User talk:Mike Christie/Archive11

Your GA nomination of Fantastic Story Quarterly

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fantastic Story Quarterly you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

TFA

Precious again, your Cosmic Stories and Stirring Science Stories!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

... and today: Eardwulf of Northumbria! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

... and thank you again! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wonder Story Annual

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wonder Story Annual you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fantastic Story Quarterly

The article Fantastic Story Quarterly you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fantastic Story Quarterly for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wonder Story Annual

The article Wonder Story Annual you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wonder Story Annual for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Unknown

Out of curiosity, in this edit you reference that the magazine was at times printed monthly and at other times printed once every two months (which is what I interpret bimonthly to mean--maybe it is once every two weeks).

As an FYI, Wikidata can represent this information using the qualifiers "start date" and "end date" on the hypothetical claims regarding the printing frequency (not currently present in its item at Unknown (Q2629880)). --Izno (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, bimonthly means every two months. I should have realized that Wikidata is flexible enough to add qualifying date ranges. In this particular case I don't think it would be useful for the infobox because it quickly gets far too complicated -- take a look at the tables in Amazing Stories to see just how eccentric a magazine's schedule can become. I like the capability in general though. I think I need to get more familiar with Wikidata; at the moment I'm approaching these discussions from the point of view of a content editor with no real awareness of the details of what Wikidata can do, and I'd like to be more informed. I'll spend a little time on it over the next couple of days and will revisit the RfC if necessary. Thanks for the heads up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me know if you have other questions. --Izno (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I had a chance to take a closer look at Wikidata. I have a couple of questions, if you have a minute.

• The discussion at the RfC mentions that infoboxes can be made either opt-in or opt-out. Which is the default? That is, if no action is taken, is a pre-existing infobox opt-in or opt-out?
• I'm also curious about the visibility of these changes. In the issue with the novel Night, if SarahSV had had Wikidata viewing turned on in her watchlist, would she have seen this change? What would it have looked like -- a bot edit to Wikidata adding the genre property to the Wikidata item linked to Night, since Night is on her watchlist?
• I see a Wikidata edit to 1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team on my watchlist that says "Changed link and badges for [enwiki]: 1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team, Q17437798)". Looking at the diff, I see that apparently a link was added but I see nothing on the Wikidata page for that item that lets me edit that. Let's say the article loses it's GA status; how would I remove it in Wikidata? (I imagine a bot would take care of it in reality, but I'm curious to know how.)
• What's the etiquette, or expectation, for editing data? Does a good Wikidata editor provide a reference property for every statement? I took the two brief tours that have been written so far, and neither mentioned sourcing. What about for information imported from other Wikipedias? E.g. if SarahSV had obtained consensus on the Italian Wikipedia to remove the genre description from the article there, would it have subsequently been automatically removed from Wikidata? Or could she have removed it from Wikidata directly, perhaps with a note on the talk page explaining why?

-- I appreciate your help; it looks like a remarkably useful tool, but I need to understand the mechanisms and implementation a bit better, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

1. A pre-existing infobox without Wikidata awareness is neither opt-in nor opt-out, because it doesn't know about Wikidata at all.
2. If she had had it turned on, yes, she would have seen a bot (most likely) add the genre to Night's Wikidata item. The larger issue in this case is that people aren't aware that the infobox is having Wikidata added to it, which "adds" the pre-existing data in Wikidata to the Wikipedia display. Some infoboxes may have a worse issue on this point; for example, Template:Infobox video game and Template:Video game reviews have had no issues with integration because they have a small list of parameters, and the most controversial of them are "genre"--something which can be controlled at Wikidata. Others, like ISBN in Template:Infobox book, may need a second look, because of the preponderance of wikis which have incorrect filled their ISBN in with a "newer" edition, rather than the original text's ISBN (if indeed it has one). The only way to deal with this IMO is to work this out on the articles--which will increase accuracy on Wikidata and subsequently every other Wikipedia--the bad data came from somewhere, even if that somewhere was not our Wikipedia. I imagine as we move forward that this will come to be a non-issue, given both watchlists and people choosing actively to use Wikidata.
3. To change a badge on Wikidata you need to be (auto)confirmed on Wikidata. This is done by clicking "edit" in the box with the interwiki links, and then clicking on the "badge" symbol there (looks like a 1st place ribbon outline). A dropdown appears with the possible badges. An article on a particular wiki can have multiple badges, so to add or remove, just click on the badge of interest. You can try it out on Wikidata Sandbox (Q4115189). If you should come to need this change without being confirmed, you can always go to Wikidata's admin noticeboard or project chat and they will usually take care of it for you.
4. A lot of different questions here:
   1. I would say that there are editors interested in adding data and there are editors interested in having referenced data, and the cross section of those is small-ish. More like Wikipedia was in the first 5 years or so.
   2. You should look at d:Help:Sources. Side note here, but worth mentioning given the discussion: In the case of books and other paper-copy sources, the original edition and any future editions should be in separate Wikidata items--see d:Help:Sources#Books.
   3. Typically the information imported from other wikis is marked as "imported from: <lang> <wikitype>" e.g. "imported from: English Wikipedia". These are permanent statements (that are removeable) in Wikidata itself, not on a particular wiki, which I think answers your question. Typically, Wikidata editors will remove this reference when they add a reliable source to a particular statement.
   4. What she could probably have done in this case is go to e.g. d:WD:PC and say "here, I need to have a different genre on this item, can someone help?" or "this item shouldn't have an ISBN because it's too old, how do I mark that as being the case in Wikidata?", and of course all of us being wiki-denizens would quickly spring to her aid.

