of judgement really; experts not infrequently talk crap, and not infrequently disagree. If you wanted to attribute that opinion to Darby that would be fine, but not stating it as a fact. Well, that's my view anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Eels might have been used to trade other items, but nobody with a bag of eels would have been able to exchange them at the bank for gold, which is surely what anyone can do with currency. Parrot of Doom 22:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec, re Senra) What is the wording of the quote? At the start of this thread, you give it as "Eels, indeed, fulfilled many of the uses of currency in the region", but later as "…were often used as currency". That's a very important semantic difference; when a car is repossessed in payment for a debt, that car is fulfilling the use of currency, but that doesn't mean automobiles are a currency.

If you want to get into the technicalities, eels were certainly a medium of exchange, arguably a unit of account, but almost certainly not a store of value (one can't keep eels under the mattress as insurance against hard times), and to be a currency something needs to be accepted within the community as serving all three functions. – iridescent 22:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thinking more about medieval banking, would the Knights Templar have accepted a deposit of eels, to be repaid in the Holy Land? Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Depends how worn their boots were. If the eels were worn through, they might have. Parrot of Doom 23:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(re Iridescent) At the start I gave a sentence and the intention was to back up that sentence with Darby. I gave the Darby quote in full instead of just as a reference to aid you learned readers. Later I gave the sentence again backed up by the Darby reference without the quote. Anyway, I am going to sleep now, perchance to dream: A Knight walks into a place of ill repute. The number-one girls says to the Knight "Is that an eel I see there or are you just pleased to see me?"

• I gave a sentence and the intention was to back up that sentence with Darby. I gave the Darby quote in full instead of just as a reference to aid you learned readers.

  We readers, though, are capable of reading the rest of the book. Darby isn't talking about currency. Xe isn't even talking about barter. Xe is, quite specifically and with four examples in the following text, talking about rent. Now there's a whole missing encyclopaedia article yet to be written on the subject of food rents, which are a form of customary rent paid by fisheries and others.

  The Domesday Book, for starters, records food rents paid by fisheries from Shropshire to Buckinghamshire in eels, herring, and salmon, and these are the three major food rents for fisheries throughout the Norman period. Corn mills have been recorded as paying rent partly in corn and partly in eels, from the mill pond, and are commonly recorded in Domesday as doing so. Abingdon Abbey took its food rent in the manor of Cumnor in the form of cheese, hens, eggs, and meat delivered by tenants to its kitchens. The earliest recorded food rent is recorded (circa 694) in the laws of Ine of Wessex, where part of the food rent is beer.

  So … how many of Iridescent's talk page lurkers are article writers who write about British historical topics? Uncle G (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Further reading

• Nellie Neilson (1910). Customary rents. The Clarendon Press.
• Nellie Neilson (1936). Medieval agrarian economy. Berkshire studies in European history. H. Holt and Company.
• Frank Merry Stenton and Nellie Neilson (1974). "Food Rents". Types of manorial structure in the northern Danelaw: Customary rents. Oxford studies in social and legal history. Octagon Books. ISBN 9780374961602. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help)
• Phillipp Schofield (2009). "Conversion of rents in kind and in labour into cash in eastern England (§ Food rent)". In Laurent Feller (ed.). Calculs et rationalités dans la seigneurie médiévale: Les conversions de redevances entre XIe et XVe siècles. Histoire ancienne et médiévale. Vol. 100. Publications de la Sorbonne. pp. 59 et seq. ISBN 9782859446130. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help)
• Lisi Oliver (2007). "The King's feeding in Æthelberht, Ch. 12". In Michael Lapidge, Malcolm Godden, and Simon Keynes (ed.). Anglo-Saxon England. Vol. 27. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521038522. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• Paul Vinogradoff (2005). "Rural Work and Rents". Villainage In England: Essays In English Medieval History. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. ISBN 9781584774778. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isnb10= ignored (help)
• Rosamund Faith (2001). "feorm". In Michael Lapidge, John Blair, and Simon Keynes (ed.). The Blackwell encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 181–182. ISBN 9780631224921. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• Pauline A. Stafford (November 1980). "The "Farm of One Night" and the Organization of King Edward's Estates in Domesday". The Economic History Review. 33 (4). Blackwell Publishing: 491–502.

Gah. No. I already did Taxation in medieval England, isn't that enough torture? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Weigh the alternative tortures. The redlink at food rent is going to eat at your soul. You know that it will. And in order to aid in that corrosion I'm going to wave the redlink at gwestva in front of you, as well, just in case your soul had forgotten about Wales. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The redlink at Bosworth Psalter is much more likely to eat at my soul. My soul is remarkably resistant to economic soul rot, thankfully. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(re Uncle G) Most of them, in one way or another. The "Eating disorders of the French Revolutionary Wars" series are something of a sidetrack; most of mine are variations on the "new ideas can change the world!" idealism of late 19th and early 20th century Britain (from the railways-can-restore-the-aristocracy heavy engineering of the Brill Tramway, via the utopian social planning of Noel Park, to the "spreading civilisation, commerce and Christianity to the heathens through the use of synthetic fabrics" crankery of the Halkett boat). Most of the people watching this page have been picked up somewhere along that journey.

I do agree about the meaninglessness of tithing, rentals and barter in the context of "currency" (hence my periodic rants about the pointlessness of the use of wage-inflation as a measure when talking about periods in which tithing and payment in goods and services were the norm). Vestiges of crop rents still survive today; peppercorn rent still means exactly what it says, and Moni will probably be along to point out that within living memory sharecropping was the norm in a large chunk of the United States. – iridescent 19:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

So "Eels were the predominant species and were often used as a currency", even when backed up by Darby (1974) p.31, is wrong then. I get the point - smile (wonders if the above is tending towards bullying. Good job I have a thick skin - smiles sweetly) --Senra (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Darby reference doesn't say "Eels were the predominant species and were often used as a currency". It says:

Eels indeed fulfilled many of the uses of currency in the region. Debts were settled by payments of eels; rentals and tithes were defined in terms of thousands of eels or in 'sticks' or stickes of eels, every stick having twenty-five. The time of the year when these transactions in eels became most frequent was at Lent. The eel-rents of Wells were to be paid 'ad festum Sancti Benedicti'; and when, in the middle of the 11th century, Ramsey agreed to pay 4,000 eels a year to the Abbey of Peterborough in return for building-stone at Barnack, it was during Lent that they were made due. Frequently, the service of presenting the lord of a manor with fish for a Lenten feast was commuted into a customary rent with which he might buy fish. There is definite evidence of the commutation of the Wells rents into money payments before 1130. On the Ramsey manors it was universally occurring as fish-silver, fissilver, fissylver, phisshesilver, haringsilver, denarii ad pisces emendos, denarius ad piscem. Such sums were paid, of course, at the beginning of Lent, on Ash Wednesday or on the first Sunday in Lent. The Ramsey abbots, it would seem, did not fare too badly during the Lenten fast; nor did the abbots of the other Fenland monasteries.

As Uncle G is saying above, "x fulfilled many of the uses of y" does not equal "x was y". A horse fulfils many of the uses of a car, gin fulfils many of the uses of whisky, a pencil fulfils many of the uses of a pen; that doesn't mean that they are equivalent.

I appreciate this looks like we're being harsh and nitpicky, but in a Wikipedia context this is genuinely significant. It's no secret that Wikipedia has a serious problem with credibility and an often well-deserved reputation for inaccuracy, and misrepresentation of sources (no matter how unintentional) gives the circling vultures a big shiny target to aim for. – iridescent 20:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, yups. I did get the point but thank you for the further explanation. Most useful --Senra (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Its worth pointing out that reliable sources are very often wrong - you'd be surprised how much copying of others writings/assumptions goes on. Parrot of Doom 20:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

On that point, see Talk:Diogenes and Alexander#Diogenes, Alexander, and the pile of bones. There's a story there that appears to have been copied around in some rather suspect sources, but doesn't appear to have any firm basis in either Mediæval or Classical literature. Uncle G (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a pretty good example of this (which has come up on my talkpage before) at Talk:Brill Tramway#Spoil used for Stamford Bridge. It's a Well Known Fact that "when the first London Underground line was dug, all the earth removed was taken to Chelsea, piled up in a big oval, covered in seating and named Stamford Bridge (stadium)", and that's a 'fact' that gets repeated by even the most respectable sources, despite being vanishingly unlikely and not attested by any contemporary source I can find. – iridescent 10:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not even really nitpickery, Senra. If you look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Bosworth Psalter you'll see the to-do list at User:Dsmdgold/Manuscript lists. If you look at Special:Whatlinkshere/food rent and Special:Whatlinkshere/gwestva you'll see that this is stuff that we didn't even know that we didn't have. Moreover, the above can actually, with a little effort, be turned into a stub article on food rents by any of Iridescent's talk page lurkers whose souls are being eaten away, as they find red colour of the link at food rent haunting their dreams night after night, because we don't have an article about food rent yet. (There's a fairly solid definition, for an introduction, obtainable from Schofield2009.)

So only in part is this about the fact that eels were but one of the many forms of food rent, as noted in the source that you found, and not currency. Your source touches upon several things that a full article on food rents would explain in detail that would clarify what you're reading; such as the commutation of food rents to money rents that took place in the 12th and 13th centuries. It would also touch upon all of the various food rents that there were, from Church-scot, through feorm and gwestva, to foddercorn. (Notice Special:Whatlinkshere/feorm, by the way. We didn't know that we didn't have that, either.)

It's also about making people see red. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

More pressing than that redlink at food rent, IMO, is its would-be parent article at Payment in kind. When Kohs rants about Wikipedia's curious blind-spot when it comes to even the most basic articles on business and economics, this is the kind of thing he means. – iridescent 10:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, although I did my bit with wife selling. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 11:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but can you pay wives in lieu of rent? – iridescent 11:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Talking about missing things, this Guardian articl maks m think w should writ Missing apostrophs --Snra (Talk) 14:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Broken link. Our Apostrophe article covers all the whys and wherefores of apostrophization in more detail than one could possibly want, although as far as I'm concerned I'm with Shaw 100% on the matter; I find it hard to think of any context where an apostrophe is actually necessary, rather than a matter of "we've always done it this way" pedantry. In any case, the likelihood of my taking seriously anything the Guardian has to say on spelling and grammar is distinctly minimal. – iridescent 15:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Google books

I apologise in advance for using your talk page as a reference desk but frankly, I get sensible answers here. I was recently unable to obtain a full-view google books reference for the following:

• John Henry Parker (1852). "106. St James". In Archaeological Institute of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (ed.). The ecclesiastical and architectural topography of England. Bedfordshire (Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Oxfordshire, Suffolk). Oxford and London: John Henry Parker.
• Percy William Pegge (1851). "Stretham Parish". History, gazetteer and directory of Cambridgeshire. Peterborough: Robert Gardner. p. 505.

Uncle G (talk · contribs) was kindly able to supply them both as these two here. That got me thinking. Firstly, that I was probable searching via google-books in some incorrect way (I usually use Advance book search) and secondly, what url's should we use in references? For example, would books.google.co.in in British English articles be acceptable? --Senra (Talk) 13:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That you are unable to see full view has to do with the country you're in; because of differing copyright laws from country to country, availability of full view (which is usually limited to books that are in the public domain) also differs. In the EU, you usually see less than in the US. (Or in India, apparently.) I don't think it matters what URL you use; .co.uk URLs work even outside the UK. Ucucha 13:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The URL can make a difference, in that on some limited-preview books Google Books will only show a very limited number of pages immediately surrounding your search term. In these cases, it's possible to link to individual pages provided you know the exact wording of a piece of text on the page in question, and use that as a search term. (If you already have a print copy of the book but want to provide a link for someone else's reference, for instance.)

Be aware that for limited-preview books, Google imposes a reasonable-use limit, and if you try repeatedly to read the same book in a short time, they'll block you from accessing that particular book. Also be aware that Google Books intentionally leaves out key parts of the books, as a defense against copyright violation.

Regarding references, while I don't think we have a policy I think references to Google Books should be used very sparingly and only as a last resort. (I don't think I've ever given a GBooks or Internet Archive URL in a reference; provided you've given the publication details, people can find it easily enough on whichever archiving system they prefer.) If the book being linked to is non-PD and in snippet view then a link to Google Books is effectively linking to a copyright violation (the lawsuits regarding Google and copyrights are still ongoing); if the book in question is in the public domain, than Google Books is a direct competitor to our own Wikisource, and it's probably better to cut-and-paste the text to Wikisource and link to that if you have to link to it. – iridescent 13:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Freakshownerd = CoM...

...isn't Off2riorob's allegation - he asked because I said at ANI that a checkuser is underway. I'd email you the evidence supporting it, but you haven't got an email set in your preferences. Rd232 ^talk 16:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As DORD already said on ANI, talkpages and ANI are not the place to fling accusations about. As someone who last month had an admin making spurious accusations of sockpuppetry against me (a supposed sock of Malleus, for heaven's sake!) I know how annoying it is having the Defenders Of The Wiki brandishing pitchforks outside your door, and until it's proven that the accounts are the same person, people shouldn't be flinging accusations about. Checkusers take place in private for a reason. – iridescent 16:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes; unfortunately, the checkuser has taken longer than ideal (hopefully concluding today), and in the interim various dramaz have multiplied. The Freakshownerd/CoM link has now got about a bit and left people in limbo. It's messy. Rd232 ^talk 16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Antoine Dodson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Antoine Dodson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoine Dodson (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Favonian (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The "every grain of sand on the beach" brigade are going to keep shooting until they win on that one. No point wasting time trying to turn back the tide; better off devoting your time to producing content which will survive the transition to Wikipedia II. – iridescent 11:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove the damn thing from my watch list. Wikipedia II? Must have missed the memo. Favonian (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing lasts forever; at some point, whether it's ten days or ten years from now, the WMF will close, and Wikipedia along with it. (The internet has very low barriers to entry, and even overwhelming market leaders can collapse like soap-bubbles when something better comes along—have you looked at theGlobe.com recently? Audiogalaxy? Webvan? AltaVista? No, me neither.) When that happens, the useful part of Wikipedia's content will be skimmed off by whoever replaces us (my money's on Google or Apple), and the froth will be left to clutter the Internet Archive. If you want to leave any kind of "legacy" here, you need to be doing something that will survive that pruning. There's a lengthy discussion on what the post-collapse version of Wikipedia might look like here. – iridescent 12:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

understand people getting frazzled and losing tempers

I agree that admins need to know how to do this. But it's just common sense and AGF. Or do I need to take off my rose colored glasses? I mean, my interpersonal skills aren't all that great, but do people really fly off their handles and abuse their powers when what is needed is to take a deep breath and exercise a little patience? Dlohcierekim 18:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you possibly have a bit of a rose-tinted view when it comes to just how disruptive the "dedicated vandal fighters" can be when they try to intervene in content disputes without really understanding the situation. Watch WP:WQA for any length of time and you'll see just how pervasive the "blocks and warnings are easier than discussion" mentality is among some people. (Malleus's talk is usually a good place to start if you want to see the "you said a bad word, I'm blocking you!" process in action—as he occasionally mentions, he was once blocked for using the word "sycophantic".)

I'm certainly not saying that all, or even most, are problematic, but when it comes to "shoot first and ask questions later" admins they're disproportionately represented. This is a reference site, not a social networking site, but it's becoming increasingly dominated by people who've not demonstrated any real understanding of how research and writing actually work. A situation where someone like Ottava (IMO a grade-A nutcase in real life, but a genuinely good writer and researcher and someone who generally went out of his way to help anyone who asked, even on subjects in which he had no interest) is banned from Wikipedia, while people who seem to treat the site as a cross between an MMORPG and Facebook (not saying that refers to the current candidate in question) are in positions of authority because they've avoided any significant content work and thus never been in any disputes and not stepped on anyone's toes, is a symptom of a site that's becoming seriously dysfunctional. If Britannica were short of copy-editors, would their solution be to promote all the typesetters who'd served for a year without being subject to misconduct proceedings? To my eyes, that's pretty much the current situation as regards the "the sky is falling!" contingent at RFA. – iridescent 18:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The sky's already fallen. Don't tell anyone I said that. We came in at a time when RFA was grinding out new admins like a machine. Though the project size has expanded mind bogglingly, the number of new admin candidates, especially clueful one's, has dropped off. Or at least that's the perception, 'cause the bar for clue has been raised. At any rate, upsurge and then fall off are just natural evolution. Some people are alarmed by the fall off, and are seeking remedies. I no longer am.

