Jump to content

User talk:Bencherlite/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 33

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
You deserve a stack of these for all your work at TFA. Sad to see you step down from the role: you've set the bar incredibly high over the last two years, and it'll take an exceptional individual to takeover from you.

I hope you'll be able to make London drinks soon (email to follow this evening)!

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheers indeed. Look forward to it. BencherliteTalk 19:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar
SchroCat said it all. Here's another barnstar for the stack. —David Levy 20:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, David, much appreciated. BencherliteTalk 20:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your close

Bencherlite, thank you for your well-thought out and reasoned close at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. You clearly took the time to think over the discussion and I know that couldn't have been easy.

I will indeed take your suggestion and let you finalize the content of the blurb. I'm sorry there was a prolonged to-ing and fro-ing that happened last time, and I feel badly about that. I agree with your ideas about reducing emphasis on the 2006 article (though it should at least briefly be mentioned somehow), and about having some additional negative comments in the blurb and lede section.

I also think your idea to take up my suggestion of just using the subtitle of the book Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for the subsequent days (as was done by The Washington Post) is an agreeable outcome, as well.

I must say, I'm sorry to see your intention to step down as TFA coordinator -- we haven't always agreed on everything all of the time -- but you've been quite reasonable in the totality of your actions in this role and I thank you very much for your past contributions to Wikipedia in this capacity.

I find it inspiring that after all your prior admirable contributions to Wikipedia you still have a desire to write new articles and engage in Quality improvement projects for existing articles as you stated at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#Notice_of_intention_to_stand_to_down_as_TFA_coordinator, and I wish you the best of luck with those future goals. — Cirt (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding my thanks; that was a very well-reasoned, thoughtful and comprehensive closure that clearly took a lot of effort. wctaiwan (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

TFAR for Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

I have to ask, is this perhaps a record for the longest TFAR discussion? Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: I'm sure it is - looking purely at byte size it's already 50% longer than Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film), which itself was about double the size of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/History of Gibraltar, which itself was about double the size of the two nominations at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo. These are the four most discussed nominations I can think of. BencherliteTalk 09:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
This is also probably the longest closing message I've ever read for a discussion. Not sure who will be the next TFA coordinator, but wishing that user luck. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
As I said, it was a long train journey... BencherliteTalk 19:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI took your suggestion with John Barbirolli

I've noted at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/John Barbirolli that I've taken your suggestion to heart at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#Notice_of_intention_to_stand_to_down_as_TFA_coordinator that it'd be helpful to have more people nominate more often.

I hope this nomination helps a little bit with WP:WORLDVIEW.

Also quick question, I could try to nominate some other relevant articles, but what's the limit on number of nominations by one user at one time?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I prepared Michael Tippett for January 2, thinking we had no classical music person since 30 October ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that'd be a problem at all, Gerda Arendt, but that's just my opinion. :) — Cirt (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem, just a notification, because the requests are not yet open for him (he is both in the pending requests and our list)
To answer your other question: as long as you nominate for others, I think there's no limit, - the spirit of the former limit was to prevent one nominator pushing his work, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You could be correct, Gerda Arendt, but I'd rather wait to hear back from Bencherlite before nominating two (or even more, pray tell?) at the same time at WP:TFAR, I'm not sure what the rules are about that (even if none would be articles I myself brought to WP:FA quality). — Cirt (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

More than one TFAR nomination is fine. Running Barbirolli and Tippett a month apart is fine too. Thanks, both. BencherliteTalk 19:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! How many at a time would be the max for one nominator, then? — Cirt (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Abu Nidal