Let me know of others. --Izno (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much; this is very helpful indeed. I will go through this in more detail, tonight if possible, though I have a house guest arriving so it may be tomorrow. If I have any other questions I'll post a follow up here. I see on the project chat page links to a query service that looks SQL-like; that's one of my areas of professional expertise so I suspect I'll find the whole thing much too interesting for my own good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a SPARQL endpoint, and you can run an SQL search on any wiki using Quarry. Have fun with that. :] --Izno (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I looked at Template:Infobox video game/sandbox and it appears that FETCH_WIKIDATA is what does the magic. Is there documentation I can look at on how that works? Not so much the underlying mechanism, more usage documentation is what I'm looking for. Is that how an infobox is converted to use Wikidata -- by identifying which fields are to be autopopulated, and then inserting some form of fetch statement? So does the opt-out option in the RfC mean "I agree that any infobox can be converted without further notice to autopopulate all its fields from Wikidata", and "opt-in" means no, you have to get consensus on each infobox in turn? The more I think I understand about this mechanism the less I think I understand the RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

"Opt-in" is "each article needs a statement somewhere in the context of its infobox that says 'I will use Wikidata on this article'", whereas "opt-out" means "the infobox on the local article needs to have some parameter that says 'I will not use Wikidata on this article'". The naive implementation using the "getClaim" statements (see Module:Wikidata--that's what's doing a chunk of the magic) is "opt-out" on a per-infobox-field level, and so if you wanted to opt out of more than one field on a particular article, you'd start seeing stuff like |isbn=|genre= and etc. However, opt-in isn't much better, or is in fact worse, because you end up seeing statements like |title=FETCH_WIKIDATA|genre=FETCH_WIKIDATA and etc. RexxS at the Template:infobox book discussion and in the RFC is suggesting a whitelist/blacklist approach, which is marginally better on this point. I think the larger problem is that people aren't willing to fix the Wikidata instead of saying "I want control here"--from what I've observed, the majority of the problems with the current implementation in Infobox book go away if someone goes and pokes at the item representing the book on Wikidata, because Wikidata does have standards and expectations regarding how e.g. a book item should look. Wikidata is flexible enough to make it work, and it's thus mostly just "Not from around here"-ism (straying into WP:OWNy territory)... an issue that en.WP had to sort through when Commons was introduced as well... --Izno (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, that's clear. So it's actually a multi-step process: initially no infobox uses Wikidata. Then an infobox is converted, and it's either converted so that it looks for permission on the infobox instance in the article, or so that it looks for denial of permission -- opt in and out, respectively. Then at the field level, after Wikidata is being used, the editor can see changes in their watchlist, and choose to override them in the infobox field statements by including blank lines. I think I get it.

I can certainly see the opt-out argument now. I understand why you regard some of the responses as "Not from around here"-ism, but I would characterize them a little differently: up to now, an editor working on an article only had to open the edit window to control what appears in the article. Wikidata plus Wikipedia (plus, as you point out, Commons) starts to resemble an application with modules more than it does a single editing environment. The very thing about Wikidata that makes it worthwhile -- it's separate, structured, and addressable -- is exactly what makes it unnatural to an editor who has only focused on writing content.

If you have the patience, I have a couple more questions.

• What about implementing the infobox rules in such a way that only data in Wikidata which is supported by a reference is allowed through? That would have a couple of benefits: it would prevent a huge initial flood of uncited incorrect data being added to infoboxes across the wiki; and it would lead in a natural way to an effort to improve referencing on Wikidata, rather than focusing on simply loading it up with more data.
• Let's say I put Gerri Major's date of birth into Wikidata, and add a reliable source; probably the Who's Who in Colored America from 1944. Now I'm editing the article about her; and let's say there's no infobox. Is there a proposed mechanism to include that Wikidata content in the article in such a way it becomes part of a citation? By some such code as <ref>{{WikidataCite Q123456789}}</ref>? That would have the beneficial effect of normalizing the relationship between the data and the supporting reference; if the reference on Wikidata were improved, all articles citing it would benefit immediately.
• What about dropping a bot notification on the talk page of any article containing an infobox when/if that infobox is converted to use Wikidata? This would only be necessary for opt-out. I would think this would be a huge flood of notifications for some of the more heavily used boxes, and I would prefer my first suggestion above, but perhaps this would address SarahSV's point that the change happened with no way for her to be aware of it.

I'll think about it a bit more and go back to the RfC. I don't think I can vote for opt-in anymore, but I can see why it has traction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(←) Well, right now, the module only allows for the "opt-out" style. The way you would opt in currently is to use the module directly in the article page while leaving the particular infobox field "unconverted". Regardless of infobox conversion, if the editor chooses to set the Wikidata watchlist preference (does not work with enhanced RC/WL), then they will see the changes from Wikidata in their watchlist.

Sure, there is some "I'm not familiar this", but as you pointed out on the RFC, everyone has that at some point, and a lot of the opposition seems to be based on "I'm not willing to learn a new thing". There's a ticket open on Phabricator for "how to edit Wikidata from the client wiki", but that's tagged [epic] and probably won't be done for a while. There might be a script/gadget or two from some enterprising javascript developer lying around currently, but I wouldn't know where to look for that.

Yup, that's possible. There should probably be a blacklist of disallowed references, since a lot of the references in Wikidata are "imported from English Wikipedia" and similar. Better still would be to add the reference in Wikidata when you go to modify the infobox (adding references is painful right now, but again, another point of improvement that I believe is on the tech team's radar), such that you don't need to "worry". The other problem is that there are many properties which ostensibly don't need a citation (see d:Help:Sources#When to source a statement), and ironically one of the problem properties that started the RFC (ISBN) is one of them--you shouldn't need to cite an ISBN, because that ISBN identifies a single issue (besides different texts with duplicate ISBNs, but that's not our fault nor a particular problem), and the only useful citation in that case is the item itself (or having the item to hand...).