To me, the biggest organic problem with adminship is the exalted status of the admin. That should not be. The worst admin is the type that cannot say, "Oh. I made a mistake. I'm sorry for the trouble." Dlohcierekim 19:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure you've heard my argument already—we were the last batch for which "no big deal" meant something. Back then, Wikipedia was just about small enough that it was possibly to vaguely know everyone who was active, and for most problems to be sorted out quietly. Now, that's no longer true, and in the absence of personal knowledge standards are much higher (neither of us would pass RFA if we ran today; look at how much trouble the usual serial-opposers gave even Nev1, who's possibly the most mild-mannered admin we ever had). In the absence of any working desysop mechanism (49 involuntary desysops in Wikipedia's entire history), the only rational position is suspicion; a well-meaning but incompetent admin can do serious damage in terms of driving people away, and there's no way to get rid of someone if they turn out to be incompetent. What Wikipedia really needs is for the sky to actually fall—for the collapse in numbers and quality of admins to become serious enough to start causing damage—as it's the only way to force through the structural changes to the current hierarchy that have been necessary but put-off for the last three years. – iridescent 20:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly. But the damage is accruing faster than most realize. As with any organization made up of a large number of people, the awareness won't come for a while. By then, who knows. The vandal reverters are seeing it, and even they cannot keep up with their high-powered, far-too-easily-abused tools. How many really significant edits do we really make? When they're buried under 10K reversions, no one thinks the Huggler is doing much. So the community has a just-another-tooler-who-does-not-build-the-'pedia view at RFA. And the people who would be most effective in dealing with vandalism cannot be given the trust to become admins. It ain't gonna change, but it feels better to catharss. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Although the proposal gets shot down every time it's proposed, the time has really come for unbundling of some kind. I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of the developers to implement something along the line of my old proposal ("A system allowing "admins lite" only to block accounts with less than 10 edits; protect pages for less than 24 hours; delete pages less than 7 days old with fewer than 10 revisions, while requiring "full admins" to block established users, delete heavily edited pages, and impose lengthy protections"). That would allow the vandal-fighters to keep back the tide of stupid, while avoiding the high-drama situations of inexperienced admins blocking established contributors, locking high-traffic pages in place and AFD of established articles. It would also create a clear editor-rollbacker-vandalfighter-sysop "career path", rather than the present "in at the deep end" approach. As far as I'm aware, nobody's yet come up with a good reason why that wouldn't work. – iridescent 21:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Grundle

This could be Grundle. Unless I'm mistaken, this is a new user tagging new users' talks with sockpuppet. Also posted this at Dougweller. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll have to give me a clue—what is this about? – iridescent 15:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Apples, not yours

No apples for you. KnightLago (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

On lying

Hello! I don't know what I did to irk you exactly, but claiming I lied is a pretty strong accusation. Even if I had been wrong it would have been nicer to assume I'd made a mistake, instead of deliberately (and, as you pointed out) blatantly lying. I don't hold default positions at RFA. Sure, I have standards and criteria, but I'm not a sheep and just support everyone. I do support more than oppose because I tend to leave the obvious fails to others. It doesn't make me incompetent for doing so. Just clarifying and I hope there's no hard feelings. Aiken ♫ 22:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Shrug. You're intentionally saying something demonstrably untrue about me to advance your own position. Call it "saying the thing that is not", if you prefer. – iridescent 05:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You falsely claimed I was discussing default positions, and you pasted some text in which I was discussing nothing of the sort. It wasn't untrue at all. I would have preferred "Aiken, you may have made a mistake", rather than "Aiken, stop lying so blatantly". You're assuming the worst of me, for whatever reason. Aiken ♫ 12:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

21:54: "we assume they are qualified until proven otherwise"

22:09: "we should assume they are suitable - unless proven otherwise"

22:12: "Nobody has mentioned default positions other than Iridescent. The default position is in fact neutral." – iridescent 19:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, still nothing about default positions... and apparently I'm the liar here. Are you going to show me anything that proves I'm a liar? Because you won't find anything. Aiken ♫ 19:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Assume until proven otherwise" = "default position". If you really want to waste my time and yours with this nonsense, the definition of "default position" is "The option adopted when no alternative is specified". Your first two statements above are semantically identical to "support unless actively decide to oppose", and thus the default positions. – iridescent 19:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What I'm more concerned about is you called me a liar. Why did you choose to do so, instead of assuming I'd made an honest mistake? Aiken ♫ 20:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There were three minutes between the second of the three diffs I list above, and the third in which you denied making it. People can forget what they've said in the past, people can change their opinions over time, and people can make ambiguous comments which mean something different to themselves and to readers. None appear to apply in this case. The only way AGF could apply is the last of those three alternatives, in which you genuinely don't know what "default" means—in which case you should be asking "what do you mean by default?", not stomping around shouting that I'm wrong and you're right. – iridescent 20:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of what default means - don't assume that I'm stupid as well. Just because you misunderstood my comments doesn't make me a liar. You are the only person who talked about default positions - I never once used that phrase. That is precisely what I was referring to. If you misunderstand something, don't jump to the wrong conclusion because accusations, like calling someone a liar, are hurtful and unpleasant. Come to my talk page, or ask me for clarification in the discussion instead - that would have been much more tactical. Aiken ♫ 20:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(rolls eyes) I was the first to use the word "default". I was not the first to talk about default positions. I will concede I was wrong about the "last six months" part; the earliest recorded use on Wikipedia dates from October 2008, although it's only recently that it's become a regular position at RFA, as opposed to a few all-must-have-prizes open-editing hardliners. – iridescent 20:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, glad that's sorted. Sorry to have bothered you, but I felt it was important. Bye for now. Aiken ♫ 21:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your talk page

While the edit summaries have caught my eye, I have to confess I lost the plot. Or never found it. Maybe Moni will show up and write a Buffy-style plot summary! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what's got into everyone lately. To judge by some of the posts on Wikipedia lately, it feels like I went to sleep and woke up in 2007. – iridescent 20:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel like I'm in a warzone. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a much worse time in 2007-- since then, it's been all downhill! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've about had it with this editor ...

... User:John in case you hadn't guessed. Is my only option to open an RfC in which his admin buddies will pile in and support his behaviour? Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem with RFCs in general ... same ole same ole's pile on, and the RFC is ineffective, so can only be viewed as a step on the path to ArbCom. Waste of time, but necessary. He doesn't seem to absorb the message, does he? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're going down the "Wikipedia process" route, then either RFC or straight to Arbcom. Either way, ask yourself before you start anything what you actually want the process to achieve. You need to make it clear what the problem is; what you think would solve it; how you expect that solution to be implemented. If you just wade in with some variant of "I don't like him, ban him", you're no better than Chillum.

Honest question: have you actually tried talking to him? Looking at recent threads on his talkpage (in particular this one), it looks like he possibly genuinely didn't understand how obnoxious he's been acting recently, and is trying to address it. As you know, I've seen (and occasionally been the subject of) plenty of his trolling and if it comes to the worst, can dig out a stack of diffs, but a straightforward "here's what I see the problem is, what do you see it as?" might actually sort things out. At the very least, it shows you've made a good-faith attempt to resolve the issues before escalating it, which Arbcom will expect to see. Nobody ever wins Arbcom cases, some people just lose them more than others; remember, these people will be the only ones whose opinion matters if push comes to shove. – iridescent 23:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll think about what you've said, and I thank you for sharing your opinion. I've seen no real evidence of John taking on board what others have been saying other than his usual "I thank you for your opinion but I'm going to ignore it because I know better". I'll delay initiating an RfC until John pops up on my radar again. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The other irritating thing about RFC is you need a second party to endorse-- you can call on me if it comes to that. But it will take me a long time to dig up diffs, and time is one thing I haven't got these days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's hope that John begins to clean up his act, so that an RfC won't be necessary. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for diffs, you could start with this threat here. I fully expect him to pop up on at least one talk page now, trying again to stir up shit. Parrot of Doom 11:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Your advice...

• Snort* Don't worry, I've already got something worked out with Malleus (User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#Another FAR). He even made me cross my heart and promise! *grin* Thank you for your support in my RfA by the way! Dana boomer (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure if you've seen it, but I've volunteered you as an Expert Source here. – iridescent 11:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Useless: I read that as "Time travel by horse" and wondered how Dana Boomer or Ealdgyth, despite all their work on horse articles, could possibly be an expert in this field. It does open up an imaginative frenzy, does it not? --Moni3 (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Oddly enough, so did I. There's a novel in there somewhere. – iridescent 12:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
        • It's a shame horses can't reach 88 mph. Nev1 (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Nev1, you're restricted to thinking in terms of automotive time travel. Equine time travel has different parameters. Come now, you should realize this. Don't dally in mph. Consider hoof size, color, spots, and tooth length. --Moni3 (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Everyone knows that they aren't really horses. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it really necessary?

A newbie question: I accept this will appear WP:OWN so I won't rant on. I also will not provide diffs that would alert the guilty and innocent alike. However, I am feeling a little over-burdened with well-meaning, though I suspect unnecesary, changes to Little Thetford by experienced editors I have never seen before. Some are bold and make changes as they see fit; others make suggestions to me. In either case, I treat each change on its merits and either vigourously defend or accept them. Is the article on some secret watchlist? Why were these editors not around during the FAC? I for one would like to spend time on other articles and yes, WP:OWN implies I should put up and shut up. Is any change really necessary? --Senra (Talk) 21:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Once something's listed at WP:FA, it attracts all kinds of people making well-intentioned changes of varying degrees of helpfulness/unhelpfulness. Some are doing it because FAs attract increased traffic and they want to ensure that Wikipedia's most-viewed articles are in the best shape; some are doing it because they're admin wannabees who think that making changes to articles that are on a lot of watchlists will get them noticed. It's just something you have to live with. (I've undone one particularly bad example, which was no doubt good faith but was outright disruptive.) – iridescent 22:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(adding) If you think this is bad, you really don't want to see what happens at TFA. This happens. As long as you're willing do discuss things and aren't just reverting blindly, don't be afraid to revert changes, no matter who's making them; the "R" in WP:BRD is too often ignored in favor of "mustn't make a fuss". – iridescent 22:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Iridiescent and Malleus have two of the most watched talk pages around, so there's a chance that just by mentioning stuff here or there it'll get noticed (a good example is me sticking my nose into this conversation uninvited). Just look what happened to the article on Jack Ketch when someone suggested on Malleus' page that he had an interesting story. Also, FAs get more attention than your average article anyway (and can be found through WP:FA). "Ownership" of articles isn't properly defined by Wikipedia's policy. Someone needs to look after an article to make sure it doesn't degenerate; sometimes that entails reverting well-natured edits that don't necessarily improve it. I noticed a recent discussion on Talk:Neville Chamberlain about whether his interest in butterflies should be mentioned; Wehwalt's actions could have been characterised as "ownership", but he was making sure the article didn't place undue emphasis on a subject covered elsewhere and provided a well-reasoned argument to back himself up. "Ownership" only becomes a problem if it prevents an article from improving. FAs aren't finished as such, but for the most part they're unlikely to need major changes. The message of WP:OWN is that "ownership" is bad, but it leaves out the other side where dereliction will let an article degenerate. Nev1 (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. Neither me nor Malleus are even in the top 50 any more. And half of those 280 are probably Mattisse and Poetlister. – iridescent 22:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Aren't we? I'm shocked. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but there is no separation between user page and user talk page; maybe in some of that list's entries the watchers only care for changes to the very interesting user pages? (opens umbrella and waits for tomatoes to arrive) Waltham, The Duke of 07:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't think of it as ownership, think of it as "I refuse to allow this article to turn to shit by allowing you to insert badly-phrased nonsense". Its a cross we all bear. Parrot of Doom 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Once you have more than a couple of articles racked up, it also becomes a case of which are you going to bother arguing over? There are some like Serpentine (lake) which I've watched deteriorate into slush because I don't care about the topic enough to argue; you'll find some things just aren't worth digging in over. – iridescent 23:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Very useful. To be clear all changes by editors I have never seen before were well-meaning; I agreed with some of the changes; I disagreed with other changes; I am still talking to these editors. I was just seeking clarity and I have been given that above. At least you have assured me (by ommission) that there are no members of a secret society out to get me. Thank you --Senra (Talk) 23:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to have the patience of a saint here Senra, or like most of the admin wanabees avoid content work altogether. Just take a look at today's toing-and-froing on whether Manchester United is singular or plural, and whether or not the article should be renamed. Once you get an article to FA it's all too easy for those who think that the bike shed should be purple to offer their uninformed opinions. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, most of the articles I'm watching are mercifully rarely edited, which gives me some peace of mind, but I've still got a taste of how rapid article decay can be. I think it happens more easily and quickly with images rather than with text: people think that a relevant image is missing and cram it wherever they can find. I'm glad for this discussion because the risk of ownership has scared me sometimes into avoiding immediate, knee-jerk-like reaction and instead waiting for a more extensive copy-editing or similar so that I could reverse the offending edit in its course. I'd always include the reason for such reversions in the edit summary, but perhaps this method is simply too sly? Waltham, The Duke of 07:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

All it takes is one person who's certain they know better than anyone else and doesn't want to discuss it, and Wikipedia articles can go downhill very quickly. While there are exceptions, in my experience the more obscure the article, the greater the chance of it happening. If someone tries to insert a load of spam, original research and garbled inaccuracy into Tom Cruise, Vladimir Putin or Janet Jackson, there are a whole bunch of people watching who'll clean it up; if someone does the same to Lydia R. Diamond, Ron Hunt (footballer), Tanakorn Santanaprasit or András Fejér, there's nobody to clean it up. (Those examples are decidedly non-random; they were the subjects of the "Unwatched BLP" experiment that got MZMcBride crucified by the Defenders of the Wiki, in which non-libellous but intentionally inappropriate statements were added to BLPs to prove a point about there being nobody cleaning them up. Check the histories for January, if your heart can withstand the sight of such heinous vandalism.) – iridescent 11:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No need to specify "January"; these articles have had around two edits since then. I suppose this is one of the reasons you think we have too many articles, other than redundancy and overlap: the same content in fewer pages is easier to monitor. I wonder whether it would be possible to create WikiProject watchlists of articles watched by, say, fewer than ten users. I don't know how effective it would be, but it might be a good idea to have an additional line of defence against sneaky vandalism. It would certainly be much more worthwhile than some of the other things currently at the proposal stage; the namespace discussion has me pulling at my hair (though it did result in my coming up with a little gem—no one has commented on it yet, but there might be something in it).

PS: Apparently, Mr McBride is being crucified right now. It looks rather painful. Waltham, The Duke of 15:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride tried to create a list of pages with few watchers, and got screamed at by the Powers That Be until he backed down. Run an obscure page through his tool, and you'll see that pages with <30 watchers now don't display at all. My personal preference would be for a lot of the stubbier articles to be merged into more easily watched list-format articles, on the grounds that they can always be split out again if someone creates a full-length article. (There's an old trial of this principle at A215 road.) Regardless, we're now at the deckchairs-on-the-Titanic stage, as the number of pages rises by 35,000 a month but the number of active editors falls; we're about to hit the magic 1000:1 article/editor ratio. The implications of this table ought to be required reading for everyone who thinks we don't have a problem. – iridescent 15:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see any differences in the watcher tool, though that's probably because I only first heard of it some months ago. I wonder what would be a good ratio—80:1? How many articles could an average active editor keep track of? It hardly seems to matter where we are going now, if we've strayed from the ideal something like three years ago.

I like your idea and the A125 example, though I hasten to add that for most stubs there is probably no suitable mother article/list. Even so, there is much that could be done to put our database in order. (And yes, that's second conditional; I seem to be contracting your pessimism. All right, realism, if you insist.) Waltham, The Duke of 19:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

See my reply to Dlohcierekim a couple of threads up. My personal opinion is that we (as in Wikipedia, not as in you and I) should stop trying to maintain the pretence of accuracy, plaster everything with disclaimers, and introduce a new "adequate article candidates" process. That way, we could abandon the efforts to maintain NPOV, let the POV-pushers slug it out as much as they like and the spammers and people who want to upload biographies of their pets have free rein, and leave us free to concentrate on getting at least some of the content into decent shape. The much-maligned MyWikiBiz tried something similar with the split between a spam-filled Directory namespace and a NPOV-compliant mainspace, and it worked surprisingly well. – iridescent 2 01:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

All of that "we're not accurate" noise is is an attempt to reinforce the message "there be mistakes here, so handle the information accordingly" with a cluebat to the reader's groin. I believe there is accurate information here on Wikipedia -- it's just beyond the areas which are fought over chronically. Maybe the warning to the user should be more along the lines of "If people depend on what this article says for their livelihood, or are killing each other off-Wiki over its contents, then Wikipedia may not be reliable on this subject." But as to the perennial problem of keeping certain articles from turning into crap, keep in mind that with only a few interested volunteers working on their own spare time, we've made Wikipedia practically as good as any encyclopedia one would pay money for. or, to paraphrase Linus Torvald's response to why Linux compares so well with other operating systems, "The issue isn't why we do such a good job, but why you do such a crappy one." And as for tactics to deal with this problem, my personal favorite is to let the pricks have their way for the moment, knowing full that in a few months -- or sooner -- they'll be gone. If it doesn't work, then I should consider whether I am the one who's mistaken. </delurk> -- llywrch (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

In my view, the issue is that Wikipedia's unmaintainable size, and the difficulty of getting rid of poor-quality material when there isn't a better replacement, has caused a situation where it becomes impossible to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate information.

As a case in point, take my own Central Communications Command. This was accurate (at least in terms of what the sources were saying) when I wrote it in 2006. I know for a fact that restructuring, cuts and new technology mean that almost nothing in the article is accurate any more. However, the organisation has become highly secretive post-7/7 (search in vain on the Metropolitan Police Service website for any admission that the place even exists, other than a few freedom-of-information releases on dull matters such as total numbers of phone calls made) and thus there's no way the article can be updated to reflect whatever it is they currently do and how they do it. The sensible thing would be either to blank huge chunks of it, or delete it altogether. (No information is better than wrong information.) However, the every-grain-of-sand-on-the-beach brigade would undoubtedly block any attempt to delete it.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of articles on current topics which by their nature decay in this way (480,000 entries in Category:Living people alone), and, outside the high-traffic pages like Michael Jackson and the pages in which an active editor happens to have a particular interest, this gradual decline is happening to all of them. The problems with Wikipedia are nowhere near as bad as the hardline antis make out, but pretending they don't exist isn't a solution. At some point another Siegenthaler is going to happen, and next time the WMF won't be able to say they didn't see it coming. WP:NOTPAPER cuts both ways; print books have inaccuracies, but it's a legitimate defense to say that they published in good faith and retraction-and-correction would be too difficult. We don't have that excuse. – iridescent 19:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry for the delay in responding. Briefly explained: life intervened on my end.) Poor information & the challenge of updating is always a problem, no matter the medium in which one is writing a reference work. And the fact we are creating a reference work -- a tool to help the reader to find information -- not a compilation of the truth, is relevant here: I too have had to struggle in cases where I knew the best information was wrong (viz., articles on the woredas, or districts, of Ethiopia), but it was verifiable; in these cases we can only be content in reporting what we are told & hope this pokes the people responsible into improving their work.

As for your observation about "hundreds of thousands of articles" outside the purview of active editors, my experience has been the exact opposite. I am amazed at how many articles I have written which, except for minor revisions -- adding/removing categories, formatting, vandalism, etc. -- have stayed unchanged for year. And not just those about Ethiopian topics. Why this is so, I don't know; I know I'm not good a writer. Apparently what another long-time Wikipedian wrote years ago is relevant here: if no one cares about the subject, then it doesn't matter whether the article is kept or deleted.