Hi Bencherlite, I would very much prefer that this not be TFA. I wrote it a long time ago. I wasn't keen on having Joel Brand featured for the same reason, and it's not something I'd want to do again. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: That's a shame - it's an interesting article and still in good condition, but if I can't persuade you then I'll shuffle it back into the deck and re-deal. BencherliteTalk 09:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I would assist persuading, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The proposed date might not be a good choice, as it's a national holiday (Thanksgiving) in the United States. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
You have Haflinger set for TFA on Monday, why not swap that article for TG? Cute fuzzy pony-sized horse, not in the least controversial (and as I am the only lead editor still on wiki to babysit it, so I'll have the day off so it's easier for me to watch it that day). Then put something you already have set for later on the 24t... Montanabw(talk) 03:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Oooops. Thanks for pointing out the Thanksgiving thing. I can see that featuring an international terrorist might not be the most appropriate choice. In fact I know there's a Thanksgiving-related FA which I can use... I'll fix this when I get a chance (weekends aren't great for editing time). BencherliteTalk 08:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I missed the date as well, support the article but not on the day when DYK will serve pumpkin pie ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Bencherlite, thank you, that's appreciated. Sorry, Gerda. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Excellent swap of articles, I wholeheartedly approve of Freedom from Want (painting). Good call!. Montanabw(talk) 20:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm just showing off now, aren't I?! <smug face> BencherliteTalk 20:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

George Brinton McClellan

Bencherlite, I'm ashamed of your conduct at George Brinton McClennan's TFAR today. I know you've grown weary of your job there, and I'm sure most of us would have long ago. But that's no excuse for being so rude to Cirt, who genuinely didn't seem to understand whatever point you had made about WP:WORLDVIEW, and assuming from the start that he knew how many FAs on American men from the 18th century had run recently - especially with such condescending remarks as "such exotic locations as France and Italy" and "Sorry, irony doesn't work on the internet" (where it doesn't look like any irony was intended). I don't think McClennan's article would've been a good choice, either, but I'm sure there are more graceful ways you can finish off your days as coordinator. Tezero (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, fortunately I can't even remember the last time my wife or mother said they were ashamed of me, so I feel suitably chastised. So if Cirt would like an apology for any rudeness he considers he experienced at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/George B. McClellan, I'll certainly offer one. Hopefully the discussions that Cirt and I have been having on this page have helped explain our respective views to each other. Given that Cirt is a long-term, very experienced contributor to TFAR - he has the fifth-highest number of edits to WP:TFAR according to this - I'm sure that any misunderstandings between us are temporary and not irrevocable. BencherliteTalk 23:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Tezero, I was indeed taken aback a bit by some of the recent tone chosen in that exchange. And yes, Bencherlite, if you wished to do so, that would be most appreciated. :) — Cirt (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Very well. I apologise for my tone. BencherliteTalk 23:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Bencherlite, your apology is most appreciated. :) — Cirt (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for advice about 7 December 2014

WP:FADC shows:

Comparing with Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs we've had most recent cricket on 14 November 2014, and most recent video game on 21 November 2014.

So may I please nominate George Macaulay as it's the one of the two relevant dates at WP:FADC that's farther away of those dates, above?

Bencherlite, coming to you, here, first, for your advice and input and your blessing.

I admit after some effort it's a bit difficult not to find things at WP:FADC that were related to articles previously on the Main Page in the last 6 months.

So I personally feel we could stand to bit a tad bit more flexible with the whole "recently on the Main Page" thingy.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

FADC is not the be-all and end-all of scheduling, nor do we have to choose articles because they have a date connection, however weak (188th birth anniversary, for instance). I would not pick two cricket biographies within about 3 weeks. I certainly would not pick two English cricketers from the 1920s within 3 weeks. Please do not nominate Macaulay. "Recently on the main page" is a relative concept, not an inflexible one, and it is not the case that any similar article within 6 months is disqualifying. However, it is part of my role to look beyond individual nominations and take a long-term view of what appears at TFA, to the best of my ability. If all that being TFA coordinator involved was picking the next available article at FADC, TFA would look rather different, and not for the better. There is more than a year's worth of potential TFAs not on that page, after all.