This is a future use case of Wikidata; I say "future" because while I think the infrastructure is there to support that use, we're still working on issues like the one in the RFC.

I'm not particularly against that idea, though from my perspective I would agree that it might end up adding 5 million talk page comments--more, if an infobox is converted over many edits over some substantial period of time.... :) --Izno (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

New Model Army (band)

Hi Mike, I've been through the article now and hopefully sourced everything properly. I've also chopped everything out that wasn't completely relevant. The only bit I'm unconvinced by is the sourcing in the last paragraph but to be honest that could be removed from the article anyway, I just thought it would be good to keep as the fanbase is a big part of the band. Thanks, Laura Jamieson (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

OK; I should be able to take a look later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

• New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
• Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
• New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Bruniquel Cave

Hi Mike, I have been looking at the Nature letter on Bruniquel Cave, which Doug Weller kindly sent me, on the amazing stalagmite structures built by the Neanderthals 175,000 years ago. The Nature letter says that the first study of the cave in the early 1990s produced a C14 date on burnt bone of >47,600 years ago. As the current maximum for C14 dating is 50,000 years, am I correct in thinking that a date of over 47,600 years at that date probably just means that no C14 was found in the sample? They have now dated the structures by uranium series dating as between 175.2±0.8 ka and 177.1±0.8 ka, with 2σ uncertainties. This is still quite low at 95.4% probability, but better than C14, which I think you said is usually given to 1σ. Presumably this is because uranium series dating is more reliable than radiocarbon dating?

I can send you the Nature letter if you are interested. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; please do send it. I suspect the 47,600 year date is real, because labs are supposed to say if they think a sample is to old to date. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Village pump

This is a very nice post, Mike. I thought I'd stop by and tell you, rather than pushing the "thank" button. What you've written is clear, easy to follow, and I think probably the solution we're looking for. Glad to know some of us still can grapple with the tough issues! Btw - I've been binge reading recently and zoomed through a sci-fi series, very space opera-ish, and for some reason thought of you. Victoria (tk) 17:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the compliment. Let's hope we get some good discussion there. If you're curious, a couple of sections above this is the discussion I had with Izno that changed my mind about Wikidata. What was the sf series you read? I'm just coming to the end of selling almost all my sf; about 4,000 gone and another 1,200 or so to go. (That's why I've not been editing much for the past twelve months; it's time-consuming, listing books on eBay.) I'm keeping the magazines, though, at least for now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I've glanced at the section above and glanced at some of the other conversations swirling around too, but I liked your post because you explained, I thought clearly, that wikidata has to satisfy WP:V. That might be harder than we think because presumably the data being imported from the various wikis has been around for a while and now exists in various mirror formats so it's not just an issue of googling to verify. For now I'm still in the opt-in column because I think we're only beginning to understand this issue, and we probably need a bandaid for the short term.

That is a lot of book listing and selling. It's a project I've been putting off for years (I have a few thousand, so fewer than you), but I keep putting it off because of the time required. The series was by Jacey Bedford, debut series, not fantastic writing. I bought it for airplane reading but ended up plowing through two 600 page books before I got on the plane, so the story obviously hooked me. Glad to hear you're keeping your magazines. Victoria (tk) 23:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hey, someone just namechecked you, saying you're their favoritests Wikipedia editor ever. I won't name names, cause I don't kiss and tell, but this was someone of gravitas and class. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  Now, that's just cruel, not telling me where this is. I'll have to teach myself how to write SQL queries against the database so I can find it! But thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• No, not cruel, just put that feather in your cap. You're a great guy. You blinded me with science with that second sentence. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  OK, feather is in cap, and I am officially chuffed. Thank you for letting me know! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you have time to look at this?

Hi Mike Christie, I was wondering whether you would possibly have time and interest to give feedback here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Title TK/archive2. Any comments would be much appreciated. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look this weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Moisejp: I just took a look, and it appears you have Sarastro1 and SchroCat helping, so to be honest I don't think you need me; those two are excellent editors. I'm going to try to get to a couple of other PRs instead. When you go back to FAC, if you are having trouble getting reviews, ping me and I'll take a look then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, no worries! Thank you and take care. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, are you Mr. Science Fiction guy?

She's more fantasy than sf, but I'm shocked that Mary Brown of The Unlikely Ones and Playing the Jack doesn't have an article...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I do have a lot of sf sources, but mostly I work on the magazine articles. As it happens I've never heard of either Brown or the two redlinked articles; are these TV shows? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Unforgettable novels. But the titles not so much – the former is one of the more frequently described books at the BookSleuths website (which heps people find the titles of books they liked).  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe of interest

Hi again, thanks for the link to your interesting sign post article. Our discussion inspired me to begin developing a Porposal for Peer Review Reform, and your comments about it will be very welcome.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Mentors

Mike, please take a look here at a couple of mentor suggestions, one more formal than the other. Tinker with them as you like; I suggest you leave your comments on that page. On reflection I find myself veering towards the less formal, but I'm persuadable. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll comment there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

More from me. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

+ 1 more. Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• I could write a Python program to populate that chart back a couple years or whatever.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

  Hey, do it! Anything you can't get reliably, don't worry about; just getting most columns populated would be good. A couple of things I found I had to watch out for:

  • There are an amazing number of noms that are instantly removed and the nom file deleted, as out of process. I am not including those; I only include the ones that actually have an archive page, since that way I can see the nominators' names.
  • The "experience" column is the number of bronze stars at the time of the nomination. That one's not too hard to fill in by hand if you can't easily get it.
  • Similarly, the "GA, PR" column refers to whatever is dated prior to the nomination.

  Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I can get the FA info from the pages used to populate WBFAN. Is there a one-stop source for the other columns?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

    I don't think so. I was working from the FAC page revision history, looking for nom additions, then going manually to the article talk page and the nom page to harvest the data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

    • Well then, doing it programatically doesn't seem feasible. I'm sorry. I woud really need a one-stop page for each kind of info, but these don'tseem to exist... sorry again.... I might be able to get "number of FAs at nom time" and "FAC passed or failed" but that seems to be about it.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

      No worries; thanks for taking a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Mentoring proposal: Mike, it looks to me as though there is a fair degree of support for mentoring of first-time FAC nominators. I have revised my draft proposal to take account of some of the concerns raised in the discussion. My revised draft is back here – what do you think (comment there)? Brianboulton (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Mike, it seems I inadvertently deleted rather than saved a note I sent to you on this page yesterday, saying that in view of the apparent hostility to any form of mandatory mentoring, we should try to pilot a voluntary scheme, to see if it produces any result. Anyway, I've left suggestions to this effect on the FAC talk – please weigh in. In my view a partial step forward is better than none at all. Brianboulton (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries; I saw your post there and agree that that was the right next step. I've supported there. A search of FAC archives reveals that something similar has been discussed before, as you may recall, but I think one difference this time is that we propose to mention the mentoring in the FAC instructions. I'll plan on keeping the table of FAC noms updated over the next few months, and with luck we'll be able to see whether there's a beneficial effect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I've left a note on the FAC talkpage to the effect that I shall have very little wikitime over the next few days, but will take the voluntary mentoring proposal forward next week. After consideration, I think that an actual "list of editors prepared to act" is preferable to a mere link to a list of editors qualified by the 5+ rule to act, and will take steps next week to get the list under way. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That sounds good. Let me know if I can help in any way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have a little time, perhaps you could whittle down this list of potential mentors, which I took from WBFAN 0n the basis of their being at least semi-active. My criterion for "active" might have been a little generous, however! Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I can get to it over the weekend or shortly after. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering

Mike, I was wondering if you have an opinion on this thread (be sure to read all the way to the end, tho it's short). on Maunus' talk page? Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the principle you're arguing for -- that it should be equally easy to create citations in each of the main formats. I'm not clear why you say VE works better with cite book; can you explain? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

With apologies, discussion continues here.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: I've been watching that discussion and rather than jump in over there can I get a bit more clarification here first? Are you saying that {{cite book}} works with VE but {{cite}} doesn't? I don't pay much attention to the templates themselves, and simply use whatever's in the article already; my main interest in CITEVAR is not having someone change things around on me (or anyone else) once an article is up and running with a citation style. I agree both should be easy to use, but exactly what is that is hard to use in VE? I should add that I use VE all the time unless I'm forced into the source editor (I find it a huge productivity enhancer), but I've never seen a cite in any article I've worked on that seemed difficult to work with in any way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that I have heard anecdotes that cite book and/or cite work better than manual editing when using VE. But that is not the main point; the main point is the absence of alternatives. Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Ling, I'm still not getting it. If you hear specifics on those anecdotes I'd be curious, and of course any bugs in VE should be fixed. But what is the alternative that is absent? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Your review of Ballymacarrett rail crash

Thank you so much for all of your great points in your peer review of the article! I apologize for not watching the archive page closely enough and not realizing all the work you put in until now. I will put some effort in over the next few weeks to implement as many of your suggestions as I can. Thanks again, John. --Arg342 (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Mentoring update

I have written to the editors who expressed some support for the mentoring idea in the talkpage discussions, asking them to add their names to the mentors list. I've also written separately to a few editors with whom I've worked from time to time, all active FAC participants, asking them to sign up, too. The idea is to get a dozen or so names on the list to kick-start the scheme; at that point I think we should go live. I will then contact other five-plus editors and invite them to join. Hopefully the list will expand rapidly from that point. Brianboulton (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?/archive1. Aoba47 (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look this afternoon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and I apologize for any inconvenience. Aoba47 (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Aoba47; I can't always respond when asked, but I had time today -- and it was made easier by the fact that a quick glance showed me that the article wasn't too far away from FA quality. Good luck with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again, and I hope you have a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Much rarer?

Not wanting to add to the thread which an arb felt was in the wrong position: you said "It's my understanding that this problem is much rarer". I don't know. I could tell you five easily, and I'm not searching for them, they simply come by my watchlist. Still waiting for one example of the other kind ;) - Infoboxvar: what is the "preferred style" if an editor was just too lazy to create an infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think if an article is GA, and doesn't have an infobox, it's probably a conscious decision; if it's an FA, almost certainly so. And conversely, if it has an infobox, that's also a conscious decision. If it's neither FA or GA, a talk page message would soon find out if the contributing editors cared. I've objected to infoboxes on some articles I've worked on, and have agreed to them on others; I don't think there's a hard and fast rule. When someone's only edit to an article I've worked on is to add or remove an infobox, it doesn't feel to me like a considered contribution to the article. What would make for more peaceful editing all around would be if nobody added an infobox or removed one without a comment on the talk page first. I doubt we'll ever get there, though.