And as to your last point, I have to first admit that I don't know what you mean precisely by writing "another Siegenthaler is going to happen". Do you mean that someone will slip derogatory & false information about a living person into an article? That has already happened -- to a golfer by the name of Fuzzy Zoeller. The upshot was that he sued the editor responsible for libel, while the Foundation was shielded by the Communications Decency Act. If the threat of a lawsuit is not enough to discourage such edits then I doubt any policy, no matter how it is enforced, will be any more effective. In short, one must remember to only be concerned with what one can control, & trust to another power to handle what can't be controlled. -- llywrch (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

When §230 was written, it was with ISPs in mind; the law is nowhere near as clear-cut as you describe as regards Wikipedia. See cases like badbusinessbureau, where §230 has been found not to apply when the host organisation can be considered the information provider ("The CDA, however, does not immunize an interactive computer service if it also functions as an information content provider for the portion of the statement or publication at issue"); WMF immunity in the US relies on it having no role in creating and developing any material posted here, and AFAIK that claim has never been formally tested.

In any case, legal liability is something of a red herring. Wikipedia's lost the technological and organizational cutting-edge it had in its early years; its continued success relies on public goodwill. A string of high-profile cases, regardless of who wins, have the potential to wreck our reputation for being generally accurate. If a Google or an Apple come along with a workable alternative rather than a mess like Google Knol; a small (and shrinking) hard-core are responsible for the bulk of non-automated edits here, and it wouldn't take that many of them jumping ship to a rival to make Wikipedia grind to a halt. – iridescent 11:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pig-faced women

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What a brilliant article... ceranthor 19:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Give it time, I'm sure it'll decay like the rest. Good illustrations, though. – iridescent 19:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

About Nuke Atom Page

We're you the admin that actually deleted my page Nuke Atom? 14:58 5 September 2010 BY FINAL508. Read Page Rules/User/Page Policies by reading my information. Or Read This Information (suchly a shortcut for reading the information)

---

I'm actually someone who made Nuke Atom that was deleted by an admin. I just got the reason because he thinks it was a very short article. so i'm remaking it. So admins reading this do not claim this for deletion during alpha and beta versions. My pages have the rules that it musn't be deleted during alpha and beta versions. so if that admin cares to delete this, i would just have remake this. Protection Of Page:♣♣♣

Rules

Still in Pre-Alpha Version. 1. Do not delete my pages in alpha or beta versions. 2. Do not edit pages with the Protection Level of ♣♣♣♣♣ and over. (Including This Page) About Important Pages/Rules. Read Final508's Policies. If someone manages not to follow the rules. They will reported as Rule Breaker.

Final508's Policies

Still in Pre-Alpha Version. Final508's Features are protected by Scripts. If someone breaks through the Script. They will be reported as Policy or Rule Breaker. Policy 1: Do not break The Page Rules.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Final508 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and if you repost it I'll block you; Wikipedia is not your personal Myspace page, and we all have better things to do than clean up your nonsense. And don't set "rules" for what I (or anyone else) can and can't edit; you're in no position to do that. See where it says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here"? Means what it says. – iridescent 16:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Begging your pardons, ma'am

Or milady, if you prefer... I hope I got that old English etiquette pat down... (or maybe I screwed it up). I am wondering if you might be interested in reading an article about a cartoonist from Malaysia (part of the Commonwealth). If you had ever read The Kampung Boy, you would likely know the (Malaysian) knight I am referring to. If you are interested, please take a look at Dato' Lat and join in the review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lat/archive1‎. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Begging your pardons? Dear me, no more red links; it only encourages them. Given that the The Beano and The Dandy are recorded as reflective of his early influences, Lat looks like a nice read. Have a nice day! --Senra (Talk) 12:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's excellent; I'd wave it through at GAC after a very brief grammar check, and support at FAC with just a few bits of minor tweaking. Just minor skim-through thoughts, intentionally without looking at the peer-review yet:

1. There are a few bits of odd grammar such as "Music plays a crucial part in Lat's life since his youth"; it could do with a good going-over by a ruthless grammar-and-spelling editor like Malleus or Tony1;
2. It probably needs a more careful demarcation between "Malay" and "Malaysian". As you know, the use of the terms can be sensitive, particularly in an article which includes the Malaysia-Singapore federation period;
3. Related to the last, "a circumcision ceremony all young Malay males have to undergo"—is it really all of them, or is it only Muslim ethnic Malays?
4. I personally would right-align all the images; they're not so closely packed that they'll cascade, and it makes the text flow more freely;
5. Although it's not standard practice, in this case it's probably worth mentioning which volumes were published/distributed widely outside Malaysia/Singapore/Hong Kong. (I know Kampung Boy and Town Boy, at least, are published and mainstream-distributed in the US; mentioning this demonstrates that it's not just a local phenomenon which happens to have a few overseas followers.) – iridescent 21:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Iridescent, for the comments. Senra, could you take a gander and join the peer review too?. My responses:

1. I had expected this; hence, the peer review. Funny enough, aside from BrianBoulton, I was thinking of Malleus and Tony1 too. I asked Brian first (and he is doing some copy-editing on it), but I plan on later asking the others to give it another look (because of the article's size).
2. Now that I had not expected, and I thank you for pointing it out (it just helped me understand why Lent spoke of the three-loop noses on "Malay characters" even though Lat drew various races with them). I tried to par down use of "Malay" when referring to people (they are ethnic Malays and Malaysian but it gets tiring to see "ethnic Malay" or even "ethnic Malay Malaysian" sprinkled here and there). Unfortunately, I am uncertain what to do with "Malay" as used by Lent and other academics to describe the characters and nature of Lat's works. Should I be bold and go with "Malaysian" to be precise or remain true to the text in the sources? Lent's quote shall remain untouched though because it is a quote.
3. It might be said and commonly accepted that Malaysian ethnic Malays are Muslims. However, there are also Chinese Muslims and they would have to undergo the same thing as well. I reworded to "all Malaysian boys of the Islamic faith".
4. I was trying out the alternating and face the text layout; it looks good on 1024-px to 1280-px wide screens. On 1600-px, however, some of the quotes become flush against certain left-aligned images... I am uncertain what to do yet, but I will consider your suggestion.
5. Town Boy and Kampung Boy: Yesterday and Today were published in Japan as well. I had mentioned The Kampung Boy's various translations and that it was published abroad in Reporter to cartoonist. I had figured the languages would suggest foreign publication. Should I be more explicit and list example nations?

I am not certain I would put this to GAC... I have already nominated Kampung Boy (television series) there and the waiting time tends to be long... Thank you again for taking a look! Jappalang (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandy will probably strangle me for saying it, but as long as you don't make a habit of nominating things that obviously aren't ready, GAN and FAC are generally more productive than peer review when it comes to getting minor issues cleared up. PR tends to attract either people who already have an interest in the topic and thus have probably already said their piece; with GAN/FAC, you're getting a true outside opinion who'll often spot things which are obvious to the writer, but need explaining for a general audience. – iridescent 23:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I saw that edit summary :) I think Ruhrfisch & Co do a fine job at PR, and occasionally one gets lucky and also gets a Brianboulton review! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WP Trains in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Trains for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a nice day

Hi, Iridescent. I noticed that you linked to Have a nice day in an intriguing February 2010 discussion. At the time, the article was very stubby, and I have since expanded it. I plan to nominate this article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (this would be my first FAC nomination) and am hoping that you can provide some pointers before I nominate it. Are there any glaring concerns that would cause this article to fail FAC? The article has been through a peer review, where I was advised that the article was too US-centric. I have since added information from publications in London, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand which will, I hope, rectify those concerns. I hope that you will enjoy this article about the "international gold standard of American insincerity". Cunard (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Points from a quick run-over; this is exactly the kind of article we need more of (a well-known subject that's not extensively covered elsewhere). You really want to ask Malleus on this one, if you haven't already:

1. If you're going to include Chaucer's 'Ther was namoore but "Fare-wel, have good day."' as a first recorded use, there are other similar phrases recorded earlier; the OED lists the earliest recorded English uses as "Habbeð alle godne dæie" in Layamon's Brut and "Rymenhild, have wel godne day" in King Horn, both 13th-century. Obviously WP:VNT and all that, and if a reliable source is claiming Chaucer originated the phrase then say so, but it's demonstrably false. (IMO it's fairly obviously a direct translation of the old German guten tag, and probably goes back to antiquity.);
2. Related to the above, if you can find a source, it's almost certainly worth tracing the evolution of the phrase more fully. Variations of "Good day to you, sir" exist in all forms of English ("nice" didn't become a synonym for "good" until the 18th century); there's probably a story to be told about why the US acquired the "have a…", and on why "good night" didn't mutate in this way;
3. Re "Though they thought that viewers on the thronging streets would applaud them, they received scowls and jeers"—this probably needs some clarification. Was it that most people were pleased to see them but a few extremists abused them, or was the crowd hostile in general?
4. The Smiley face and "have a nice day" section appears a bit garbled. It starts in the 1970s, jumps back to the 1950s, and then jumps to My Own Private Idaho;
5. "The phrase "have a nice day" is typically spoken by service employees or clerks […] The phrase was universalized by truck drivers conversing on their CB radios" is certainly true, but reads as something of a non sequitur;
6. "In the Cumbria shootings on June 2, 2010, the perpetrator mocked one of his victims" is jarring; "perpetrator" is an Americanism which is never used in a British context;
7. In my eyes, the "criticism" and "defense" sections are both still heavily US-centric. Obviously, there's going to be a bias towards US sources, given that the US is the only significant country in which the phrase is in wide circulation,* but to me, by focusing on US criticism, it misses the point of why and how this fairly innocuous phrase has become a symbol of American arrogance
   *If someone from Calgary, Cape Town, Chihuahua or Chennai is getting ready to write me a ranting post saying that they're not in the US but hear the phrase all the time, save it; I really don't care. HAND is used elsewhere; it's only in the US that it has broad circulation.
8. Hyphenation—you're inconsistent between passive–aggressive behavior and passive-aggressive behavior;

Good luck with this one; as I say above, this is just the kind of thing we need more of. – iridescent 12:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the in-depth review. I've exhausted my library's research databases so will try to see if I can dig up more information on Google Books. Would you provide the citation info and the relevant quotes in OED? I don't have access to the service.

Do you want me to reply to your suggestions here, or is it all right if I copy this section to Talk:Have a nice day so that discussion about the article can be kept in one place? Cunard (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The relevant citation for the OED is:

<ref>{{citation|url=http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50096765|title=Good day|year=1989|work=Oxford English Dictionary|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford}} ''(subscription required)''</ref>

The exact text of their first recorded uses of the various forms of the archaic British English "Have good day" (don't reproduce this in mainspace) is:

1. A phrase used as a salutation at meeting or parting. a. In the full forms have good day, God (give) you good day. Obs.
c1205 LAY. 12529 Habbeð alle godne dæie. a1300 K. Horn 753 Rymenhild, have wel godne day. c1330 R. BRUNNE Chron. Wace (Rolls) 5259 Y parte fro þe, & haue god day. c1374 CHAUCER Troylus v. 1074 Ȝit preye I god so ȝeve ȝou god day. a1400 Isumbras 727 Lady, hafe now gud daye. 1441 Pol. Poems (Rolls) II. 207 Farewelle, London, and have good day. 1484 CAXTON Fables of Æsop V. v, My godsep god geue you good daye. 1535 LYNDESAY Satyre 4319 Gif ȝe be King, God ȝow gude day. 1814 SCOTT Ld. of Isles III. xx, Thanks for your proffer—have good-day.

Feel free to copy-and-paste to the article talkpage if you want to keep the conversation together. – iridescent 18:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, I saw (subscription required) above. I have been using (subscription required). Is one form preferred over the other? I guess (subscription required) is less browser dependent --Senra (Talk) 19:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Think of the server kitties. There's no "right way", but I don't like using any more templates than is absolutely necessary. Each template slows the page-load time to a measurable degree (compare the page-load time of this version of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport, which includes a table made up a large number of templates, and this version which doesn't). All {{subscription required}} does is write the words "subscription required", so there's no benefit to using it. – iridescent 20:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You can shorten that to {{subscription}} and it produces the same output. Parrot of Doom 07:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There's also {{ODNBsub}} which produces this: (subscription or UK public library membership required). Bencherlite^Talk 20:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate in this case, though; that's regarding the ODNB (which is available to most public library members), not the OED (which is less widely available through libraries); it also links to the ODNB website. – iridescent 21:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Bon Jovi song Have a Nice Day(poor article), is a example use of the wording in a defiant way. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Aargh! "In popular culture". Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(Shrug) "In popular culture" isn't always A Bad Thing; all those OED citations are just "in popular culture", after all—Layamon's Brut is just the popular culture of 1205, not 1995. Pig-faced women is nothing but a single large "in popular culture" section, after all. – iridescent 21:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then Cunard can blame you when the kiddies start adding every song in which the phrase "have a nice day" appears. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Difference is between "every instance" and "every significant instance"; something got the phrase into the language and something is perpetuating it there, and that something is popular culture. If it changed public perception it's worth mentioning; if it didn't, it isn't. – iridescent 21:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You may remember the battle over Guy Fawkes. Not all editors are as rational as you. Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And you may recall who put a stop to that battle. The "midden" approach to article issues is always good; there's a nice shiny redlink waiting to be filled. – iridescent 21:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Have a nice day already has plenty of trivia (Have a nice day#In crime), so I don't think the article can be further ruined by more popular culture. That is, as long as the additions are sourced and coherent, though that's probably too much to hope for when the kiddies decide to "improve" the article. Cunard (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(←) What about tackling ma'am next? Waltham, The Duke of 11:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the problem with that one, I have to say. It might be insincere, but no more so than its male equivalent "sir". It might well be true that 'Helen Mirren, playing Detective Chief Inspector Jane Tennison on the crime series "Prime Suspect" told her male subordinate: "Listen, I like to be called governor or the boss. I don’t like ma’am. I’m not the bloody queen, so take your pick"', but that was fiction—if a real life cop or soldier made a habit of calling their commanding officer "governor" or "boss", they'd learn more about Article 15 than they ever wanted to know. – iridescent 13:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not the queen, eh?

I don't have any first-hand experience of the cultural implications of ma'am, but I instinctively and inexplicably dislike it. Maybe it's just the way the word is pronounced; all I know is that I consider madam much, much preferable.

(We don't have such problems in Greek, by the way: we have no separate words for sir and Mr, or for madam and Mrs/Ms. I believe the same situation exists in French.) Waltham, The Duke of 13:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

easyPizza

Hi there,

Should easyPizza be marked for speedy deletion? It has not been trading for some time now and the official site is no more.

--78.101.147.134 (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No, notability has nothing to do with whether something still exists. There are thousands of Wikipedia pages about demolished buildings, defunct companies and dead people.217.171.129.75 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What 217 said. I personally don't think this was ever sufficiently noteworthy to have warranted an article, however it went to AFD and consensus was to keep, so the place to find out if consensus has changed is another AFD. "Ceased trading" is a complete red herring; either it was significant or it wasn't. It's possible for defunct things to become more significant (in Wikipedia terms) after their demise—obscure scientists or musicians who later become recognised as important influences, for instance—but not less so. – iridescent 13:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, the company hasn't ceased trading and the website is definitely still working; I don't know where you've got "the website is no more" from. Looking more closely, this is a significant distribution company and a part of EasyGroup, one of Britain's most significant current companies; the article definitely ought to be kept. – iridescent 16:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. It wasn't working last night and I could find no other evidence in an (admittedly brief) check online that it was still a going concern. I heard a while back that they had packed in. Ne'er mind. --78.101.147.134 (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Needed a bit of a tidy up, as they don't make pizzas anymore. --78.101.147.134 (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Cat Video :-)

Hi, I was wondering what the cats in your video are doing? Its a cool video ;-)

Thanks, Steve Stewydecimalsystem (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

They are, um, engaged in the supply, distribution and manufacture of further cats. – iridescent 13:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Awards to everyone. Even if they don't know what for. *applause* --Moni3 (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Careful, you'll encourage more people to run for RfA.... Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"I only want to be an admin to attract pussy" – iridescent 20:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You're beginning to make me think that perhaps I've been too hasty in rejecting any idea of RfA number 3 ... Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I loled. IRL. In class. I guess that's what I get for surfing my bookmarks while I'm supposed to be listening to my CS 101 prof... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I should clarify: I don't have this page bookmarked, but I do have WP bookmarked, and I clicked on my watchlist from habit.

I'm hurt; why don't you have this page bookmarked? – iridescent 20:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

All right, all right... Don't cry... Sheesh... [2]. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Be careful, you could get in trouble for linking to kitty porn...;-) Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the most boring subject you've ever nominated at DYK/GA/FA?

I know you do a lot of train/underground stuff, but that does seem to fascinate a lot of people. Video games bore me rigid, but I once did a rather undistinguished underpass, and hangmen having caught my eye I'm inclined to expand this article on an old law into something more. Apparently Charles Dickens was quite prominent amongst the campaigners to outlaw public excutions, but who remembers him now. Malleus Fatuorum 16:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My most boring DYK topic has got to be the mighty Ordish–Lefeuvre Principle; Glass Age Development Committee comes close but is marginally too weird to qualify as "boring". The most boring GA nom would probably be Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway, although Chiswick Bridge runs it close. At FAC, take your pick as some of the railway stations are an open goal; Waddesdon Road railway station, which averaged less than one passenger per day, had no significant architectural features at all, and never had anything of note happen there, probably edges it.

You know my opinion on how much Dickens is underrated as a source for 19th-century stuff; because of who he was, he could get his opinions published on just about anything, and he wrote obsessively about any topic that caught his fancy. – iridescent 16:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

TFA request of Ayumi Hamasaki

Hello, I just changed the nomination date for the featured article Ayumi Hamasaki to October 1, and I would like you to reconsider the request. Thanks you. mx3 話 20:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nashville area?