Instead of indiscriminately nominating whatever is next in line at FADC, what would be more useful would be if you were to look at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page and do what you can to give the green or red light to, or clean-up, or take to FAR, our oldest FAs. Incidentally I note that George B. McClellan is on that list, and has been given the thumbs-down. BencherliteTalk 21:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Bencherlite, I see it's most difficult to find articles for TFA under these considerations! Especially those stringent ones about "recent" other articles! I'm just trying to be helpful, and I wasn't picking indiscriminately, I did look through the articles and the choices. I'm sorry you felt it was indiscriminate. I'm trying to help out and I hope you can see it might seem a bit frustrating to the nominator in this situation. I'm coming from good intentions here. It's difficult to learn one's way in this process when there can be so many ways one article could be deemed relevant to another "recent" article! — Cirt (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Bencherlite, maybe we need a new helpful subpage or perhaps some manner in which to correlate things. For example, one user may find two different types of music to be different enough, whereas another might be of the opinion that we should only have one article about military history per six-month-period. What I mean is, when looking through Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs, it feels very limiting, and I wish there were a way we could be a tad bit more flexible about that. Or have a subpage or essay that's a helpful guide as to what constitutes "recent" and what constitutes "related" to a "recent" article. 6 months seems too much time. Even 3 months. Maybe one month would be sufficient. — Cirt (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is as big as you make out - I don't recall anyone else complaining about TFAREC. It's a matter of common sense to a large extent and there's a limit to how easily it can (or should) be defined by strict rules (which TFAR has moved away from, as you know - the points system went in April 2014). Even the old rules didn't strictly define "similar": "Similar" is defined differently than the categories at WP:FA: two dissimilar articles may be grouped under the same category. For example, two film articles would be considered similar but an article about a newspaper and one about a film may be both grouped under Media but would not be considered similar. Conversely, similar articles may be in different categories at WP:FA: for example, Atom and Noble gas. Then, as now, it's a question of judgment - the stronger the similarity, the more it is an issue, but it's only one of the factors in selection after all and is not necessarily fatal (see e.g. Holst, Chopin and Warlock, all classical musicians, all ran within 5 or 6 weeks of each other as they had strong date anniversaries and in one case "vital article" status). Your suggestion that one person might think that one MILHIST article every six months is enough is a complete strawman argument and not a real problem. Certainly I would ignore any opposes on that basis. BencherliteTalk 22:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't intended as a strawman argument. But thanks for your explanation. I hope in the future we can have a bit more flexibility with interpretation of the whole "recent articles" concept. — Cirt (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
When has there been a lack of flexibility with the interpretation of "recent articles", out of interest? If you mean Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/George B. McClellan, then there were no countervailing considerations, such as VA status, first TFA, major date anniversary, etc. 188th birth anniversary is not a strong argument, and your generalised comments about the article being "encyclopedic, educational, and of an important and influential period in history" didn't advance the matter any further. (The first two points would probably apply to nearly all TFAs, I hope, with the last point also being a general one and very much in the eye of the beholder...) BencherliteTalk 00:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
There certainly seems to be a lack of flexibility at present. I think 188th anniversary may not be a round number, but it's certainly a significant amount of time. — Cirt (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I seem to recall instances where there were certain allowances made to improve articles while they were actively being considered at TFA. I'm sure the folks at WP:MILHIST would have been capable of doing that. — Cirt (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd still like some evidence of "lack of flexibility" re recent articles. For instance, you seem to have forgotten the recent TFA discussions for Sega 32X and Metroid Prime 2: Echoes, which are running just 6 days apart for a change, where both had significant date anniversaries and we traditionally don't have enough video games TFAs compared to the number of video game FAs. That, plus community support, added up in my book to sufficient reason to run them much closer together than I normally would. If by giving articles a chance to be improved you mean Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/HMS Royal Oak (08), I was prepared for that to happen but nothing happened, so it didn't run. Incidentally, in the Nativity discussion, is "Fascinating" with a wikilink to Spock meant as an insult? The word does not appear in our article on Spock, but a quick Google hunt brings up quotes where Spock says that he uses that word for the "unexpected". In connection with this disagreement we're having about the issue of recent articles, to follow my explanation of my thinking in other discussion on that same point with what is an apparently an indirect way of saying "That's unexpected" in that way certainly comes across as rude. BencherliteTalk 00:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow, please assume good faith. I'm a fan of Star Trek. Have been for years. You can ask Miyagawa who will attest to my interest in the subject. I literally found your comments fascinating and enlightening. In a good way. The word fascinating is simply a catchphrase used by Spock. He uses it for everything. The wikilink was meant as a form of comedy. The fact that you read into that to find it rude just shocks me -- instead of that I literally just meant it was interesting. — Cirt (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Well it came across to Victoria as "snark", and I would have thought that a Star Trek fan would have been familiar with what appears to be Spock's most common usage of the word (all the explanations from Spock about his use of the word that I can find on my Google hunt refer to "unexpected") so perhaps think more carefully about using unnecessary TV references and wikilinks in responses in future, lest other people also misunderstand you as you say I have done. A simple "fascinating", without wikilink, would have done the job just as well, wouldn't it? Not that anyone has ever previously said that they have found anything I have ever had to say on Wikipedia "fascinating" in the non-Spock sense, that is... BencherliteTalk 00:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I like Star Trek and I've seen quite a few episodes of the original series and Spock uses it near on ubiquitous. It just means fascinating. He uses it for things even to compliment people. Please don't take it as "rude", when it was not intended as such, because to do so would be to act with "snarkiness". Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Phew!