I haven't done the searching necessary to give you the examples you're asking for, but let me pose a related question to you. Wouldn't Wikipedia be better off (more good content added) if from now on nobody ever added or removed an infobox without discussion? How many talk page and article talk page posts have you, and dozens of others, made over the last year or two, in which the topic was infoboxes? Imagine how many cantatas and politicians and novelists and explorers would have FA articles if all that energy had gone into content creation. Yes, some articles would be missing infoboxes that would benefit from them, and some would have infoboxes that were unnecessary, but the encyclopedia would be better off and we'd have happier editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I invite you to read a discussion we had on project opera. You may remember that the introduction of infobox opera and resistance to its application was what caused the last arb case. The arbs looked somewhere else. - Three years later, all but one of the operas then questioned have an infobox. The discussion culminated in (not by me) "I personally think that as a matter of courtesy and prudence, one should run the addition up the flag pole on a Featured Article first, regardless of which project has bannered it. But otherwise no, it's bureaucratic and a bloody waste of time to start a talk page discussion before adding any infobox anywhere on Wikipedia. It's no different to adding or removing any other content or formatting to an article." I added infoboxes to several operas (including FAs), three were reverted (without further discussion, I am ready to let go), the others stayed, including the TFA on 30 May, The Bartered Bride. It could be so easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I was only peripherally aware of the arb case (I don't watch any of those pages) and was unaware of the opera discussions. When you quote "It's no different to adding or removing any other content or formatting to an article", I think that's the core issue. It apparently is different, in many editors' minds. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It apparently is, but - as a late-comer to the conflict - I wonder why, didn't understand it in all these years. Look at today's featured article and its discussion. I preferred this version. I was reverted twice, by two people who had nothing to do with the article, and placed it on the talk, short civil discussion. On the lighter side: an example of the "long-standing infobox reverted" kind: Albert Ketèlbey, TFA on 9 August. Another example of that kind, going to be lead DYK soon: Josephine Butler. Most recently an RfC, Noël Coward. It's open on the talk, take part, get a feeling for the arguments ;) (a summary was on ANI, but I recommend see the real thing). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Vimy Memorial and Urquhart novel

I noticed the removal of The Stone Carvers from the Vimy Memorial article, and am leaving a note here as I am familiar with the topic: with the explosion of interest in the First World War in recent years, there has been third-party commentary on practically every cultural aspect, including novels such as that. Usually in relatively obscure academic works (most of which are published at eye-watering prices). But the sources are there. In this case, the source is still in article, somewhat ironically. Search the article for "Urquhart" and you will see that one of the sources is:

"Bolling, Gordon (2003). "Acts of (Re-)Construction: Traces of Germany in Jane Urquhart's Novel the Stone Carvers". In Antor, Heinz; Brown, Sylvia; Considine, John; Stierstorfer, Klaus. Refractions of Germany in Canadian Literature and Culture. Berlin: de Gruyter. pp. 295–318. ISBN 978-3-11-017666-7."

As I said, one of those obscure 'culture/memory/literature/commemoration' works. But it is there. Also: The Great War in Post-Memory Literature and Film. And Catching the Torch: Contemporary Canadian Literary Responses to World War I. Also Resurgences of the extra-textual and metatextual in Jane Urquhart's 'The stone carvers'. It has been a long time since I had to know what extra-textual and metatextual meant, but the material is out there (the whole 'nationhood forged in WWI' theme is very strong in the histories of the Dominions as they were then and has spawned a whole industry writing about it). To be fair, most of this belongs elsewhere (such as in the article on the novel itself), but mention of this novel has been in the article since 2006. Out of interest, of the works in Category:World War I novels, which would you consider to be 'notable' enough to warrant mention when this kind of question comes up? I had a look, and I'd never heard of The Good Soldier Švejk for instance, though I had heard of a number of the other famous ones. Fascinating. Carcharoth (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like it should be re-added; you may want to go ahead since Labattblueboy is apparently on a poor connection and having trouble editing. I took it out just because I couldn't see clear support for it, and I have seen enough non-notable mentions of that kind for me to be a little sceptical. As for the novels in that category, I only recognize a handful -- Remarque, Wells, Sinclair, a few others. I don't think one can settle it by how well-known the book is, though; I think one needs critical commentary of the sort you're citing here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll re-add it. Got a bit distracted by looking through that category! It is a mix of works by WWI veterans, SF and fantasy, young adult, and later historical novels. A real mixed bag. More categories or a list of some sort might help as just having works listed alphabetically in a category doesn't really help. Being able to sort by author and date of publication helps a lot more. I recognised works by Forester, Maugham, Hemmingway, Buchan, Sassoon, and by less well-known but classic WWI authors such as Richard Aldington, David Jones, Ernst Junger, Henri Barbusse. Some of those are classed as semi-autobiographical, with the straight memoirs and autobiographies in Category:Personal accounts of World War I, such as Good-Bye to All That (Graves), Testament of Youth (Brittain) and Seven Pillars of Wisdom (Lawrence). Hardly any of the later historical novels have had the impact (or third-party commentary) that the works of the veterans did. A number of Russian classics in there as well. What is interesting is seeing how much this gets covered by other language Wikipedias. fr:Catégorie:Littérature sur la Première Guerre mondiale is the French one. Only the real classics seem to end up with articles in other language Wikipedias. Heh, that's enough for now! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review - GoT

Hi Mike Christie, I hope everything is fine. I was wondering if you have the time.. could you take up(look at/review) the "Peer review" for Battle of the Bastards(Season 6, Episode 9 of Game of Thrones ("Spoiler alert if you have not seen the series")). I am trying to get this to a "Featured Artice".. (It has already been passed for "Good Article") and I need some one to review and tell me what to fix/do to make that happen.(Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Bastards/archive1) AffeL (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't promise anything, but if I do any more peer reviews in the next week or two I'll try to include this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Move of Anglo-Saxon military organisation