There is some talk of a Nashville area meetup. Would love to have your participation! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Will depend entirely on my movements. When I'm in the US it tends to be either the northeast or the southwest. – iridescent 09:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A chance to nit-pick my grammar

For all of you talk-page lurkers (and of course Iridescent as well), there's an opportunity to nit-pick my grammar at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Difficulty with User:Hushpuckena. There's some irony here. If you've seen your watchlist notices, you'll have seen that I, too, have reason not to get into a lengthy discussion of English grammar and whether these plural nouns take a plural verb. An issue of categories has just come up … Uncle G (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think plural possessives are an WP:ENGVAR thing; "The Beatles is" looks wrong to a Brit and "The Beatles are" looks wrong to an American. Arguments like this always go on forever, in my experience—Wikipedia people like nothing more than arguing about minutiae. Just ignore each other. – iridescent 13:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You're missing the points that (a) I'm only involved as an observer with enough time for a once-off contribution, and (b) the person who actually is the second party here is User:Hushpuckena, who was taking your advice before you gave it and is now at AN/I as a result of doing exactly what you advise. You might want to give your advice in the AN/I discussion itself. Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• There are some categories of articles best avoided because of the "discretionary plural" nonsense, one of which that springs immediately to mind is football (soccer to you) clubs. Should it be "Manchester United F.C. is" or Manchester United F.C. are"? When there's a trailing "s" on the subject's name the whole "discussion" just goes into overdrive. Malleus Fatuorum 13:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Both of you have missed the fact that it's not groups of people that are being pluralized in this instance, but square miles. ☺ (The 'bots are being unjustly blamed for this, moreover. RamBot didn't write such a long sentence in the first place, and wrote "km²" in any event.) Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a dubious relationship with {{convert}} at best, and tend to go with what "looks right". My instinct is treat it as singular when it's an adjective (the four acre park was…) and plural when it isn't (the four acres of the park were…) but life's too short to worry. As I imagine you know, whatever you do here someone will come along waving some obscure rule or other to tell you at great length why you've done it wrong. – iridescent 15:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That should of course be "four-acre park was", but whatever. Quite early on in my time here I submitted an amendment to the guardians of the {{convert}} template to allow that kind of hyphenation for adjectives, which they've now done, but I got a very sniffy response when I suggested it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Quainton Road railway station FAC and economics in general

I read your rant; I agree with your frustrations. While I agree with your observance about CPI figures and non-cash economies in the Victorian period, my main complaints have been about the use of Measuring Worth in late medieval and early modern articles; particularly where MW CPI figures are used to calculate Farm incomes or Government / Crown expenses! I think I was ranting about it on FAC in 2009. But my attitude was too hostile to change the review culture back then :). Congrats on the high quality railway history articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... My personal feeling is that inflation becomes meaningless before around 1800, despite Measuring Worth's insistence that they can calculate it back to the 14th century. On this series, I don't think it's such an issue; the prices are primarily there to be compared with each other, not to anything external. – iridescent 16:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct procedure

Biological control redirects to Biological pest control.

I want to fix the links in articles with AWB. Should I change them to [ [ Biological pest control ] ] or [ [ Biological pest control|Biological control ] ]? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "fix the links". If it's purely replacing links to redirects with links to the actual page, you shouldn't be doing it at all; we have a rule against that. In general, I'd say links ought to point to Biological pest control; while there may not be a separate article now, I can imagine "biological control" also having other meanings. – iridescent 20:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For two reasons: The first, I now see is unnecessary. The second, because that's what the link means in the articles, and I thought it could clarify. I think I'll just leave it. I could have sworn that after I move a page, instructions appear telling me to use "what links here" and fix the links. I must have been hallucinating. Anyway, thanks for pointing me to WP:R2D, and the good info. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that's what I call a DYK hook

"... that English hangman James Billington's decision to use a longer drop than usual when executing Charles Thomas Wooldridge, immortalised as "C.T.W" in Oscar Wilde's The Ballad of Reading Gaol, resulted in Wooldridge's neck being stretched by eleven inches?" Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that even possible? Wouldn't it just decapitate the victim? – iridescent 21:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what the apparently reliable source says. There are of course quite a few decapitations as well, but that's another story. Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly possible if the muscles held. Parrot of Doom 21:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

He was a fairly young soldier, so presumably in good physical nick. By contrast there are cases of older men in not such good condition being decapitated by much shorter drops. Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of drops. Don't watch this if you don't like heights. PS - nobody dies or gets hurt. Parrot of Doom 22:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A quick nod (there is a train of thought here, but I forget what) to the most jaw-droppingly tasteless poster of recent years. – iridescent 22:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's only a case of "too soon"? I'm sure this one would be viewed as equally tasteless forty years ago, but it's not as bad now... (Or maybe I'm just being profoundly insensitive.)

The video is gone, by the way. I wasn't more than a day late... Things like this make you think about the transience of the Web—I've never been too fond of it, to be honest. (snort) Waltham, The Duke of 15:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That one's fairly tasteless even now, I'd say. – iridescent 15:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

'tis back Parrot of Doom 20:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Denard Robinson

Thanks for catching vandalism on the above page. This page has already been, and will continue to be, the target of vandalism. I'm keeping an eye on it when I'm on line, but the more eyes on the page the better. Thanks again. Cbl62 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

He's always going to be vandalised. I don't think it's heavy enough to warrant protecting, but if it keeps up I'll semi it—it all seems to come from IPs. – iridescent 20:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ottmar Hitzfeld

Please stop editing Ottmar Hitzfeld's page to include personal information about yourself. It is a disgrace to him and to the integrity of Wikipedia. If you persist, I will have to report you. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gri3720 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? – iridescent 20:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see - didn't revert it far enough and some of the vandalism was still there. – iridescent 20:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold on

Can I finish what I am in the middle of?--24.196.252.225 (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's adding huge chunks of unsourced and irrelevant ramblings and unsourced thoughts, no. Go have a good read of What Wikipedia is not. If something isn't mentioned in independent, non-trivial, reliable sources, we don't include it. (You might want to have a read of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and WP:HARDBLOCK, while you're about it.) – iridescent 22:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Only six more to go

I know it's nothing in the grand scheme of things, but I've found that my project to create 75 new articles has taken me into some interesting and rather neglected territory, like Victorian music hall. You may be better informed than I am, but I'd never heard of the term lion comique until yesterday, and the location of the Hulme Hippodrome had me puzzled for a while as well. Even what really ought to be a jewel in the music hall crown, Marie Lloyd, is in pretty average condition.

I've looked at several hundred new pages over the past few months, and it's a pretty depressing story. It would be nice to think that every edit improves wikipedia, but the truth is that wikpedia is being overwhelmed by the continual flow of crap. I guess the only way to survive here is to put on blinkers and pray for the swift emergence of Wikipedia Mark 2. Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The flow of crap is no heavier than before. What's changed is that the number of editors remains constant, but the number of articles keeps increasing. The software fixes have masked the scale of the problem, but as Wikipedia 1 becomes bigger and bigger, it gets more and more reliant on maintenance volunteers, who need ever-increasing payoffs to keep them active. Anyone with a passing familiarity with Gibbon, Marx or The Time Machine could have seen this coming; it doesn't mean the whole thing will collapse, but one solid kick will clear away a lot of dead wood. – iridescent 01:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Already did. Can I take the opportunity to say that I'm starting to find Jimbo and his boys' "we'll keep holding this election until you give us the right answer" gaming of this process more than a little obnoxious? – iridescent 01:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Charles Domery.

Great work! LittleMountain5 22:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Iridescent/Archive 14 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a Birthday Committee? Who was it who said "Facebook for ugly people"? – iridescent 13:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless you were made an administrator on your birthday, I don't think this quite works. As for the quote, must gather data on Facebook usage and ugliness in Wikimedia user base Gurch (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I rest my case. With a few exceptions, these people mostly look like they've long since forgotten what daylight is. – iridescent 14:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

you have no userpage :(

I will make you one, I am good with userpages see Gurch (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of auctioning it for advertising space. – iridescent 08:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I will give you two pennies for it. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the benchmark for you to meet. – iridescent 15:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That was my design originally, except I deleted it. (And it actually looked like Facebook, before they went through 100 redesigns) Gurch (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing biography

Whilst catching up on my AFD patrol, I found, as a result of Four boxes (AfD discussion), another missing article that isn't even redlinked anywhere. I was going to come to your talk page, but I realized that it was a century or so too early. I'm going to try User talk:Aymatth2 instead. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Assuming it's this one you're talking about, your best bet is probably Ottava. For various political reasons too tedious to explain he's currently banned on en-wiki, so you'd need to ping him on Simple and then check-and-transwiki whatever he writes there. – iridescent 10:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Given the fairly good jobs that Aymatth2 has done in the past with biographies that I've passed xyr way, including Pearl Rivers and Thomas Meredith (Baptist leader) (q.v.), I'll watch to see what xe does, if anything, with the stub at Daniel Skinner. Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Port Ramsgate walkway collapse

Hello, I don't think we've come across each other before, but if you could give me some advice on an article I'm trying to get up to scratch I would really appreciate it. I've seen some of the articles you have done on railways and bridges, so thought you might be able to help on this one. It is currently in my sandbox and relates to the collapse of a port walkway in 1994, killing six people. There are numerous different strands to try and work in: the engineering side; the prosecution of the client even though it had employed well respected companies (including Lloyds Register); the Swedish companies involved not paying a million pound fine leading to the implementation of new EU law. If you are interested the background is available here - some of the pages aren't available on preview but I do have it offline. I guess I'm just struggling to structure it and explain the engineering side in layman terms, and I find it difficult starting from scratch. (I did an article on Gerrards Cross tunnel collapse but that was a lot simpler). If you're too busy or can't be arsed don't worry! Quantpole (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look over it when I get the chance (may not be for a couple of days). The best person to ask may be User:DavidCane; he's a surveyor in real life, so is probably best placed to understand architectural and engineering jargon in the context of formal building safety reports.

I'm sure you know already, but this is a topic to tread carefully on, given the potential implications of an article apportioning blame to people who are mostly still living. – iridescent 12:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, I might give david a shout. I don't think there should be a BLP issue - I haven't come across the names of the individuals involved so couldn't talk about them even if I wanted to! Quantpole (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not forgotten this; sidetracked with trying to get the Brill Tramway series complete in time for the 75th anniversary of its closure in a couple of months. – iridescent 17:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There really is no rush, it's been kicking around in my sandbox for ages anyway. Fascinating on the tramway. I was down at Waddesdon Manor a couple of weeks ago, but didn't realise they built it its own branch line. Quantpole (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments (belatedly)

This is an interesting topic, and something a bit out of the ordinary. I can't see anything obviously wrong with it; a few "things I'd do if I'd written it" are:

• It could probably do with an expanded background section, as the context is important. Ramsgate was primarily a cargo port with minimal passenger facilities, being hastily converted to handle the big RO-RO ferries, rather than an experienced passenger operator like the ports of Dover, Portsmouth etc.
• The ferry operator involved (I assume Sally Line, since I can't think of anyone else who operated non-hovercraft passenger services from Ramsgate) probably ought to be named, as should the ship involved if you have a name for it. (Without looking at the sources, I'll guess with about 90% confidence that it was the Sally Euroroute or the Sally Sky, but Sally did occasionally use other ships on the Ramsgate–Ostend route.)
• "The main span of the pontoon fell about 30 feet during boarding of a ferry. Six people were killed and seven seriously injured." is a bit vague, given that this is the key point of the article. Do we know what actually happened? (I presume it will be in the coroner's report.) Did the pontoon fall onto the group of people and injure them, did the pontoon fall with people on it injuring them when it hit the ground, or did people on the pontoon fall into the see and drown?
• Stupid question, but while you say the companies were found guilty, you don't actually say what they were found guilty of. Was it corporate manslaughter, breaches of the Health & Safety at Work Act, or criminal negligence?
• It would probably be a good idea to work in newspaper coverage of the collapse and the trial; if nothing else, it gives a feeling for how people saw it at the time. If you're a member of a UK library, you should be able to access the archives of most major newspapers via the library's website.

Let me know when it goes into mainspace, and I'll give it a going-over again. It might also be worth asking someone like User:Wehwalt, who has a background in law but not in British law, to have a skim through to see if it makes sense to Wikipedia's global audience, since some legal terms might have a different meaning in the US. – iridescent 11:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I've done some tweaks to clarify some of the points you've raised. I don't really know much about the port itself, but I'll see if I can expand the background a bit. The ferry was actually the Prins Filip, run by Regie voor Maritiem Transport (but I did come across something saying that it was run in conjunction with Sally Line) - they originally ran from Dover to Ostend but changed to Ramsgate at some point. I'll try to work in some of the newspaper coverage but it is annoying when discussing technical details because they summarise things inaccurately. I'll drop you a note when a shift it into mainspace. Quantpole (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with it, and if there's anything I can do to help once it goes live let me know. I have something of a soft spot for Ramsgate; it has a fascinating history (how many other minor coastal resorts with a population of 30,000 had their own tube system, or an air-raid shelter with a 60,000 capacity?) but tends to be overshadowed by its neighbours at Dover, Margate and Canterbury. – iridescent 21:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Credo accounts

Discussion here about the possibility of 400 new accounts. Erik would like help to draw up criteria for distribution, so we don't have a repeat of last time. Are you interested in helping to set it up? See Wikipedia_talk:Credo_accounts#Usage. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Commented briefly there. I think something needs to be done to avoid a repeat of the MMORPG element treating it as a glorified secret-page-challenge again—Credo have presumably noticed that a sizable proportion of the accounts they gave out last time haven't actually been used. That said, I'm not sure how useful it actually is; whisper it quietly, but most of the information on Credo is distinctly useless from a Wikipedia point of view. – iridescent 16:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

yes, I think there are more important paid sources we should try for --Iw will comment there. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the one we should be aiming for is JSTOR. Of all the online sources (many of which are vastly overrated, it has to be said) it's the only one I regularly find myself regretting not having easy access to. – iridescent 21:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can get into JSTOR (just about), but I agree; it's the one of the few realy worthwhile sites worth having access too.  Giacomo  21:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

what Iridescent said for sure --Senra (Talk) 21:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I take it back; the ODNB and the Times archive are both equally valuable.

Giano, while you're here, do you have any thoughts on St. Mary's Church, Chesham? I think it's teetering on the edge of FAC-material, but I'm not sure I haven't mangled the architectural terminology. (I have done my best to keep Saint Nick's dubious speculations out of it.) – iridescent 21:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My local library will not give me JSTOR but they do give me other tools such as OED, DNB, Times and CREDO it seems. I just tried CREDO on roddon without any luck. I even tried one of the alternate spellings of roddon, Rodham and all CREDO gave me was some American family --Senra (Talk) 21:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Times archive is brilliant, but i always get sidetracked in it, I go in for one thing and then get tempted to start searching all sorts of other people and generally waste a couple of hours in it. Sorry, I really did not like the "St. Mary's Church, Chesham" page. It seemed to have a very meandering lead, then an immense warm-up paragraph before we finally got to the church. The page then seemed to ramble on - on and off subject - and then finally end with no satisfactory conclusion. Sorry, but you did ask :-( On a brighter note, I shall be very near Chesham in November, so if you want any more photos - I can probably get them.  Giacomo  22:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it feels very unbalanced at the start, but I can't see an obvious way round it. It needs some kind of background to explain the significance of the stone circle and the heretic martyrs (both of whom turn up later on), and the sudden growth of the town once the railway was built (leading to the dismemberment of the parish), and I couldn't find an easy way to work them into the article in a more chronological order. I agree the lead is ropey; I wrote that last, and was getting bored with the topic by then, and it shows. If you can get any pictures of the interior, it would be great; on the two occasions I went up to visit the place, the church was firmly locked, and I don't care about the topic enough to go to the bother of writing to them to get permissions. – iridescent 22:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think almost the whole of the "Historical background" section could go. I would take it it into user space and then just paste sentences and paragraphs about to get some order and continuity and then rewrite it so the re-arranged paras worked. All the info is there, it is just not flowing. I'm getting better at interior shots, it has now become a one man war between me (armed with a phone) and the vicious looking volunteer ladies of the National Trust. Have you considered attending a service, of course it will be C of E so won't give you any entry vouchers to Heaven, but may give a glimpse of the interior.  Giacomo  22:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Tricky; as I say, I do think that at least some "before the church was built" section is necessary, to explain the stone circle. (An oddity in the southeast—one expects such things in Scotland or Sardinia, but pagan megaliths a short brisk walk from Cliveden seem somehow out of place. If you look at the talkpage, you'll see a very bizarre "that's not a stone circle" conversation.) It's never going to get through FAC in the current climate, as it relies far too heavily on Foxell (the only significant historian ever to have written anything substantial on it, as far as I know); this one is very much an "I thought it looked interesting and didn't have an article" one, and thus one doesn't have to be concerned about the MOS and such. The main reason I haven't been there on Sunday is that, with very few parking spaces and a train service that's generally closed on Sundays, Chesham is a pig of a place to get to at weekends. If I ever did try to get this one up to FAC level, I'd contact them; since the article says nothing derogatory about them, and would potentially encourage at least some people to pop in for a look, I imagine they'd welcome the chance to help. – iridescent 23:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Re St Mary's Chesham, hope I am not interfering, but it is Grade I not Grade A; Grade A's are pre English Heritage, as far as I know. I checked LBS ref=43532 (registration required). In comparison, I accept that IoE lists the church as Grade A but IoE is wrong (IMHO) --Senra (Talk) 22:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's grade A. Anything that was listed as grade A, B or C pre-1977 keeps its listing unless and until its status is reassessed, at which time it gets a grade I, II*, II listing instead; St Mary's was listed in 1951. – iridescent 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You are going to get annoyed at me now but please WP:AGF :) I know I am right. I have had considerable experience with Images of England (IoE) in my own area where I have pointed out to IoE that their listing are incorrect for particular buildings. When I point this out to them they, tell me their database is not statutory and I should use the statutory list. Furthermore, English Heritage says "... The Historic Buildings Council advised in August 1977 that the use of A, B and C grades for Anglican churches in use should be discontinued, that the grades I, II* and II should be introduced, and that the grading of Anglican churches should be fully equivalent to that of secular buildings". According to your article, the church was in-use post 1977, was Anglican and the statutory list (as I said previously) lists this church as Grade I. Again, I accept that the IoE reference given in the article does say Grade A but the statutory list disagrees and records the church as Grade I. --Senra (Talk) 23:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

To access the statutory list, Listed Buildings Online, select Administrative Search then select search by LBS number using 43532

Back to CREDO I was lurking as you do and saw DGG's answer to a query suggesting someone join Lancashire Library as (apparently)) anyone in the UK can join. So I did. Their online catalogue lists CREDO as available from your home PC via your Lancashire library card (mine is apparently in the post) --Senra (Talk) 13:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That page you've linked isn't English Heritage's homepage, it's website of an estate agent called Pavilions of Splendour and the FotoLibra photo library (both owned by the same man, aka User:GwynH) who cybersquat the www.heritage.co.uk domain. The Heritage Protection Bill (which would have given English Heritage the power to list buildings) was abandoned in the run-up to the election, and the odds of the ConDems passing it are zero. English Heritage has no more power to list a building or change its listing than does the National Trust, the Georgian Association, Natural England or any other powerful lobby group; they advise the DCMS and the local planning authority, but the decision always rests with the Secretary of State (and EH are regularly ignored, as anyone familiar with the swathes of destruction currently cutting through central London and Birmingham will know all too well). I don't know what Listed Buildings Online have been telling you, but their database is no more "the statutory list" than Images of England. The database on their website is compiled for convenience—the actual lists are virtually inaccessible unless you want to queue at the relevant local authority's planning department—and is no more likely to be right or wrong than IoE. The statutory list is split by local authority, and each authority's planning department holds their own part. What passes for a "central register" is a huge mound of photocopies in the EH warehouse, to which the public don't have access. It may well be that the 1990s alterations triggered a reassessment and caused the listing to change from A to I, but unless I see that in writing somewhere I'm not convinced; EH hates doing anything that might pick a fight with the Church Commissioners, especially when there's no significant change or large sum of money involved.