I did it! I navigated my way through the system and now for the second time in my wiki career have requested a TFA slot! I don't know what to put in the "most recent" field. Can you help when you get a chance. I tried putting in Freedom from Want but it didn't look like I'd done it correctly so I didn't save. Very sorry to see you go, btw. Victoria (tk) 23:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to Freedom from Want (painting), Victoriaearle, I think that's already been scheduled. — Cirt (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It's OK, Cirt, I know exactly what Victoria is talking about, and it isn't what you think it is. Done. BencherliteTalk 23:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. — Cirt (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
No, actually it doesn't sound good. This, this, this, and this, make it seem to me that you'd like to see something other than the Nativity. I'm minutes if not seconds from pulling the nomination. I'm not good with this kind of stuff on WP. This is why I never request TFA. Everyone here always feels they have to win, for whatever reason. Victoria (tk) 00:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Victoriaearle, you misunderstand, me, please, I'm acting with good intent here, they're completely different subjects, I'm just trying to find interesting things to nominate at TFAR, please stop assuming bad faith here. I truly wish for the article you've worked on to be on the Main Page, please! — Cirt (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, Cirt, instead of making any further nominations at TFAR for now, you should step back and allow other people to comment on the nominations you have put forward. I don't think anyone has ever made 5 6 nominations in one day before. On one of your nominations, the FA is so new that the nomination hasn't been closed yet, and the FAC nominator might like to have first say on whether/when to nominate. I'm not sure what has sparked your enthusiasm to nominate so many articles in such a short space of time, but it seems to be having adverse consequences. BencherliteTalk 01:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Bencherlite, I asked you if there was a max beyond two and you didn't respond to me. I'm acting with good intent here. I'm trying to find articles unrelated to recent topics. I'm trying to take your advice to heart about finding articles not related to recent topics. I'm looking through the "recents" page you referred to, and using it in the manner you recommended. — Cirt (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
With everything else that's been going on, I haven't replied to that, you're entirely right. But I never expected that you would make 6 nominations in 5 hours. That's enough for now, surely? BencherliteTalk 01:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I've got one more in mind for a non-specific date, and then I'll take your advice and take a break for a while. Please take under advisement, Bencherlite, that per Tezero perhaps there's been too many assumptions going around that has harmed the tone of discussion. I've sincerely had good intentions, as I've tried to assure Victoria. — Cirt (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do NOT nominate anything else in the non-specific date slots or you will have entirely filled those four slots with your own selections, which is unfair on any other editor who has a potential non-specific date nomination. It's a shame that you carried on nominating even after I suggested that your time would be better spent at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page. Oh well. BencherliteTalk 01:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Maybe there are too many assumptions going around. Why don't we all step back for a second and look at the situation? Cirt, do you understand why it looks as though you're trying to surreptitiously push Nativity (Christus) out? (If you are, perhaps your objections are valid, in which case you can oppose at its TFAR as you see fit.) Bencherlite and Victoriaearle, do you understand why Cirt wants to make a good impression that he's attentive to WP:WORLDVIEW? Despite what any local Target or K-Mart would have us believe, December 25 isn't for a while, so we have a long time to work this out. Tezero (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I have no such intention to push anything out, Tezero, none. Zero. I think both articles can run, as they are on completely different topics from completely different periods of time and completely different locations on this planet. — Cirt (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