User:Owain Knight has moved Anglo-Saxon military organization to Anglo-Saxon Army. This raises a number of issues. 1. It was done without discussion, although a potentially controversial move should have been suggested first on the Talk page. 2. I do not agree with the move. There obviously were Anglo-Saxon armies, but not a single army, and certainly not an Anglo-Saxon Army with a capital "A". 3. There is a separate article on Anglo-Saxon warfare, and I do not see that a separate article is needed on military organisation or army. I would suggest a merger but I do not want to divert from the projects I am working on to sort out a merger, and I do not suppose that anyone else would take it on. As the Anglo-Saxon Army article is unreferenced I think the best thing to do it to delete it - which has been proposed in the past according to a note on the Talk page. Any views? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow in more detail, but my immediate thought is to post a note at the MilHist project page asking for opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Dudley Miles: After another look, I agree that AfD is appropriate, since it's unreferenced. Up to you if you want to ask at MilHist; I don't think there are many A-S warfare experts over there but someone might have a sensible opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, there was certainly no "Anglo-Saxon Army" as an analogue with "United States Army" ... so the title is wrong, if nothing else. Let me know if this goes to AfD... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It is now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Anglo-Saxon Army. I will give people a couple of days to comment and then - depending on feedback - take it to AfD. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Reception/Criticism sections

I'll write this before I read your essay; I'm very easily swayed! My issue is generally with how opinions, reviews and "receptions" are written. I think this is an issue in almost any article from biographies to film to song where there are no "over-arching" sources such as a biography. If there is such a source, for example saying that "X had good reviews" or "Everyone thought that Y was amazing" that is fine, but a lot of articles do not have this, such as our Emma Stone article and possibly another few I've read recently. In this case, the writers have to find their own "reviews" and that is the problem. Who decides what is representative? Who decides which sources to use? Who decides where to look? To read a lot of reviews and summarise them as "good" or "bad" is OR (unless there is something like Rotten Tomatoes that summarises reviews) and there is a danger that the writers either pick and choose reviews (however subconsciously) or quote so many to make them meaningless or miss out something important. Sometimes there might be one recognised "Gold Standard" review (for example, in my sphere of cricketers that would be Wisden or Cricinfo) but often there isn't. I'm really not sure what the solution is, or if one is needed. Not too sure if I'm making sense, it's been a long day! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The video game project has a list of approved sources for use, most or many or even all of which provide for reception. We of course prefer the magazine format, but those mostly died with the age of the Internet, so now reviews are mostly centered on "the big sites", with summaries provided by the aggregators. We would, of course, prefer book reviews to magazines, but those only show up when the game is an industry changer, or nearly so. --Izno (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

That sounds fairly ideal to be honest; it's areas where there aren't such "big sites" and aggregators where there might be a problem in my opinion. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the aggregators help. Sarastro1, I've seen several other recent comments (some on the essay's talk page) about OR in reception sections, generally in agreement with your comments above. In the absence of convenient summarizing sources it's hard to make a general rule. Somewhere between "only have a reception section if there are sources summarizing the overall reception" and "just list every reviewer's opinion, along with their name" there must be a happy medium. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it helps if the writer knows the area in which they are writing. If you know lots about music, for example, you know where to look and what the most respected sites, magazines, books, etc might be. This means that if you were writing about Jimi Hendrix (which I realise is a terrible example as the chap has something like 1,000 biographies and citing critical opinion would be easy), you would know whether a particular opinion carried any weight or not. To some extent, this would still be OR but at least it would reflect the leading literature and you would realise it didn't matter what the music reviewer of the Easter Island Examiner had to say. The greater problem comes when the article is written by a Hendrix fan, or someone who just feels like writing about Hendrix. Then, they just do a search and put down what comes up in Google, or what is easily available online. Weighting, and being representative, are less important than availability. If all that they can find is the Easter Island Examiner, that is what goes into the article. However, even for the "expert" there is still the problem that no over-arching source will be able to justify their choice of "reviews" or summary of general opinion.

One possible solution can be when there is another source to consult, such as an in-depth feature in a major source (there was a Vanity Fair feature on Stone cited in that article but it didn't really mention reviews I don't think), or obituaries. But this is not always the case. (It also highlights another little concern of mine that in reality, no "current" artists, albums, sportspeople, etc can really be FA as their career is ongoing and subject to change. As nominators rarely hang around, the articles often become out-dated very quickly. But that is another story.) Sarastro1 (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I added "Be careful to avoid original research in these sentences, such as "Praised by most reviewers" when you can't be sure you've seen a representative sample of all the reviews" to the essay, on the basis of your comments above. I think the approved sources list mentioned by Izno is a good idea; I would hope something like that is maintained by other WikiProjects that often include articles with reception sections. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

A PR for Taylor Swift

Thank you for dropping by at the Stone FAC. I have recently filed Swift's article at PR for further scrutiny. If you have time and interest, I'd love to see any comments you have. No hurry and compunction at all. Cheers - FrB.TG (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

FrB.TG: I probably won't have time, but if I do any more PRs in the next couple of weeks I'll try to include it. By the way, I think you mean "compulsion", not "compunction"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You got me there! FrB.TG (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

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

Mentoring

Ten signed up so far and that's before I've made my general trawl for volunteers which I will do in a couple of days. I'm ready to go live with the proposal when we have, say, a dozen names on the list – what do you say? Brianboulton (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Twelve certainly seems enough; given that a new nom from an inexperienced mentor only shows up every few days, I think we probably have enough to get started now, but there's no hurry. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any editors that you've had close working relationships in the past, who might be prepared if you asked them? (I twisted a few arms). Anyway, I think we'll go live this weekend even if the total is still only 10. I'll begin my general trawl then. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps surprisingly, no, I don't. I haven't been a very collaborative person, on content, at least. I hadn't thought about it till you asked; it seems odd I've been here ten years without establishing working relationships with other content editors, but that seems to be the case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I have gone live at Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC, and asked the coords for an appropriate link in the FAC instructions. I will be sending out invites tonight to join the list. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Links all in place, and 27 would-be mentors signed up so far. It is particularly gratifying that these include all of the top five on the WP:WBFAN list who are still active. Brianboulton (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's great to see. I hope we see new nominators take advantage of this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

• New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
• Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
• TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
• OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Small typo in FAC statistics

Hello Mike Christie, thank you for taking the time to set up these statistics. Not a big deal, but I did 2 source and 1 "ordinary" reviews in August (not 1:2). As a typical German I double-checked these numbers of course ;). Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I see your source reviews for Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King? and Millipede; I'll have to get home and see what I have for the other reviews, but yes, looks like I have it wrong. Danke sehr! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

GermanJoe: I had Millipedede down as a regular review, not a source review. Now fixed in my data and I'll upload a revised version later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...