That will teach me not to check sources - I only glanced at English Heritage :( So sorry for that (need to rifle through a few articles to correct that)). Anyway, I do take your point about seeing for youself. Fair enough. In my case, perhaps I have mis-interpreted the IoE response to me - perhaps they were sending me to the dusty registers when I thought they were sending me to LBonline. I consider myself slapped --Senra (Talk) 20:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't take it as a slap. Building protection in England is spectacularly arcane: nine regions, 89 counties and unitary authorities, 32 London Boroughs, one Church, one Crown, two universities, one Ministry of Defence, one Atomic Energy Authority and one Corporation whose reach spreads far wider than most realise—and all of them are jealously guarding their parts of the pie. Even the DCMS themselves don't necessarily know the status of a listed building (remember there are more than half a million in England alone, compared to 2,500 National Historic Landmarks in the entire United States); the only way to verify a building's status is to go to the local authority's planning office and wade through the register yourself. Since that's not practical, Wikipedia traditionally treats IoE as reliable. – iridescent 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Credo is available through most UK libraries to any UK resident. If you're only going to join one library, I'd recommend the City of Westminster, which has the best selection of online resources I've found (so far) of any UK library. – iridescent 19:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll

the Reason, and ONLY reason I added that is that it is a exact copy of what is on the top. I thought since the page is long, a frendly reminder would be helpful. Thanks--intelati^(Call) 13:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It only says that because a Defender of the Wiki unilaterally chose to add it a couple of days ago, and nobody can be bothered to edit-war over it. You may have noticed that our main page says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" at the top, not "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone pre-approved by a small and self-electing clique can edit".

As regards the poll, if Jimbo were holding it in his userspace then it would be fine and dandy for him to set conditions on what people could and couldn't say, although even then he'd have no power to enforce it. Since he's holding it in project space, anyone who's a part of the project can comment, regardless of whether they're saying what he wants to hear or not.

There is a purpose to that "oppose the poll" section. The devs are going to ignore the result of the poll come what may—having spent time building themselves a new toy, they're going to play with it regardless of how much it wastes the time of everyone else on here—but a long list of people expressing dissatisfaction at Jimbo's bait-and-switch tactics, followed by his going ahead and declaring that "consensus" consists only of those people who agree with him, will serve as a concrete reminder that he's not to be trusted next time he tries to pull something like this. – iridescent 14:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend to edit war over it it's just the talk page is there for a reason. I don't have a problem with people voicing their opinions, but the act of unevenly distribution of the conversation is disruptive to the poll. How, the whistle-blowers of the opposition is overpowering those who are trying to have a peaceful yes, or no vote. Thanks--intelati^(Call) 14:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind,  Done--intelati^(Call) 14:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Shrug. You've just summed up the problem with that post; those who are following the party line are "trying to have a peaceful vote", and those who object to Jimbo unilaterally suddenly deciding majority-votes are a good thing, after completely disregarding the last poll because it didn't give him the result he wanted, are "disruptive overpowering whistle-blowing".

As a suggestion, you might want to read Risker's analysis of the problem we're facing here, which is probably the best summary of just why this poll is so unpopular. This change has ripped a large hole in Wikipedia's internal culture, and is tilting the dynamic squarely away from content-contribution and towards vandal-reverting and semi-automated editing, and is handing a huge swathe of new powers to the (shrinking) admin corps. The process isn't necessarily going to wreck Wikipedia; the way in which it's being railroaded through by the devs via a string of blatantly-rigged polls is. – iridescent 14:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Freinds? :)--intelati^(Call) 14:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering a reliance on external patrolling tools (and thus, "vandal-reverting" and "semi-automation") to be the best way to sift good contributions from bad does not equate to support for turning the wiki into a glorified moderation system; don't confuse the two viewpoints. Although I do seem to be the only developer in opposition to it :( Gurch (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I think semi-automation is greatly underestimated (without the bots and the spellcheckers, the place would fall apart in a month). That doesn't mean I think either the current "I have 10,000 Huggle edits, please make me an admin despite my having no experience of actually discussing issues" or "the encyclopedia anyone the Civility Police approve of can edit, the rest of you aren't to be trusted" trends ought to be encouraged. – iridescent 20:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the current trend in new administrators seems to be not having any. Also, if you replace "Civility Police" with "reviewers" you have a pretty good description of how flagged revisions works... Gurch (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is what prompted this thread. Want to take a bet on how long between FR being rolled out project-wide and the first "I am removing your reviewer rights because you disagreed with me"? – iridescent 20:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That's been one of mine and Giano's major objections to this farce right from the beginning, and why neither of us are, or ever will be, reviewers. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

May happen. It doesn't particularly concern me, nor does the fact that several people have already been de-reviewered after being indefinitely blocked (though it does make me doubt the selection process). I'm honestly not opposed to a system like this in principle (though if there's going to be a built-in system for reviewing revisions, it should be available automatically to any user who has been around a while, not yet another user right with a request process) but the current one works like it was designed by someone who has never done any recent changes patrolling ever. Inefficiency, clumsy user interface and lack of integration with MediaWiki are things that could be addressed, in theory, but the "feature" that freezes transclusions on reviewed versions is so flawed and badly thought out that I refuse to use the system, ever, for fear of being blocked for freezing template/image vandalism on a page. Gurch (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much my position. If it were granted automatically by the software (1000 edits, or 3 months without a block, say) and if the software worked properly, I'd support it. The issue is that Jimbo is using what little clout he still has to force through what's obviously a half-finished beta version through with no regard to the problems it's causing, and with no process in place for how this power will be granted/removed—it's just leading to more and more bad blood each day this goes on. – iridescent 21:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Your position doesn't seem consistent Gurch. "May happen. It doesn't particularly concern me" doesn't really match with "I refuse to use the system, ever, for fear of being blocked". As you point out, blocked editors have had the reviewer "right" revoked. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I refuse to use it because of its broken implementation. It doesn't bother me much that people with the right might have it removed by administrators they disagree with, it's not like they do that sort of thing anyway even without flagged revisions. Gurch (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, he's right. Because you don't have the reviewer right on, you can't see it - but basically, if you edit an article with vandalism in its recent history, the software is so buggy that it will often attribute the vandalism to you. – iridescent 21:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, don't rub it in. There's lots of stuff I can't see here because I have no "rights" whatsoever. Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. Perhaps I should give a more detailed (though still simplified) explanation.

When you review a revision, and it is then viewed, templates and images on the page are shown as they were when the revision was reviewed, not as they currently are. The effect is to "freeze" templates and images on that revision, ensuring the whole content of the page never changes until the revision is un-reviewed or a newer revision is reviewed.

The stated purpose of this feature is to prevent template/image vandalism to reviewed pages, which it does indeed do. However, as should be pretty obvious, if there is any template/image vandalism present when the page is reviewed, it will stay there, no matter what is done to revert the template/image, until someone spots it on that specific page and un-reviews the revision.

This was not a problem for the original intended use cases of the extension; back then, it was to be a tool for assessing the quality of articles, and making stable, reviewed versions of featured articles easily accessible. Obviously to do that, one would have to read through the article in full, noticing any template or image vandalism that might be there.

However, the extension has somehow since been repackaged as a way to deal with simple vandalism. Rather than reading the entire article, reviewers are to view the diff of a change to an article, and accept or reject the change based on that. Putting aside the fact that the extension is not very good at this in the first place, this means that if an image/template is vandalized, and nobody notices this before an article containing the image/template is edited and reviewed, the vandalism sticks in place.

The edit to the article could be anything; a minor spelling correction for example. The reviewer has no idea that the article is now in a vandalized state. The diff they saw looked fine.

While the extension lists images/templates that were changed since the last review above the reviewing form, it's unlikely that reviewers are always going to check them all. What's more, even if they do, it's easy to hide template vandalism such that the template page itself looks fine, leading to more clicks to check the history of each template. Alternatively, of course, they could always read through the whole article.

This is a long way from the diff-based one-click revert/ignore system that never really seems to have been a problem for dealing with obvious vandalism. It's no use for complex content issues, but neither is flagged revisions, at least in its current configuration. No "rating" or "reviewing" system works with content issues, because they are inherently more complex than that. Gurch (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• ...and so far - our predictions seem to be spot on. This is being pushed through with rules changed by the moment as the far from merry band steam roller on. It will destroy "the project anyone can edit" and give the usual bullies and their sidekicks another sledge hammer to beat the opposition over the head with. I really should be paid for my predictions, they are so accurate, the only problem is that a child with half a brain ought to be able to see them too.  Giacomo  21:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sort of. There are ways it could work, if they treated it the same as they treat autoconfirmed users and automatically gave everyone with a certain number of edits and a certain amount of experience this power. The problem is that, by making it something that can be given and taken away, it turns the feature into a political tool which the Chillums and Rods will use to beat anyone they don't like around the head with. Plus, as per Gurch's excellent explanation just above, at the moment it doesn't do what it was supposed to do, and keeping it active is just making people angry and confused. Jimbo explicitly sold it as a way to "free up" high-profile articles like Barack Obama from their current protection levels, but it can't handle an article whose history isn't a simple edit-revert-edit-revert pattern and thus can't be used on any article with more than a couple of people working on it. – iridescent 10:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Rod who? You hadn't noticed Chillum left six months ago? Naturally, I can't tell how long that will last, but for now he's just socking. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

• Chillum has pretty much always been socking hasn't he? Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I believe so. My emphasis was meant to be "now he's just socking." Bishonen | talk 22:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

• Sorry? I thought Chillum was now somebody else called ....Oh, I had better not say in case it's top secret or I have been very glacial to a completely innocent newby. Who was HighonBC (or something like that)? not imbibing on anything more exiting than a Marlboro Light these days and a sniff of grated Grana Padano, I get very confused indeed.  Giacomo  18:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Don't be pert, Giacomo. High or not, I hope you remember Worldtraveller and the Inshaneee case (2007)! You can read this brief evidence for a couple of vintage blocks by Chillum in that context, which did a lot of harm. :-( Today, we all know the harmless content contributor "DBuckner" that he blocked as... but my tongue runneth away with me; it doesn't matter. Anyway, I tried to animate arbcom in regard to Chillum, but they went on comfortably hibernating. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

Wikimedia Foundation Evaluate Media Repository;

Conclude More Black Penises Required

Just in case you weren't already aware.

In other news, the Foundation is scratching their heads and putting money and staff time into studies and brainstorming sessions trying to figure out why people seem reluctant to create accounts, and why so few of them actually use them. I wonder if they've actually tried creating an account or editing as a new user recently? Gurch (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I love the idea of the WMF's highly paid consultants solemnly tallying 1,000 penises. Besides, I'm sure David Shankbone uploaded a bunch of black penises at some point - there was a big fuss about which were more 'representative', and whether they ought to have hair or not. 217.171.129.75 (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

...says the IP address that made this edit, evidently your subject of interest Gurch (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Masturbation Techniques - the cock swinging method (animated).gif

There is something uniquely Wikipedia about someone who, when confronted with 1,000 penises, has "categorise them to identify unrepresented categories!" as their first reaction. Do you suppose Britannica had this discussion? Full marks for the (un?)intentional comedy goldmine tapped by whoever uploaded this, though. – iridescent 14:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, good thing I wasn't reading this at work... Aiken (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Information has a right to be free, anyone who objects is just being a prude, every image on Commons has a legitimate educational purpose. Don't you listen to Jimmy Wales? (You do know that Wikipedia is a spin-off from a porn site, right?) – iridescent 14:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just as well that the idea that Wikipedia is the "sum of all human knowledge" is just Jimmy Wales' opinion, and not actually supported by any policy. Aiken (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You want to be the one to tell Jimmy Wales that his personal opinions don't automatically become Wikipedia policy, good luck with that. Many have tried before you, and nobody's yet managed it. – iridescent 14:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Btw - he's uploaded quite a few films of himself. I often used to think I was a bit sad sitting on Wikipedia all day, but he's changed my mind on that one. Aiken (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Diplock courts

Hi, On the Diplock courts page you removed internal links from Frank Kitson's name. Was there a reason for doing that? Diplocksystem (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We try to avoid linking in section titles; the screen-reading software used by the blind has trouble handling formatting-within-headers, and reads ==Brigadier [[Frank Kitson]]== as "Header Brigadier open square bracket open square bracket Frank Kitson close square bracket close square bracket". Because the [ character isn't a standard HTML character, it also means the header doesn't work properly as an HTML anchor. Thus, I've removed the link to his name from the header, but kept the link to him in "The transition from Internment to Diplock Courts was the culmination of a series of proposals put forth by Brigadier Frank Kitson" immediately following the header, so anyone who wants to read about him will still be able to find him. Wikipedia's guideline on this (and many other accessibility issues) is at WP:ACCESS#Links.

Regarding my adding the {{ibid}} tag to the reference section, that's not any criticism of you, just a note to highlight something that needs to be fixed at some point; we do our best to avoid ibid in reference sections, since someone coming along later and adding another reference midway through the article has the potential for problems if the person adding the new reference doesn't realise they need to fix the following ibid. I don't want to fix it myself, as I don't have any of the books in question, so there's a risk that I'd "fix" them to the wrong publications—e.g., it's not clear whether the "ibid, page 55" in reference 17 of this version refers to page 55 of Bradley's testimony (the reference immediately above it), to Jackson & Doran, or to Greer & White. – iridescent 13:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Iredescent: ibid refers to whatever the last full citation was before the ibid, (or could be several ibids all deriving from the same source). In the sample you refer to, then it would be page 55, of Bradley's Testimony. A new citation to anything preceeding Bradley's Testimony would then have either supra #, or n#, to indicate the exact full citation being referred to leaping froging over Bradley, so to speak. Diplocksystem (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's only true if there is never, ever, another sentence with reference added in between the first mention of the reference source and the second mention. What about if someone reworks the paragraph a month from now? The "ibid" reference can be dislocated from its primary reference very easily during copy editing. That is the reason that ibid, supra and so on are deprecated on this project. The more usual practice is to list subsequent references to the same text as "Bradley, p. 55" (as an example). Risker (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What she said. Because of Wikipedia's unusual "anyone can edit" setup, a lot of the conventions of print media and other websites aren't appropriate here. Anyone could come along and add a cited fact between the two Bradley references, or rework the paragraph so the references appear in a different order; as soon as they do, the "ibid" would lose its meaning. – iridescent 21:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Postman's Park

It looks as though you have missed the chance fo the Main page for its 130th Anniversary on October 28th. Simply south (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Raul TFA'd me a few weeks ago; he'd be unlikely to do it again this soon unless I expressly asked, and that ain't going to happen. Despite appearances, most of Wikipedia's powers that be have some common sense, and Raul knows how much TFAing annoys people and tries to share them equally on those occasions where there's not anyone who actually wants it. (He hit Moni twice in one week once, and I think she was ready to rip him a new asshole.) – iridescent 10:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do people go mad if they have more than one TFA? Simply south (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Because, contrary to popular belief, most people have better things to do with their time than revert "FUCK OFF" 200 times a day, constantly argue with people demanding that everything be translated into American, and keep explaining to people why their pet theory can't be explained at great length on the front page of the 6th most visited site on the internet. People accept that occasionally their articles will be TFA, as part of the price paid for Wikipedia having a front page that isn't entirely the grey goo of DYK and ITN, but nobody except a masochist ever asks for an article to be TFA after their first taste of it, unless they have a very good reason for it—and a 130th anniversary certainly isn't a good reason. This is what happens to an article on an obscure topic unlikely to attract much interest at TFA; for an article encompassing religion, architecture, a significant London landmark and a controversial piece of art, expect ten times that. (This may prove educational.) – iridescent 19:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OCTOBER METRO

Simply south (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Analytic phonics

Heya, did Analytic phonics have anything useful on it? Ta. Aiken (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not iridescent, but I've emailed you a copy, hope you don't mind. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Article renaming for one-event people

Alice Ayres is notable for dying, right? What would you think of efforts to rename her article to Death of Alice Ayres?