TFA images

File:Harvard Theatre Collection - Carsten Borchgrevink TCS 1.3184 - cropped.jpg is mistagged. It's definitely out of copyright in the U.S. but the tag is simply wrong, and seems to be based, as they often are, on little more than hope. Suggestion Move to en-wiki. We don't have enough information on which country it's from (but probably not the US); however, we can definitely use {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} at the very least. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I've uploaded locally and tried to make sense of things; if you can tidy or improve further, my gratitude will be increased! BencherliteTalk 22:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Main Page barnstar

The Main Page Barnstar
Thanks for all your hard work in scheduling Today's Featured Article and all the supporting processes. Modest Genius talk 11:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very kind of you. BencherliteTalk 12:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Cambalachero is back

Can we please leave Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/2013 Rosario gas explosion open, as Cambalachero has removed the vacation tag? — Cirt (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No point. If he wants it soon, I can schedule it without difficulty in due course. If not, then it can wait. I have left a message on Cambalachero's talk page and await his reply. BencherliteTalk 14:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay sounds good. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
He wants to wait, so no worries, at least this way the blurb is formatted and ready to go. :) — Cirt (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ford Island

Thank you for writing the blurb for Ford Island. I had started on it yesterday, but with holidays I didn't have time to finish it. I appreciate you keeping tabs on my efforts and moving quickly once it reached FA-class.--v/r - TP 16:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Congratulations on your latest FA. BencherliteTalk 16:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup possibly needed

If you can spare some attention from your resignation honours, in nomming Macdonald as you suggested (I have to think about Bosbyshell a bit), I noticed that the page notices speak of the new system whereby points need not be calculated (Macdonald would have 12, curses) and similar phrasings that seem to me to be dated. I think there the target audience for the page notice either hasn't a clue there was ever a point system or has successfully adapted to the new way. I thought of just getting rid of the language, but thought that there might be other, similar pages, and that if you did the changes (assuming you agree), it's more likely that the various pages would stay consistent. I see this as housekeeping and uncontroversial.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You're entirely right. I've been thinking for a while that the "experimental" new scheme could probably be deemed a success without any controversy, so I'll tidy up the instructions and edit notice. Thanks for prompting me. I'll add Macdonald's 12 to WP:TFAO as a consolation prize for you! BencherliteTalk 20:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Potential TFAs

I was unaware that simply making suggestions in order to assist you was not the purpose of the chart, as opposed to actually requesting the TFA itself. Obviously I was mistaken in taking up my own valuable time in order to be nice enough to assist you in choosing articles when, as you yourself recently pointed out, the TFA Request page has been a bit dead lately. I assure you I will never again make the mistake of attempting to be nice enough to help you out. Feel free to delete all of the unsightly and diabolical additions recently made to the chart so that the chart can be safely incomplete and ignored.--66.212.64.183 (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No need to take offence. WP:TFARP has always been used for people to give advance notice of nominations that they intend to make, not as a suggestions board for the TFA scheduler. Turning it into a TFAR-lite page risks confusion (as happened with Cirt thinking that Ealdgyth wanted that bishop nominated and so took the initiative for her), particularly because the former format of the page made it look as though lots of people were putting these articles forward when in fact it was just you. Hopefully altering the format of the page makes this clearer. I won't remove your additions (some of your ideas were better than others, and might prompt a nomination), but you might find that adding missing possibilities to WP:FADC is more helpful - that gets checked just as much. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 21:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with your choice of blurb text

Bencherlite, I agree with your choice of blurb text for the book about the word.