Super Science Stories
... you were recipient no. 233 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Bluebuck map

Hi, as we discussed on the FAC, I've found what I think is the most appropriate map to use in the bluebuck article. This map:[1] From this paper:[2] It shows fossil localities, and the written locations of key areas mentioned in the text... FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

But if we want to make a really informative image, we would combine that info with the historical distribution shown in this map (ignore the rainfall info):[3] From this source:[4] Surely outside my capabilities, if it is going to be a nice-looking SVG! FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

And here's a blank SVG map which should be fine to use if you zooom in on South Africa:[5] The new map should probably replace the one in the infobox, which doesn't have a proper source stated. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see what I can do; might be a couple of days till I can get to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

No rush! FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at the linked maps, and I don't think any of them is really ideal. I think it would be better to request one at the map workshop, if you still agree it would be worth adding. With a good quality blank SVG map I could add labels, but I think we'll get better results by asking someone with access to map data to produce a targeted map. Here's the list of place names I think should be on the map:

• The Cape Floristic Region
• Lesotho
• Tigerhoek
• Soetemelksvlei
• Caledon
• Swellendam
• Bredasdorp
• Plettenberg Bay
• Either Swartklip or the Hottentots Holland mountains

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

By not ideal, do you mean stylistically, or how? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The blank world map from commons has a grey background for the countries; the white line showing the borders is just the background showing through. I could change that to be white shapes with black borders, but then the country borders would appear doubled, so that will only work if we don't have borders visible in the picture. Since Lesotho is mentioned I don't think that's an option. This grey on white format is what you used for the infobox distribution map, which does give the reader the basic information, and I think it works well there. That map is the reason I don't think another map was necessary for FA. The reason I think it might be worth doing a second map is that the discussion in the distribution section talks about fossils and about changing habitat; none of that is really easy to parse unless you know where those places are.

This one appears to be a jpg, so I can't easily clean off the existing labels; and the font is a little ugly too. The one showing rainfall is a jpg and presumably would be copyrighted anyway.

If you don't think it's worth it, that's fine, but if we can agree on what a map for the distribution section ought to tell the reader I think it might be worth a try at the map workshop. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, if I wasn't clear, I merely meant that the information on those maps should be recreated on a new map (borders, locations, names), not that we should use the maps themselves (which would be copyrighted). Could be stylistically simple. FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Edward the Elder

An editor is insisting that in Edward the Elder, "Eadweard cyning" means "Edward of God". I have pointed out at Talk:Edward the Elder#Cyning that cyning means king, and I have reverted twice, but he has each time reverted back. Can you take a look? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Nortonius helped out; I've added the article to my watchlist and will comment if the issue comes back up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of GikII

The article GikII has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Good finds. Could you add that Turkish ref to the page as well? I think we can live the article with the two news references, the French one does seem to mention the conference several times, and two newspaper articles would satisfy the "multiple sources" requirement, at least on the low end of things :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Your FAC-question about image renewals

Hello Mike Christie and Jo-Jo Eumerus, unfortunately looking for renewals can be quite time-consuming. On files, where an experienced uploader like AdamBMorgan explicitly mentioned a sufficient search for renewals (as in File:Weird Tales March 1923.jpg), I would usually simply AGF and probably spotcheck just 1 image. Other files with a "not renewed" claim but no apparent previous search should be checked more thoroughly here:

1. Select the correct 2 years to search for on the linked site above. The years to check are calculated as "original copyright date + 27 and + 28 years". There is some overlap and leeway in the deadline for renewals, so a check will have to cover 2 possible years. Note: sometimes years are split in 2 archives, which doesn't make searching any easier.
2. Select the correct type of publication, in this case possibly two types: "Periodicals" and "Contributions for periodicals" depending on the image in question.
3. Open the selected archive(s) (with the link labelled as "Renewals") and search for entries, primarily searching for the publication's title (i.e. "Weird Tales"). Alternatively looking for the artist/author or the publisher may be useful as well.
4. On a more positive note: entries are sorted by title and month, so if you are looking for "Weird Tales" for a specific month, you'll also see other WT entries from earlier and later months at a glance - and don't have to repeat the search for other images for the same period.

Doing such a check for File:WeirdTalesv30n4pg419 Shunned House.png shows: no renewals for the whole magazine, and a few renewals for some contributions (only 4-5). But no entries that match the file's specific image information (author, image title, etc.) - so this file should be OK. I have added a note to the image's license information for clarity. (see edit history of file) ==> A similar check should be done for a few more images, especially for images from inexperienced uploaders, or when a search for renewals is not explicitly mentioned. Hope that helps a bit, please ping me anytime if you need further information. GermanJoe (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

GermanJoe I wonder if this could make a good help page, say on commons:Help:Copyright renewal checking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, most of it is actually available in the copyright-related guidelines and help pages on Commons, it's just difficult to find and comprehend for laypeople (including myself) with a lot of legal jargon. If you are interested in some more details, see Commons:Hirtle chart with an overview of the 30+ (!) different copyright scenarios (although most of them could be streamlined into 6-10 main reasons and are just split for better accessibility in the table). It's based on [6], where a lot more additional ressources are available in the "Notes" section. The above description is quite incomplete and doesn't begin to cover more complex situations or exceptional cases. So it would be better if such a guidance would be written by a real expert. Anyway, hope it helps as a rather simplified rough overview - feel free to copy it for your personal usage, if you find it useful. GermanJoe (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