Can I get you to give your thoughts on this discussion? --Moni3 (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. – iridescent 15:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh God!

Deep joy. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• The Lord does indeed move in mysterious ways.  Giacomo  22:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Took him a long time to collect all those toys. Parrot of Doom 22:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

While I'm here, and the learned people are watching, am I correct in assuming that this is a rather blatant bit of POV-pushing? I mean, a traitor in law is a traitor, right? Parrot of Doom 22:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're convicted of being a traitor then you're a traitor, simple as that. I've had a similar problem with convicted witches. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. Maybe he's learned some manners when he's been away. Stranger things have happened. – iridescent 22:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

re PoD: I'd suggest changing it to "people convicted of treason". You're technically right that people convicted of treason are legally traitors, but it's just as accurate and saves all the "terrorist versus freedom fighter" semantic arguments. Jesus was convicted and executed for blasphemy, but one would be unlikely to describe him as "a blasphemer" in an article on the origins of the church. – iridescent 23:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see both sides, but guess what kind of articles the person who made the above change edits? Parrot of Doom 23:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As Malleus and Giano can also tell you, the only sensible reaction when confronted with any article that even mentions Ireland is to run away as fast as you can. (Seriously, go with "convicted of". It doesn't lose anything, and do you really want to be scraping Mattisse, Kittybrewster and Vintagekits off your talkpage for the next year?) – iridescent 23:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

They can bring it. I love winding people up. Parrot of Doom 23:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll second what Iridescent said. With the whole Northern Ireland thing starting to kick off again anything vaguely to do with Irish republicanism is best avoided. And to be truthful it was always was; I was just pig-headed enough to try and do what I could with a couple of Irish terrorism articles, but it wasn't a pleasant experience, and I doubt I'd consider doing anything similar again. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously. You have me and Malleus telling you this fight is too much trouble—what does that tell you? – iridescent 00:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

[Thanks her lucky stars that she co-authored a featured article with an editor considered an "Irish partisan" and now has a good excuse to avoid any Arbcom cases related to the topic. Risker (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)]

...that you're getting too old for this lark :) The editor above used a variation of your solution anyway, all by himself :) Parrot of Doom 07:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear what kind of hole you're digging here, last time this kind of thing came up on Wikipedia, this was the result. Followed by this. Followed by this. Followed by this. There really is a good reason nobody wants to touch articles related to That Place. – iridescent 17:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesham Branch

Hi, Iridescent. Excellent article on the Chesham branch. I've learnt some interesting new facts on the history of the line. Just one query. It says that the new through train replacing the shuttle will run through to Marylebone (end of fourth paragraph). I had assumed the S stock trains would run to Aldgate etc duering peak times and Baker Street off peak. Tmol42 (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops yes, had Marylebone in my mind because it followed on from that sentence about Chiltern Trains. I've made it the vaguer "London"—as I understand it, consultation is still ongoing as to whether the Chesham trains will run to Baker Street, Aldgate, or on to Barking. – iridescent 15:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're done with pig-faced-women...

Check out Kikimora. Parrot of Doom 23:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Slavic folklore is wonderful for weird stuff; Russia's combination of "last remnant of Byzantium", "biggest trading partner of the Vikings" and "first point of call for every Asiatic barbarian horde" has given it a mix of odd traditions even China can't match. Check out Baba Yaga, or my nomination for all-time winner of the "best Wikipedia article title", Vampire watermelon. (I'm hoping to turn Hikey sprite blue as the next "weird stuff" one; I try to alternate weird-shit and boring-but-necessary civil engineering history. I do have my eye on Easton Neston Mineral & Towcester Roade & Olney Junction Railway, even though it makes Chesham branch look thrill-a-minute, purely to picture Sandy's face trying to squeeze it onto the FA page.) – iridescent 23:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

new users started weird pages

[3] [4] Any advice? Husounde (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The first one looks like someone writing a draft article on their userpage, which isn't ideal (people assume the article is a biography of the user), but isn't forbidden. The second is someone goofing around—if they continue doing it and don't do any useful work, it would violate WP:NOTMYSPACE, but it's not something I'd lose sleep over. The "Not Myspace" policy is aimed at people who use Wikipedia as a chat room to talk to their friends, and I don't see any of that here. – iridescent 15:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(adding) The nonsense page the second one created in mainspace, on the other hand, is a violation. Deleted and warned. – iridescent 15:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

ok, thank you. Husounde (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesham

Figured out the problem, it was my computer not the page. But rvv was a bit harsh wasn't it? It certainly wasn't intentional. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't even look to see who it was; just saw the infobox balloon to fill half the page. Since that's a favorite vandal tactic—it's something neither Huggle nor the bots can spot, and all our regular vandals know that—I just did an instant revert-and-warn. Apologies. – iridescent 19:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I didn't think to look at who'd put the infobox there, or I might've guessed I was wrong... Alzarian16 (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, apparently I'm not the only one having problems [5]. Fortunately GeeJo seems to be rather better at coding Infoboxes than I am... Alzarian16 (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm—there must be a glitch in either MSIE or the infobox code which is stopping captions from word-wrapping. The line break should fix it. – iridescent 09:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For expanding the article on the Biddenden Maids. Mjroots (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I've had my eye on that one for ages, but kept getting side-tracked. (I don't suppose you can think of a DYK for it? Per my comments here, it feels like there really ought to be something given how eccentric the topic is, but I can't see anything obvious.) – iridescent 21:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, will try to think of a hook. I've added a bit more about the confusion over the dates. Shouldn't "Biddenden cake" be "Biddenden Cake", as we are referring to a particular kind of cake rather than any cake bought in Biddenden? Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've nominated Mary and Eliza Chulkhurst, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Mjroots (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Mjroots (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of nominating this for GA status. However, you've done all the hard work, so you should nominate it. Suggest it is entered under WP:GAN#GEO. Good luck! Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't see any particular point in nominating it at GAN; it should breeze through FAC, and I've never subscribed to the "tick every box along the way" mentality. – iridescent 18:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In which case, I wish you every success with the nom. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it at least a few days to settle down; it's possible to hothouse FAC, but people tend to frown on it. Re the capitalisation, consensus among writers seems to be "Biddenden cake" rather than "Biddenden Cake"; this would also be consistent with Eccles cake, Chelsea bun, Banbury cake, Danish pastry, Chorley cake, Tottenham cake… – iridescent 18:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(adding) Is there any way I can persuade you to get rid of that infobox? It adds absolutely nothing, and it looks awful. – iridescent 18:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

...and there was I thinking that infoboxes were there to be used, and their use was encouraged. It's something that can be raised on the talk page and at FAC. I'd prefer it was left for now. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll go as far as to say that I'd oppose it at FAC if it were nominated with an infobox. Infoboxes' use is certainly not encouraged other than in the specific cases for which they're intended; they have a specific purpose in providing a common element to articles which are part of a series (professional athletes, railway stations etc). Using a biographical infobox for apocryphal characters who probably never existed gives a spurious weighting to one particular view (that they existed); it also adds absolutely nothing, since there's nothing in there that isn't already in the lead. "Established the Chulkhurst Charity" is just daft; the name "Chulkhurst" doesn't appear anywhere until 1790, and the concept of "charity" in English law wasn't invented until 1601. – iridescent 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, since there is no proof that they existed, you may remove the infobox. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying; I got sidetracked cleaning up after someone trying to improve Brill Tramway, apparently in complete good faith but who doesn't seem either to have English as their first language, or have any actual knowledge of the (fairly specialised) subject. Unless you have any strong objections, I'll take the infobox out; I honestly don't think it adds anything, and to be accurate virtually every field would need to include some kind of disclaimer ("born 1100, 1500, c. 1550, or never existed").

FWIW my personal opinion—which isn't backed by anything at all, and thus I haven't mentioned in the article—is that the tradition is based on a genuine pair of conjoined twins, who were stillborn or died in infancy, and their parents made over their farm to the church in return for not being executed for witchcraft. That would clean up all the niggling inconsistencies (what were women doing owning land? why did none of the authorities apparently notice them? why aren't they mentioned in any books on either Kent, or conjoined twins, until the 18th century? why did they supposedly survive so much longer than any conjoined twins ever had before?). I do think the "1500" theory is horribly weak; the style of dress on the moulds could easily have changed over the years as new moulds were carved, and I certainly can't see any hint of a "5" in the dates on the three images Clinch examined (all of which survive [6][7][8]). I've done my best to keep a neutral balance between the four versions (Hasted's "definitely nonsense", Bondeson's "can't be proved but certainly possible", Clinch's "true but the date is wrong" and Chambers' "theoretically possible but the absence of evidence points to it being a myth"), and hopefully succeeded. – iridescent 22:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A revealing little fantasy, but what is the difficulty with women owning land? The issue was that they could not control their land against their husband's will if they were married, not that they could not own it. If witchcraft was at issue, the family would surely be likely to be seen as the victims not the perpetrators. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that the 1500 date is correct, although that could be a date of death and not birth. The story about doctors wanting to separate the surviving sister after the death of the other does not ring true for the 1100s, but is plausible for the 1500s. The arguments about the dress style may hold water, although it could just indicate when the story gained popularity. We must remember the ancient rural art of extracting money from travellers. Anyways, you've persuaded me, the infobox can go. Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(re Johnbod) This is way out of my period so I may be wrong—Ealdgyth will probably come along at some point to correct me—but as I understand it, while Kentish women pre-Conquest could work, own property etc, post-Conquest the Normans brought French feudal law with them, in which non-noble women were effectively serfs, and the geography of England meant Kent was the first place to be Normanized.

(re Mjroots) Since, unless someone unearths a pair of conjoined skeletons in Biddenden church, nobody will ever know, it's certainly not worth arguing over either way. In all honesty my opinion is probably closer to Chambers'—there's no technical reason it can't be true, but there's such an absence of mentions from people one would expect to mention it before the 17th-18th centuries, the silence is significant. – iridescent 21:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Ealdgyth has no clue, honestly. What I write on is pretty much what I studied in college - ecclesiastical stuff, not peasant life. I could probably look around, but I don't recall anything being against women owning land, especially in the peasantry. Feudal law (which, according to Susan Reynolds is a misnomer) wouldn't have had that much influence on the peasantry per se. And if you're getting close to 1500, we're well into the "bastard feudalism" and the disappearance of serfdom in england. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly clear from this that while male heirs came first, if there were none women could inherit. Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

To me, that looks to be talking about Norman nobility, rather than Saxon peasantry (which, if one accepts the name "Chulkhurst" as genuine, they would have been). In either case, it does not matter—nobody will ever know whether these two genuinely existed. – iridescent 22:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you should have said that at the start! Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

U.K. listed building sources

• User talk:Senra#listed building sources

I've asked Senra, but you lot might be able to write about an apparently historic site with a Grade II listed building on it, too. ☺ I don't have the access to sources that you lot have. All that I have access to are accounts of some fella who didn't die there. Uncle G (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• You want Pevsner for that; he's full of shit a lot of the time, but he's respected enough that people take even his wrong opinions seriously, and his mentioning a place (in my opinion) automatically confers notability on it. – iridescent 22:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • One of the ironies of the article rescues that I do is that I actually have less access to sources than most Wikipedia editors have. I don't have any access to the Pevsner Architectural Guides. But you lot might. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'll have a look at Kent next time I'm at a library, but it may not be soon. You may want to ping Giano on this one, too; he likes rescuing architecture articles. – iridescent 23:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesham Branch Line

There are plenty of examples e.g. Henley Branch Line, Chessington Branch Line, Chingford Branch Line, Felixstowe Branch Line, Lymington Branch Line etc so the move was justified. If you don't mind i will move it back. Simply south (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I definitely do mind. "Line" has a very specific meaning within London Transport, of an autonomous unit within London Underground with its own management, it's own timetable and its own colour on the tube map; the Chesham branch has none of these. Even the Hammersmith & City and East London lines were just "Metropolitan Line (Hammersmith and City)" and "Metropolitan Line (East London Section)" until they were given full "Line" status in the 1990s; there are plenty of other semi-autonomous sections within LT (the Olympia branch, the Mill Hill East shuttle, the Edgware Road-Wimbledon section, the Uxbridge branch, the Watford branch, the Edgware and High Barnet branches), none of which use this "Foo Branch line" formulation. If you're going to propose a change that will affect the entire structure of how we treat the London Underground, you need at the very least to discuss it on the project talk page and probably a full-blown RFC—I can't imagine David will be very impressed either, since this will impact on his Northern Line articles just as badly. Every significant recent book (AFAIK) on the history of the Metropolitan Line is listed in the Bibliography and Further reading sections on that article; I challenge you to find a single use of "Chesham Branch line" in any of them. – iridescent 23:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, i was doing it on that it is a physical line and was not referring to LT\TFL and that it is a branch line, hence the name. I never thought something this small would become this big. Oh and see Talk:Chesham branch#Name of article Simply south (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll say the same thing here I just said to David; if you're determined to force this change through, I'll immediately pull out of all WP:LT work. I'm certainly not going to completely rework the sketched-out structure of this entire series just to appease someone who insists that each separate spur off a route be treated as a separate operating unit; Wikipedia is a hobby, not a job, and there are plenty of other things I can be working on. – iridescent 23:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to drive you away btw. And also see my explanation on the talk page. And i definitely worded that first one wrong or am i going underground (pun intended)? Simply south (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Kittens

Iridescent (or your TPS), I have another basket-of-kittens-heartwarming article at Emmett Till. It's at GAN. This one is kind of odd for me. I rewrote it in article space over the span of a few days, keeping the material that was accurate, fixing grammar issues, and adding detail per sources. Usually I overhaul an article and rewrite it in my own sandbox and post it new when I'm done. Do you think you'd be interested in making comments? There are, of course, more details, but I'm not sure what's extraneous or morbid. I'm not sure all the issues are crystal clear. I appreciate anything you might be able to tell me about it. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, I'll go over and have a look, although I won't carry out the GA review myself (unless it languishes for a long time) since it's so outside my area. I don't know who you've already asked about it, but it might be a good idea to ask some of the MILHIST people, particularly the infantry-battle ones (EyeSerene springs to mind) to have a look; they're the people with the most experience in writing dispassionately on "people killing other people and the broader impact it has" topics. – iridescent 12:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Striking the above; given that I've just done a close read top-to-bottom anyway, I'll do the review myself. Aside from a couple of very minor niggles (nothing to affect passing), I can't see any problems. – iridescent 14:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Passed. One minor question; why was Till's statue (a) erected in Denver in the first place rather than Chicago or Mississipi, given that he had no apparent connection with Colorado, and (b) later moved to Arizona? I don't doubt either fact, but that surely warrants an explanatory footnote. I've listed it under "Law" because that's where the GAN was listed, but would it make more sense under "world history"? – iridescent 14:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, hey. Well, I appreciate the speedy GA review. It can go either under Law (there is a sizable trial section and obvious legal discussion), but it would be just as appropriate in World History. I don't know why the statue was built in Denver and moved to Pueblo. Denver prides itself in being all fair and progressive, and in 1976, before historians were saying how Till was the event that started the Civil Rights Movement, the statue was cast and placed in Denver's City Park.

Was there anything you read, aside from what you wrote in the GA review that would stick out even more for FAC? --Moni3 (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Things I can see the Usual Suspects raising at FAC are (in no particular order):

• "Black voters ... were required to form their own political party" reads a bit oddly; aside from primaries, surely they could have voted without being registered members of any party;
• Maybe a dumb comment, and only tangential to the article, but is "the Delta counties were some of the poorest in Mississippi" (currently unsourced) actually correct? With the most fertile soil in the US and the easiest access to the river I'd have thought it ought to be one of the richer parts;
• "She and Louis Till separated in 1942 after she found out he had been unfaithful and once choked her to unconsciousness, to which she responded by throwing scalding water at him" reads a bit oddly to me—as if she'd found out in 1942 that he'd once choked her;
• It has a couple of uncited & unfootnoted {{inflation}} templates, which will provoke a howl of protest from Fifelfoo at FAC. The {{inflation-fn|US}} template will generate a footnote for where the inflation figures are coming from;
• There are "what happened next" sections for most of the people involved, but what became of Carolyn Bryant after the trial?
• The "Further investigations (1996–2006)" section seems to have got a bit garbled; the first two paragraphs in particular are neither about further investigations, nor cover the period 1996–2006;
• There are various mentions of Leflore County; I know that's where Money is, but only because I looked at the Money, Mississippi article to see. It could probably do with being explicitly stated somewhere;
• Any chance of a photo of either the statue, or the casket in the Smithsonian? WP:GLAM/SI could probably pester someone into releasing a free-use image;
• Why does Carolyn Bryant become Carolyn Bryant Donham midway through the article without explanation? Did she remarry, or change her name to stop people asking if she was that Carolyn Bryant?
• I hope someone else was responsible for "[Emmett] stood 5 feet (1.5 m) 4 inches (10 cm)"—if that was you, give yourself a slap on the wrist;
• Purely a personal thing, but the use of "caste" reads a bit oddly to me when used to describe the US. Is it really the right term to be using? (I can't think of a better one of the top of my head, but "caste" jars to me.) – iridescent 16:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Where is there a discussion about the validity of the US inflation template as it involves FAs? --Moni3 (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure; the inflation discussion was spread across about eight pages, as I recall. It was Fifelfoo who started it; if you prod him, I expect he'll remember. – iridescent 18:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• I warned you. – iridescent 22:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No shit. That's an awful lot of BLAH BLAH BLAH ERGO SUM BLAH BLAH ECONOMIC BLAH BLAH CAPITALISM BLAH and nothing really relevant to what I think is going on. --Moni3 (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Summing Fifelfoo's "inflation opposes", as I see them:

1. Consumer prices inflate differently to capital expenditure and wages, so the modern equivalent of $500 of food in the 1950s, isn't necessarily the same as the modern equivalent of a $500 wage or $500 of government spending, but the {{inflation}} template only shows consumer pricing;
2. The rural southern economy had a significant sharecropping element, so wage figures appear artificially low—someone on a low wage would often also be taking home a share of the cotton or indigo harvest, as well as probably growing their own food, neither of which show up as earnings, so farmers' wages always appear lower than they should;

In my experience, Sandy will disregard these opposes if there's no other problem raised with the articles, but they can lead to lots of back-and-forth arguing which puts people off participating in the FAC in question. He'll generally leave you alone if you show you've considered the issue of which inflation measure to use; see this footnote or this FAC for examples of recent ones that met with his approval. – iridescent 23:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sadly I can't inflate you a basket of kittens; though in an uncontrolled environment of feral cats... Inflations required on Emmett Till are:

• the average income per household in 1949: $690
• the average income per household in 1949 for black families: $462
• Bryant and Milam's defence fund (circa 1955): $10000 in 1955
• A life insurance policy Mamie Till Bradley held on Emmitt (circa 1955): $400 in 1955
• Non wage service income, Bryant and Milam Look magazine (1956): $3600-$4000.