Though the Wikipedia article on the word itself is not mentioned or linked to in the blurb text other than the title, I suppose that was your intent and readers can click through to the article on the book itself for more information.

Thank you for your good writing skill in putting together a good blurb,

— Cirt (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots of Tabs

Hey, hope you're well. I stumbled upon this today, which is rather delightful and helping me transform some of the early doors Boat Race articles from abbreviations to real names. Do you happen to know if Oxon have anything similar which is available to all? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Not too bad, thanks. I don't think there's a direct equivalent search engine for the Oxford equivalent, Alumni Oxonienses, but the books are available online - see this guide. Hang on, I've just found this if you've signed up to Ancestry.co.uk for other reasons already. BencherliteTalk 09:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I found Ancestory... Not signed up. Never mind, thanks anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for thanking me

I can do more if you want, I recognize a lot of articles that I copyedited in the queue, and I hate displaying my mistakes to the world :) But please feel free to revert or disagree with any of the edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Dank, you're always more than welcome to copyedit anything in the queue. Thanks for your help. BencherliteTalk 18:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Btw, I don't know if you've had a problem with non-confirmed users editing the blurbs, but if you did, it was because the regex for the title blacklist page was faulty ... it contained the string "[a-zA-z]". That's now fixed to "[a-zA-Z]". - Dank (push to talk) 05:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Dank, I saw that change to the blacklist page (one of the few Mediawiki pages on my watchlist!) but that's never been a problem, so either the regex worked anyway or no-one tried to edit such pages... BencherliteTalk 10:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

FACBot and TFA

"TFA on 17th December 2014 (bot that should do this is inactive at the moment)" What is the Bot supposed to do? Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi, Hawkeye7. At 00:01 UTC daily, UcuchaBot used to:
    1. go to WP:FA, and add {{FA/BeenOnMainPage| }} around the day's TFA
    2. go to WP:FANMP, and produce a new version of the page. I think we've discussed these tasks before.
  • When it spotted that new TFAs had been scheduled, it would
    1. go to the article's talk page, and add |maindate=date to {{article history}}
    2. find the FAC nominator(s) and any other significant editors (I forget the parameters it used for this but no doubt it's in its code) and leave User:UcuchaBot/TFA notice for them on their talk page.

I removed a part of a sentence that didn't seem sufficiently supported by the given source (a TV reporter relying on speculation by unnamed parties). Happy to talk about this. This leaves the blurb a tad bit short; should I add something? - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, I made a tweak to the last sentence of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 19, 2014; see what you think. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
All looks fine now. BencherliteTalk 10:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

US 2 at TFA

Rescheduled something else. BencherliteTalk 22:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please, no. I prefer my articles to run on clear anniversary dates. There is no date connection to December 30 for U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, so it seems meaningless to run it that day. Imzadi 1979 → 21:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, the photo chosen doesn't even show US 2; it's of the interchange from the perspective of I-75, where US 2 terminates. Imzadi 1979 → 21:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "my articles"? - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    @SchroCat: I think it's only natural to feel protective and take some personal pride and ownership in articles where I've spent my own money, plus hours and hours of time to write and research to get them to the FA level, and keep them there. There's a whole discussion over at WT:FAC that mentions the potential need to review older FAs if they don't have active editors watching them, whether that's the original authors/nominators or other editors. I know that "WP:OWN" gets thrown around a lot as a way to enforce a concept of community ownership, but it is absurd to imply I can't take a level of personal responsibility, stewardship, and yes, ownership in an article I worked so hard on. That attitude will do more to drive away content creators than anything else, and without those of us writing the articles, Bencherlite and his successors will have nothing to run as a TFA at some point. Imzadi 1979 → 22:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You are not the only person who spends time, effort and money in creating featured content, and who has to take steps to ensure that standards on those pages are maintained - responsible stewardship, in other words. But naked ownership is utterly counter-productive and will only ever piss people off. - SchroCat (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, the image is of course negotiable. As the only clear anniversary date that I can see is 11th November - which is always going to be hard to get – and as I wanted to get one more highways article in before I stop scheduling, and as it fits nicely with the theme of the last five days of December (hint, hint) before I expect the new team to take over at the start of January, would you please reconsider? BencherliteTalk 22:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I had the last highway article to run just this past October, and I would prefer that you "torture" someone else with the "honor" of babysitting an article against vandalism on the special day. That honor is something I don't want to do without a clear anniversary date, and never in the middle of the holidays. Imzadi 1979 → 22:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
<butting in> Hi Bencherlite, since you left me off lightly during your tenure, it wouldn't bother me if Big Two-Hearted River ran on that date. So, if it's okay that I have two going during the holidays, then use that as your "two", unless there's another. Victoria (tk) 22:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{TFATOPIC}

Does that text (for instance "Part of the 1995 Pacific hurricane season series, one of Wikipedia's featured topics") count toward the 1200-word limit (on the theory that the limit is meant to keep TFA from taking more than its share of Main Page space), or not (on the theory that all articles should receive a summary of roughly the same length)? - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't count it towards the limit - it's the only time featured topics get mentioned on the main page, so I cut them a little slack! BencherliteTalk 22:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

One of the final articles

You mentioned to me that you were considering which articles to run as the final ones of your time here as coordinator. Benjamin Disraeli is at your disposal, assuming my colleague Tim riley consents.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wehwalt and Tim riley: Disraeli was born on 21st December 1804; there's a 150th birthday nomination for 21st December already, so would you mind 20th December? Or would you prefer the anniversary of his taking office as PM in February (not a round number, though)? BencherliteTalk 10:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
At your discretion, for my part.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards letting it be a treat for my successors, as we're doing OK for dead white male English-speaking politicians at the moment (twas ever thus!). Meanwhile, I think I've found a final sequence to ring in the New Year, as I'm working on the basis that TFAs appearing on and after 1st January 2015 will soon be confirmed to be under the triple gaze of Brian, Chris and Dan. BencherliteTalk 11:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
As you wish. Possibly for the next election, which isn't far.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Lovely. I look forward to supporting your nominations before too long - it's been a while! BencherliteTalk 12:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
And to reviewing your well-rested content!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I desire to associate myself with those sentiments. Tim riley talk 23:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Fijación Oral, Vol. 1 TFA question

Hello Bencherlite! My name is Erick and I was one of the two main contributors for Fijación Oral, Vol. 1. I noticed that the article has been selected to appear on the main page on December 31, 2014 and while I think that's great, there's something I'm concerned about. See there's an article I had worked on earlier this year which was recently promoted GA and will be FAC soon and I was hoping it could be TFA on February 14. What I'm concerned about is this part "when the last similar article was", since the article I'm working similar to the one that I'm working. Will this affect my chance getting it TFA on that date? I also can't find the open request Fijación Oral, Vol. 1 anywhere. Erick (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If you mean Romance then, although I expect I will no longer be in charge by then, I can't see it will be a problem at that distance. There was no request - it just caught my eye as something a bit different (and also it fits with the theme for the last five days of December, which should mark the start of my retirement!) BencherliteTalk 07:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the heads up! Erick (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Pages that will need to be updated when I am replaced as TFA coordinator

Please add anything else you spot that ought not to say "Bencherlite" anymore to the list! BencherliteTalk 10:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Your expertise, hard work and the generous contribution of your time on Wikipedia is much appreciated. Atsme☯Consult 18:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Atsme, that's most kind of you. BencherliteTalk 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bencherlite/Archive_28&oldid=1146675742"