While there are problems with the non-wage income for sharecroppers being unrecorded, we're relying on Whitaker, Hugh Stephen (1963)'s FSU dissertation [Doctoral? Masters?] as the authority for comparative incomes justice for this article. I am willing to forward Whitaker (1963) a very large measure of trust.

What are these figures? Income, Income, Payment for a non-Consumer Price Index bundle service (legal defence), Income, Income. The legal defence sums would be received by lawyers as income, and would come from income from people with wages connected incomes (ie: workers, small capitalists, the self-employed, semi-proletarians like share croppers). Treat the lot as income comparisons, we're interested in the equivalent proportion of income generated or lost to these earnings or non consumption bundle expenses:

$690 from 1949 in 2009 dollars in terms of the unskilled wage's movement is $10,500.00

$462 from 1949 in 2009 dollars in terms of the unskilled wage's movement is $7000.00

$10000 from 1955 in 2009 dollars in terms of the unskilled wage's movement is $108,000.00

$400 from1 1955 in 2009 dollars in terms of the unskilled wage's movement is $4,330.00 (Sure... she killed her son for half the unskilled yearly wage... nice accusation lawyers.)

$3600-$4000 from 1956 in 2009 dollars in terms of the unskilled wage's movement is $37,100.00 - $41,300.00

Figures calculated using the movement over time of the unskilled wage, a skill-independent income comparison measure, according to Williamson, Samuel H. (2010). "Seven Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount, 1774 to present," MeasuringWorth.

I hope this helps improve your article. Perhaps instead of a basket of kittens, I could offer you a basket of easter bilbies? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless indicated by the ($X in 2010 parenthetical statement), all monetary figures in the article are accurate to whatever year is referenced in the sentence or paragraph. Hugh Stephen Whitaker on p. 19 cites the 1950 U.S. Census, and I'm happy to alter the citation to read 1950 U.S. Census via Whitaker (1963), p. 19. Whitaker's dissertation is considered a scholarly work by later sources, and for his observations about Mississippi society, race, and many of the issues surrounding 1955, I'm comfortable using it as a source. --Moni3 (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• The issue with political parties and Fannie Lou Hamer (I re-read some of my sources) is that the people who registered to vote attempted to begin in the political process immediately: attending political meetings, helping to affect policy, platforms, make sure candidates knew their issues, and choose local candidates, but they were refused entry to meetings or meeting locations and times were misrepresented to them. So yes, they could probably have voted in regular elections, but they were more concerned with what led up to the elections. Without getting too much into electoral disparities...well, I guess I could because some of it was utter bullshit. Mississippi had a poll tax and a reading examination...the section is accurate, but I can see where it could be misleading. I can place this information in a note or something I guess. Any tips? --Moni3 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to ask someone like Malleus who (I assume) doesn't know anything about the US electoral system, and see if it makes sense to them. I've always been fairly bad about technical details. – iridescent 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Percy (Gunpowder Plot)

Malleus is understandably pissed off and I'd rather not bother him with such trivia, so I wondered if you wouldn't mind giving me a second opinion on this lovely chap? I keep picking at it, but can't seem to shake off the feeling that it isn't quite right, yet. Parrot of Doom 20:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the title of the last section ("Northumberland"), which doesn't seem to make much sense unless you're familiar with English naming conventions for nobility, I can't see anything wrong with it. Yes, it fizzles out a bit at the end, but Percy doesn't have a legacy in the same way Fawkes does. More about his early life would be nice, but if it's not documented, then there's nothing to say. I had the same "one period of the subject's life intensively documented, the rest completely unknown" problem on Eilley Bowers; there's nothing one can really do about it. – iridescent 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't really thought of that. I wonder if its spurious? Parrot of Doom 21:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the bit about being fined £30,000 and kept in the Tower until 1621, it's in Fraser as well (pp275–276 in my copy), although he doesn't seem to have been under much hardship whilst in there; he was also prosecuted for (and confessed to) casting a horoscope for the King (treason under the law of the time). – iridescent 22:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What the...you have a copy of Fraser? I have 5 other plotters to do! *begs* Parrot of Doom 15:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Rather battered and old (1997 edition), but yes. To be honest I've forgotten most of the story; it's sat on a shelf for the last ten years. – iridescent 15:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Chesham branch

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Begging a favour...

Could you check over Robert Burnell for prose and Brit spelling for me? Obviously, since I'm missing Malleus (BADLY!) I'm going to have to beg from other folks much more on prose copyediting. The poor guy's had two peer reviews, with Ruhr, Awa, and Dr PDA weighing in on the last one. I'm going to post this to Moni and Laser too, just to cover all my bases...Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is someone an "adviser of" or an "adviser to" (or an "advisor to")?
• Does "earlier attempts to recover royal rights through Parliament succeeded in swamping that body with too much work" mean that they were deliberately trying to overwhelm Parliament so they could push things through without debate, or that it swamped Parliament so badly that nothing was done? It's unclear to me;
• "He witnessed documents in Rhuddlan in 1282 later he was at Conwy and Caernarfon" is unpunctuated, and could mean different things depending on where the punctuation goes;
• I think "Berwick, near Scotland" is incorrect for this period. Berwick flipped back and forth like a ping-pong ball (and didn't have its status formally settled until the 1970s), but I'm fairly certain it was Scottish at this time;
• Do we know what he died of? It seems to jump very abruptly from him being alive to being dead. – iridescent 15:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think "advisor of" in this context. Reworded the "royal attempts". Witnessing in Wales sorted out. Removed "near Scotland" from the Berwick stuff, since I don't honestly wanna get into that here! And no, no idea what he died of. ONDB just says "died". Mucho thanks for this! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

One other—I'm not actually sure if it's right or not, but "Edward went on Eighth Crusade in 1270" looks funny to me; like it ought to be either "…went on the Eighth Crusade" or "…went on crusade". – iridescent 16:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mary and Eliza Chulkhurst

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Obscure but important

Yeha I agree. But even my village geo stubs have infoboxes and maps. I detest one line unsourced stubs without any infoboxes like that Belgium one. Coordinates/maps and a little data make a major difference especially with google earth development when you can now view the villages for most obscure countries and see the topography of the area. Actually Al-Samra was started because there was meant to be a strong possibility that they would be expanded as at that time August 2009, User:Huldra, User:Tiamut User:Ameer son, User:Nableez were all working heavily on 1948 villages, As you may recall it blew up with some nasty talk on WR because they were not started with more content. I honestly thought at the time that they'd embrace me stubbing the remaining missing articles on that topic and that the four of them would happily expand them all. I, Huldra and Tiamut did collaborate on a few as can be seen in my DYK history but they haven't got the full expansion treatment as these editors are no longer active for conflict reasons elsewhere I think. If you exmaine most of the 1948 Palestinian villages they are in surprisingly good shape as it was somehting of a min wikiproject amongst these editors. But I agree there are countless example of my stubs (Yemeni villages for instance) that it is only likely to be me working on them. I'm currently starting the districts though with some population data as I think second-level divisions of any ocountry are important. I'll try to expand a few like Ataq etc. I do enjoy working on obscure countries that as you say 99% of us know little about but most of the topics I work on tend to be traditional encyclopedic subjects like rivers, villages, lakes, roads/old architecture etc. Ideally I'd want to explore anywhere on google earth and so see a detailed,resourceful article about anywhere in the world that's my real long-term goal but we lack editors working on most non-anglophone countries and even the Anglo countries are lacking, have you seen the unmanageable amount of stubs we have on US and UK small settlements?♦ Dr. Blofeld 00:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

When Kaster is unblocked I'll add User:Dr. Blofeld/Kaster to it. That really is the bare minimum is should be. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 00:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes; one of the most striking aspects of Wikipedia is that we simultaneously have an unmanageable number of stubs in some areas, but we have a surprising number of missing articles in our "core strength" areas (popular culture and 20th century technology). Almost every stub is theoretically expandable (those Brill Tramway articles grew out of a point-proving discussion about rural railway halts) but most articles won't ever be. Something which was once suggested, (I think by Kelly Martin, back in Ye Olde Days when Wikipedia's management structure was more fluid and the present "there is no god but Jimbo and Arbcom are his prophets" orthodoxy wasn't set in stone) was a sticky-prod deletion system for articles below a minimum length which hadn't expanded in a certain number of months. It'll never happen—it treads on too many toes—but there's something to be said for it. "Planting seeds" articles are good in theory, and sometimes those seeds do grow spectacularly all of a sudden, but in practice a quick tour of Special:Random is all it takes to show that we've become unmanageably large.

I can overwrite Kaster if you want; my admin superpowers may be very little-used, but they all still work. Do you really want to set foot in this cesspool, though? – iridescent 00:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

IThe editor has changed it to semi block so I've added something to Kaster. If people created such articles with an infobox/map and a little data it makes a big difference. Data is not always available for obscure countries but Belgium should be no problem. Can't find much on that small village though. No doubt there are books somwhere with more info. Yes it is easy to get carried away just because a few get expanded Couldn't agree more. When you hit random article it is mostly extremely embarrasing. but a high number of articles are on topics that even I don't write about like local US businessmen, web comic artists, bloggers, railway station/metro stubs and sportspeople. To be fair though random article does turn up some shockers but also some surprise good ones like Taman Sari (Yogyakarta) which you;d expect to be a crappy stub.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

They're probably in French (although the French article is in just as poor a state). Just looking at where it is on the map, it probably turns up in military histories if nothing else, if someone can be bothered to search. (I'm not volunteering; my French is limited to the "est-ce le train pour Albany?" level.) Since its unwanted press attention, it's become one of our most-read articles; if anyone who knows anything about Belgium is passing by, it could probably do with a good scrub. – iridescent 12:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't decide though what is worse, crappy bands which look nothing more than the tripe you see on myspace which are virtually unreferenced/wikified and poorly written but full or short stubs. I guess at least the long articles contain some information but for most of them it would be best to wipe them clean and start again. I think above all it is those type of stale. unwikified, unsourced longer I article I detest the most which contain nothing encyclopedic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

People generally turn a blind eye to the crappy bands; people writing about bands, TV shows, schools etc are such a driver when it comes to new users, and we're woefully short of new users. The "active editors" count has fallen from around 4,500 in 2008–09 to stabilise at 3,800 this year. At some point TPH and his crew will spot that article, AFD it, and that'll be another editor leaving the project in disgust. One thing the Wikipedia Review crowd are right about, is that the continued activity by relatively few users, both in content-creation and in the constant activity on the drama boards, is masking the scale of the collapse in broader participation. – iridescent 13:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And if you think about how many people in the world could potentially contribute to wikipedia, even if only an hour a day, 3800 is extremely and very worrying low. A project of this scale with 3.5 million articles needs several hundred thousands editors. The only way I think we could really get the numbers to build wikipedia to the level and quality we all think possible is to offer some incentive to them to write for us, turn it into a professional institution of paid editors. Most things in the real world come down to money, so a site like wikipedia where money is a taboo, we will never get people to build us to the level of quality we'd all like to see for every article. The only other alternative would be to delete every unsourced/poorly written article on here and strictly regulate growth to ensure that every single article meets an acceptable level. What puts me off wikipedia at times is I' will expand an article in a category, say a river. And then I'll see like 150 short stubs needing expanding for that province alone let alone the rest of the country. The task becomes too impossible so I venture on to something else.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a fine line; too many controls and limitations, and we'd end up like Citizendium, where it's so difficult to start an article on a new topic, nobody bothers. (You complain about Wikipedia's poor coverage of Thimphu, despite it being a capital city; Citizendium is yet to get an article on Brussels, Warsaw or Buenos Aires, and even Moscow is a one-sentence ultra-stub.) My personal feeling is that as many of the stubs as possible should be marshalled into lists; that way, if and when someone does write a Little Thetford it can be broken out of its list into a separate article, while avoiding hundreds of unexpanded and unmonitored articles like Flint Cross. It'll never happen, though; too much political capital is invested in that "we have 6,911,518 articles" never-mind-the-quality-feel-the-width claim. – iridescent 13:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's wikipedia's main strength and weakness I think. I have visited "Citizendium" and it will never work., not to mention their "holier than thou" attitude which turns off most potential contributors. And the sort of scholars they want to attract in abundance are unlikely to do that sort of thing for free. We are doing OK, most wikipedia decent articles make Britannica look very poor as a resource, most people acknowledge that wikipedia always has the most info about any topic but that doesn't hide the thousands of stale articles hiding in the database. Quality is improving gradually ir at least the number of citations used for sure but the scale of the task is so tremendous that we need many times more active contributors.

Wow you're a mind reader. When somebody was drawing up a list of parishes the other day I was going to make a proposal to merge many of our short stubs on hamlets/small British villages into lists by county which when they can be expanded we can split them. I tried to expand some of the Devon villages the other day and I couldn't find any info whatsoever for them. If you would support me in merging some of our stubs into tabled lists I would make a proposal. For instance even if I tried I doubt I could find much info for Ardmair... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember where it was, but there was quite a noisy argument about the "merging into lists" proposal a while back. Speak to User:DGG before you propose anything; if both you and he are in agreement, it will go a long way towards silencing the hardline "every grain of sand on every beach needs an article!" ARS types, who (rightly or wrongly) tend to look on the two of you as the patron saints of ultra-inclusionism. If anyone starts merging without discussion, it will end in bad-tempered revert warring. It's a big job you're looking at; as BrownHairedGirl found out the hard way, cleaning up Category:British MPs provoked the Wikipedia equivalent of guerilla warfare every step of the way, and towns, rivers etc are likely to have more vocal defenders than do the likes of Sir Edward Dering, 6th Baronet. – iridescent 14:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes I can imagine there would be a lot of disagreement. The thing is Ardmair could be expanded but that's the max I could find on it. Its now a useful stub but is seriously lacking decent info like its history etc. We should have full articles on these villages of course but the amount of people who are likely to have access to local history books etc to expand it fully are slim. I can't help thinking that for the time being we could create tabled lists with a photograph, population data and a village summary and coordinates with sources which would be better than hundreds of unsourced sub stubs like many of them are. Then if people have substantial info they can branch out into full articles. Its would be much more comprehensive that way I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely that tabled lists are the way to go, but it does need a broad agreement first or they'll keep getting reverted.

It won't help for Ardmair, but a quick-and-easy way to add something to most British places, at any rate, is a skim through Butt; most towns and villages of any size, particularly in England, had a railway station at some point, and that immediately both provides a factoid about the place, and establishes notability as it's a mention of the place in a reliable source. – iridescent 14:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The idea was something like User:Dr. Blofeld/List of populated places in the Highlands. You'd have to split like A-C, D- or whatever by page but I think that sort of comprehensive list is what we need on here and would manage it well. I think I'll address it to DGG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I did warn you. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" may explicitly not be a Wikipedia policy, but "if it exists, we ought to have a stand-alone article on it" (and its corollary, "two bad articles are better than one good one") have become sacred cows that are defended almost religiously. – iridescent 14:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but it was worth seeing what the views were on it. Ideally every article could easily be expanded, but I can't even find info online /google books to expand the sub stubs I've looked at so far to beyond stub class. Out of curiousity I contacted the Inverness library to see what they have.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The irony of someone lecturing you on reliable sourcing, while simultaneously recommending a user-generated genealogy site as a source, is not lost on me. With this level of hostility even to merging articles without any loss of text, you can see why people give up Wikipedia in disgust when they have to deal with the ARS block vote in trying to get something actually deleted. It took a full-blown screaming match to get a residential back-street in the London suburbs without a single noteworthy building on it deleted; multiply that discussion by between 500,000–1 million to get an idea of the scale of the problem of putting the genie back in the bottle. As I've said quite often, Wikipedia is reaching the point where the only long-term solution will be to skim off the adequate-and-above material to make a Wikipedia Mk.II with higher standards for new articles, leaving the original project to continue on its trajectory towards becoming a second Geocities. Idealist cranks like Larry Sanger and Greg Kohs don't have the technical ability, the funds, or the understanding of the social dynamics to do it, but a Microsoft or a Google taking that approach could probably replace Wikipedia in a surprisingly short time. – iridescent 16:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, its double standards alright, a huge problem. I've managed to expand a few of them like Aberchalder ‎, even the hamlet of Ach' An Todhair at least now has some content. This is absolute bare minimum "articles" should be. But to find abundant information on actual history I think requires local studies which virtually nobody is likely to undertake right now. I guess I'll just try to find as many sources as I can do given them some flesh on the bones but I can't help thinking it would be neater merging a lot of them. It would just actually be nice to be able to browse a category for once and only find sources and decent information. Uploading photogoraphs from Geography at least gives them something. Yes, interesting what you said about that happening in the future. In fact I've long been suspcicious that google has something up its sleeve in regards to our future. We know how anal they are about power and "controlling the world's information" and really wikipedia is one of the most important sites for summarising the world's information. I would just like to see content dramatically improve and things taken to another level. One of the biggest problems is the language barrier which at least is making some headwat with google translate .♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My suspicions of what Google have in mind once they inevitably pull the plug on Knol are spelled out in more detail on this thread, together with quite a bit of speculation about what Wikipedia II ought to look like. (The Wikimedia Foundation has recently been downgraded to the lowest ranking possible in terms of efficiency, which hasn't gone unnoticed; a Google or Microsoft-backed educational foundation with compatible objects could gobble us up and boot Jimbo out on his backside without significant opposition, if they wanted—and Microsoft recently abandoned their rival to us, while Google's version is clearly on its last legs.) – iridescent 20:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think if anything happens it will be based on what we have already. Things have come too far now with us as evidenced by the failure of their efforts to rival us and both are aware of the potential "power of the people". I think the work we do on wikipedia is safe in that I can't see a way in which it will end, a reformatting if Google or Microsoft does buy wikipedia in the future or make a wikipedia II, but I think the system would be pretty much the same, too many people have become accustomed to wikipedia as it is. I'd just hope something could be done to vastly improve content and that they would invest a lot of money into the project if that happened. The potential for content is really tens even hundreds of times greater than we have currently and I mean real encyclopedia subjects not a lot of the tripe we currently have. What I'd loathe though is putting my time and effort into the project and not receving a penny and google reaping all the awards by advertising if they were running the site. Something 's got to give at some point, as you point out the site is very poorly managed and in terms of management it is beyond a joke. I couldn't agree more about the "obsession with "civility" beyond any reasonable limit", that would seemingly be more important at all costs, never mind forcing all our editors out who have human feelings and above all want to contribute. In regards to the suggested articles to be merged the sort I mean are like Achandunie which I could find practically nothing on in google books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I bet you love articles like Macau at the 2010 Asian Games.xxxx competed at the xxxxx games. They entered one athlete in the nose picking competition who finished 767th.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Things like that at least have a built-in clear scope; one can find a list of athletes from Macau who competed in those games, and list what they scored. My personal Wikipedia low point is surely Tiger vs lion, although the existence of List of non-marine molluscs of El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda, Venezuela is beyond parody. – iridescent 21:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Residential back streets, eh? We apparently needed an article on Marsh Lane (Longton) (AfD discussion) because it connects to the Ribble Way. And we apparently need an article on Grove Avenue, London (AfD discussion) because there was a battle at Cuckoo Hill some 1400 years before the road existed. I find it amazing that anyone doing the research on that could think that the street was in any way a subject, whilst simultaneously failing to notice the conspicuous absence of the real history of the place, unconfined to an early 20th century minor backstreet, in Hanwell Park. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Those street-stubs are often a good example of stubs which would be more useful as part of a long list, than as stand-alone articles. I'd challenge anyone to honestly say that this is more useful than this. – iridescent 08:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: Aiken drum's RFA

(about DYK): I think, if one has a DYK, it demonstrates their ability to create content and their ability to provide reliable sources, since the DYK hook must be sourced (in the article, not in the hook itself). The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 16:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Iri on this-- DYK doesn't evidence much of anything, and your oppose is flimsy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)You have got to be kidding me. So what you're saying is, you can't be fagged to check some of the articles he's actually written to see if they're sourced, so you're going to go with whether he cooperates with the arbitrary rules of the DYK project, a project most people here completely ignore (I had a FA long before I ever touched DYK)? I think we're done here. – iridescent 16:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: Larry Sanger

Iridescent, that message you removed was actually on USER:TALK Larry Sanger, which is his pesonal page, not the article page. Be a bit more careful next time. (No, don't worry, I didn't put it back up, the last thing I need to do is make it even look like I'm edit warring :) 11:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You've had more than enough warnings about your behaviour. If you attack other users without a very good reason, whoever they may be - especially over something that happened off-wiki - you'll be blocked. I have a laxer interpretation of WP:CIV than most, but you're way over the line by any possible reading. – iridescent 16:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Iridescent - libel is a good reason, I think. But like I said, I won't restore what I placed on his talk page. User:KoshVorlon 17:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to throw legal accusations about, at least make a vague effort to carry out some background research. What do you think is more likely; that Larry Sanger, Rupert Murdoch and the FBI are engaged in an elaborate conspiracy to discredit Wikipedia, or that a major international news organisation carried out their own checks before running a story like that? The reason you can no longer see the problematic content isn't that it was never there; it's that a lot of people like this one—who'd no doubt all rather be doing something more productive than clean up after amateur pornographers—have spent the six months since the FBI business began cleaning up the worst excesses of Commons. – iridescent 20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 18:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom voting system RFC.

To reheat a hundred-year old Emma Goldman quote, if voting changed anything they'd ban it. Unless any of them choose not to run, the winners this year will be the nine whose terms are expiring, plus Tiptoety replacing Fritzpoll. Whatever process is used to get there, the result will be the same. – iridescent 22:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Your talk page is so depressing! I'd only just got over this thread. But don't count Tiptoey in yet, he didn't do so well in his Checkuser effort. And there are always a few surprise results in any election... Alzarian16 (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the objection to Tiptoety as checkuser (including from me) was down to the potential COI of a serving police officer having access to potentially sensitive user data, rather than any problems with him as a person. Aside from that guy who rants about him at Wikipedia Review, I don't think anyone has any particular problem with TTT's judgement in terms of Wikipedia. – iridescent 14:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Berners Street Hoax

Can you think of any reason why this article should have suddenly started to attract so much atention? It's got me beat. Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw this on The Daily What the other day. It's one of my favorite blogs, and at the risk of sounding like a hipster, I liked it before TIME magazine made it one of the ten best blogs of 2010. --Moni3 (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And after reloading it to see what's new, I found a video that pretty much illustrates ANI. Well done, wet track and enthusiastic potty-mouthed cameraman! --Moni3 (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(re Malleus) It was featured on QI a few weeks ago; that usually seems to draw cranks out of the woodwork (although for some reason, when they featured PFW, the only editor it attracted was Mattisse). – iridescent 20:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that'll be it then. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It was on reddit Parrot of Doom 21:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. – iridescent 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• QI (H series)#Episode 3 "Hoaxes". Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Lord only knows where they got "After a lifetime of studying fish, Stephen Jay Gould …" from; Gould was undoubtedly one of the titans of 20th century evolutionary theory (even if one doesn't agree with him), but his work was with non-marine molluscs, not fish. – iridescent 14:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
    • My guess is that some researcher read what Issac Asimov wrote to Gould about Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes (ISBN 9780385476225 pp. 183–184). Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Have a nice day#"Have a Nice Day" culture

Hi Iridescent. Would you provide feedback at Talk:Have a nice day#"Have a Nice Day" culture? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied there – iridescent 09:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Aylesbury duck

As someone who has written far too many animal breed articles in his day, I'd just like to tell you how good your rewrite of Aylesbury duck is. Keep up the awesome work, and let me know if you need anything on that or related articles. Steven Walling 04:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Incidentally, if you—or anyone watching—know anything about the history of poultry farming in England, I removed one uncited fact from the article which I would love to be true, about the ducks being "shod" with a solution of pitch and sawdust and made to walk from Aylesbury to London. Aylesbury Council's website claims this, but I can't find any RS for it. While Defoe talks about this being done with Norfolk turkeys, and it seems to have occasionally been done with geese, I can't find any contemporary mention, or any mention in any "history of poultry" book, of this ever being done with ducks—and since the whole point of that elaborate "keep them in the bedroom" setup was to keep the ducks out of sunlight and prevent them getting exercise, a 40-mile forced march over the Chilterns would seem to spoil the point. – iridescent 08:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I saw that fact mentioned in a book I've used for breed articles before, Storey's Illustrated Guide to Poultry Breeds, so let me double check. Steven Walling 16:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if you do; as I say, I can find plenty of references to it being done with turkeys, and occasional references to geese, but none at all to Aylesbury ducks. Given the lengths to which the rearers went to keep them out of sunlight to keep the feathers white, and prevent them from getting any exercise to keep the meat tender—and the fact that they were slaughtered at eight weeks—it seems unlikely to me that it's true, much as I'd like it to be. – iridescent 16:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for coming to my defence on my RFA in my absence. Much appreciated. Aiken (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

While I think it's actually best for you, as well as for Wikipedia in general, that it didn't pass, I'm genuinely sorry about the way it flared up. I (and while I can't speak for him, I imagine Soap as well) was explicitly not opposing, and trying to make a more subtle point about the need for a Wikipedia admin to stifle the fight-or-flight reflex under stress. (Even the most laid-back admin gets a steady stream of people complaining about them; Wikipedia's dysfunctional 'civility' policies mean that either snapping back, or "walk away and pretend it didn't happen", are both taken as "admin abuse" by the peanut gallery.) Instead of taking the comments in the "don't want to oppose, but think it's best for all concerned if it doesn't pass for the moment" spirit in which they were intended, the Civility Police seem to have taken it as a pretext to pile-on in opposition; in retrospect, Sandy and I shouldn't have used the shorthand phrase of "temper tantrum", as the usual suspects seem to have read that as "zOMG uncivil!", rather than actually reach a decision for themselves. – iridescent 16:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Dumber than the average bear

I can't figure out why Featured topic shows up in this diff? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea. All I can think of is that the summary started to autocomplete itself based on an edit I'd made at FTC. It definitely is an A and not a T. – iridescent 17:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Duckies ...

One little bit I can add, if you want it in... actually a few. From:

• Dohner, Janet Vorwald (2001). Dohner, Janet Vorwald (ed.). Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds. Topeka, KS: Yale University Press. p. 461. ISBN 978-0300088809. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

One - "By the nineteenth century, poultry shops were appropriating the name [AD] for all their table ducks. The Aylesbury was so established that the Chinese white Pekin, introduced in 1876 [to the UK], did not become a commercial success in Britain."

Two - "The commercial Aylesbury remains the premier meat duck in Britain, although the Pekin has been used in crossbreeding production, which has made the pure utilitarian strain quite rare. Although the Aylesbury was imported to the United States by 1840 and admitted to the APA's [American Poultry Association] Standards of Perfection in 1874, the breed never achieved much popularity because it developed a reputation for being less hardy in commercial situations than the Pekin."

Three - "The Aylesbury can lay 100 or more white eggs annually."

Four - "The ALBC [American Livestock Breeds Conservancy] Waterfowl survey located just two primary breeding flocks and a total of 282 breeding Aylesbury ducks of both strains in North America. The British Waterfowl Association has launched a Save the Exhibition Aylesbury Campaign, with the twin goals of locating the ducks remaining in the United Kingdom and establishing conservation breeding flocks."

Hope it helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, that first quote ("the AD was so established that the PD never caught on in Britain") makes me leery of the whole thing right away, especially if they're saying that as late as 2001. It's very easily verified that there's only one surviving Aylesbury flock in the UK (this one); Alison Ambrose's book for the Buckinghamshire County Museum and Victoria De Rikje's Duck—plus every old newspaper I've looked at—concur that the Pekin virtually wiped out the pure Aylesbury as a farmed breed in Britain fairly quickly. As early as 1910 the Pekin was being farmed on an industrial scale in England (scroll down to "Duck Breeding Enterprise", about halfway down the second column). I've included a link to the ALBC page and a note that they consider it critically endangered in the US; the British Waterfowl Association don't mention any "save the Aylesbury duck" campaign, so I presume it's been abandoned. (I did quite a long skim through news archives for any recent-ish campaigns, to no avail.) – iridescent 18:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It's very much a US centric book. Wasn't sure what you might want/need/etc and didn't figure you needed it just added to the article ... since what I know about ducks is .. nil. (And I'm very happy to know nil too!). I know how annoying it is when someone seizes on some tidbit of information they dug up and is insistent that it MUST go in... just wanted to let you know about the info and let you decide where it might go. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for looking. I did consider adding something about AD farming outside England, but as far as I can tell they never really caught on anyplace else. I came to this very much as part of a series on Aylesbury, rather than as part of a series on poultry; while I now know more about ducks than I ever thought I would, I wouldn't call myself any kind of expert on farming; if you have anything to add, it would be much appreciated. (This series of books is absolutely fascinating, BTW, and I'd thoroughly recommend them.) You may know nothing about ducks, but you obviously have much more experience than me in "impact of animals" articles, so any points would be greatly appreciated. – iridescent 21:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Really the only thing that might really be "deficient" would be the part about them being introduced into the US in 1840 and being part of the APA standards by 1876, something like "Aylesbury's were imported into the United States in 1840, although they never became a popular breed. They were, however, added to the American Poultry Association's Standard of Perfection breeding guidelines in 1876." probably close to the bit about the ABLC survey. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have it to hand, can you add it in (or give me the page number and I'll add it)? – iridescent 21:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Page number is in the template above, it's 461. It's really a very short little blurb in the book! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

So it is—added. Hopefully that works. (I would really love to know the line of thought that presumably went "What shall we feed the ducks? How about we boil a horse?") – iridescent 21:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ardelve

Courcelles 18:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I never created not expanded that in any way; all I did was remove some inaccurate statements. That "fact" that's currently gracing our main page ("... that Ardelve has a notable population of Grebes?") is also rather dubious; looking at the source cited, the "notable population" consists of eight birds. Maybe that guy who was shouting at me a few days ago about how thoroughly the folks at DYK verify the hooks before they go live would like to say something? – iridescent 18:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Holy crap, did I read that right? It reads like a bad joke. Say it ain't so: the hook is grossly inaccurate, unverified, and attributed to the wrong editor? Significant quality control problems, if that is the case. • Ling.Nut (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Long story. Blofeld and I were discussing the viability of merging some of the shorter geography-stubs he created last year into lists (see this thread). As it would mean a change to one of Wikipedia's long-standing principles—"every named location, no matter how obscure, warrants its own article"—Blofeld raised the topic at DGG's talk page, to see how the hardline-inclusionists would react to this, since although no content would be lost, it would set a major precedent for the way Wikipedia handles sub-stubs. He used the Ardelve article, which at the time looked like this with no realistic possibility of further expansion (no book has ever been published about the place), as an example of why these small villages would generally be more useful in list format.

Another user saw this, and made a good-faith effort to expand the article. However, they didn't notice that one of the sources they were using to expand the article was not, as they thought, a current travel guide, but was actually an 1882 post office directory—consequently they included some hilariously outdated information as if it were current fact ("Cattle fairs are held specifically on three Saturdays in a year"). In what I assume was an effort to pad the article out, they also included a large section on Eilean Donan Castle, which has nothing to do with this village but is visible from it (including the mystifying claim that this obscure building in one of the most isolated parts of the entire country is "the most photographed monument in Scotland").

I then went through the article, removing the worst of the irrelevancies and inaccuracies. Following that, the user who'd previously added all the inaccuracies added another section containing the (accurate) statement that grebes had been sighted in the village. This didn't make any claim as to this being particularly notable—a grebe sighting on the Scottish coast is no more notable than a pigeon sighting in New York City—but was just part of a checklist of birds which had been seen on two particular birdwatching tours. This expanded version of the article then got nominated at DYK, and (in the absence of any remotely interesting hook), that fact about grebes being sighted somehow mutated into "a significant population of grebes".

I don't think this is a sign of the failure of the processes at DYK per se, but more of the general problem affecting DYK; that it's lost the "fascinating facts" remit it was originally intended to have. Instead, it's acquired a "get this on the main page at whatever cost" mentality, and thus a lot of really boring articles have to be "bigged up" to create a hook. (This is not a new problem but goes back to the earliest days of DYK; the first five DYKs were Did you know that a pencil sharpener "is a device for sharpening a pencil's point by shaving the end of the pencil"?", ...that in 1971, Pakistani writer Eqbal Ahmad was indicted on charges of conspiracy to kidnap Henry Kissinger?, ...that jumping plant lice and aphids are considered to be the "primitive" group within the Hemiptera order of true bugs?, ...that the Tokyo Monorail, which travels at speeds of up to 80 kph, was constructed to coincide with the 1964 Summer Olympics?, ...that the Balkan comic opera Ero the Joker was first performed on November 2, 1935?) It's also an object lesson in the problems of relying on "what I could find on the internet" to source an article in the absence of significant print sources; it's an easy trap to fall into to throw every factoid one can find about a place into an article in an effort to pad it out, regardless of whether it's appropriate.

My personal feeling is that if DYK is kept, that "from Wikipedia's newest articles" should be junked, and replaced with "interesting facts" from any Wikipedia article, regardless of age. This will never happen, though; the Wikicup relies on DYK as a mechanism, so too many people have an investment in the current setup. – iridescent 09:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think I have only nommed DYKs twice, and the first instance was long, long ago. My most recent turn included seeing folks pump their own DYKs, pust their own images on the mainpage, etc. The folks who are working and selecting and promoting are the folks who are nomming. Some would argue it's a healthy self-interest; I would say it's unhealthy COI that causes DYKcruft. Can you see such COI elsewhere? GA? FAC? No. But DYKcruft probably arises from other sources as well; people act like it's a genuine accomplishment to have a DYK. It is not. I disregard DYK; the only reason I was really pushing one recently is because I wanted to promote the topic (a school for autistic children in China, see Children of the stars). • Ling.Nut (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I will occasionally nominate things at DYK, but only if they meet my personal criterion ("is this something someone with no prior interest in the topic might find interesting?"). If you look at the DYKs which people actually read, it's obvious that (aside from current-event topics which would get a lot of traffic anyway), the only ones which people actually pay any attention to are those with some kind of "wow" factor. I do recognise the arguments that DYK encourages new people to get involved etc etc, but I think in its current form it's an overwhelming net negative; people seeing a constant stream of plagiarism, poorly-written stubs, and boring articles on trivial topics can hardly be blamed for thinking "that's what Wikipedia is all about", when we're featuring the stuff on our main page. – iridescent 09:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Any reform must involve eliminating COI (at a minimum!), but it won't get reformed. It's become a Shiny Barnstar Dispensing Machine. • Ling.Nut (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK should be altered so that articles which have been completely re-written (by me, ahem) should be included. I mean, I did this, and apparently it isn't "new or significantly expanded". Parrot of Doom 09:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think that's as terrible a problem as COI. One is an easy fix; the other is a cancer. • Ling.Nut (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

tks

• Thank you for sticking up for me. I was surprised at that editor's comments... who knew? But thank you. • Ling.Nut (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

He's not someone I'd expect to be saying something like that, I have to say. – iridescent 23:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)