GermanJoe Um, my question was about how to check for copyright renewals and registrations, which commons:COM:HIRTLE does not discuss and on a quick glance neither the links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You can find some guides about searching for renewals in the "Notes" section of the external link, specifically note #8. The Commons Hirtle page is just a locally revised version of this external information. GermanJoe (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I have done a few more renewal searches and added the information to FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus seems busy in real life :) (and has already contributed a lot of time with various image reviews - thank you), so I hope that helps a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It does; thank you very much, both of you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Chad Harris-Crane - featured article candidate

Hello! I apologize for the inconvenience again. Thank you again for your help with previous FAC. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback for my current FAC ( Chad Harris-Crane). The FAC currently has a very users who have commented, and an image review. I would greatly appreciate a fresh pair of eyes with this article, as I want to improve as a contributor on here as I am trying to get some of my GAs promoted to featured articles. I understand that you are busy, so it is completely okay if you are unable or would not like to do this.

The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chad Harris-Crane/archive1. Aoba47 (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi -- I'm traveling at the moment and don't have enough connected time to do much editing. I'll be back next week and will take a look at FAC then; if you still need a review I will see if I have time. I tend to focus on reviewing the articles down towards the bottom of the list, though, since those are in danger of being archived if nobody reviews them, so I may end up reviewing something else if there are urgent ones to do. Either way, good luck with the FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! And hope you have a wonderful time while you are traveling. Aoba47 (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I hope that you had a wonderful time traveling and had a safe and easy return home. I was wondering if you could provide some comments to my FAC. Currently, I have had four users who have commented, and an image and source review already completed so it is not in any danger of being archived due to lack of activity (in fact, it is more so on the verge of completion), but I would greatly value your comments not only for FAC, but also just to make the article the strongest it can possibly be and improve my abilities when tackling future articles. I understand and appreciate your preference to review articles farther down the list, so I understand if you are either too busy or not interested in commenting on my FAC. Thank you either way. Aoba47 (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. I just wanted to check, and see if you could provide some comments on my FAC. I understand if you are too busy, but I just wanted to double-check with you. Aoba47 (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi -- I'm a bit distracted at the moment, but am planning to nominate another FAC candidate in the next few days. When I do that I'll start reviewing again and will work from the bottom of the list, so if your FAC is languishing down there I will probably give it a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I apologize for the intrusion, and good luck with your FAC candidate. Aoba47 (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No need to apologize; I don't mind being asked, but I can't always help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

FAC

Hello, I'm ATS. Ike Altgens is a Featured article candidate. I hope you have a few moments to check this article against the criteria so I may address any concerns and see this nomination through. My thanks in advance. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Chad Harris-Crane FAC

Hi Mike, if you have some time I'd value your input here -- quite a lot of commentary but would be good to hear from someone of your broad FA experience. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, was away for the weekend. Yes, I can take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

• New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
• New Library Card Platform and Conference news
• Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Followup

If you don't think there was politicized canvassing in the previous discussion of that stuff, a) look how many times that discussion was flagged for canvassing by different people (and note that all the canvassing was from one direction); and b) go read WT:FAC during the same several weeks, where you'll see ARBCOM-actionable hate-spewing against all MoS editors, personal attacks against specific ones, blatant lies and character assassination about anyone disagreeing with FAC canon, false equivalence and scapegoating of MoS when people said they were leaving WP over the tiresomeness of infobox debates (infoboxes are not an MoS issue at all – MoS is completely neutral on them), and multiple proposals for an "anti-MoS" all for FA and its clique. That's the very definition of politicization. If you go to FAC and try to drum up unnatural attention to another MoS discussion, it's just going to start all over again. Let people who actually care about this, which is probably 5 or 10% of the FAC regulars, come into the discussion on their own, which they inevitably will (and see that their concerns are actually being directly addressed, civilly), instead of being whipped into another anti-MoS crusade as a voting bloc on the basis of false agit-prop. You may have noticed I've been almost entirely absent from WP for weeks on end. It's specifically to get away from the hate-spewing invective of the instigators in that specific crowd. If this were any topical dispute of any kind at all (Israel vs. Palestine, whatever), numerous of those people would be subjected to topic bans, but they get away with it because virtually no admins will enforce discretionary sanctions or anything else if it's an attack on MoS/AT regulars. That, too, is entirely political.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mike Christie. I think as you can see by the above passage, User:SMcCandlish is probably not someone with whom it is possible to deal with on a rational level. I don't know what's eating him, but something is. Anyway, my experience with this editor is that to him everything is political and everything is personal and everything that he disagrees with is done in bad faith. Whatever is going on with this editor, I expect that one way or another he won't be here much longer, and for that reason -- but also because its the right thing to do -- I wouldn't pay attention to his objections or demands (if you can even figure out what they are), amd just carry on and do what you think is best. We can't give an inch to behavior like this. That's my two cents anyway. Herostratus (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus, thanks for the input. I think I have to assume good faith here, though I assume you've interacted with SMcCandlish for longer than I have and have reached your conclusions about his behaviour on that basis. SMcCandlish, I'll reply mostly at the MoS talk page, but I appreciate you don't enjoy invective directed against you any more than anyone else would. I don't think I've ever said anything negative about you, so perhaps you can assume I too am acting in good faith. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The only thing "eating me" is the unabashed, perpetual character assassination by you and the rest of your FAC clique against me and the rest of the MoS regulars and anyone else who dares disagree with you (whether it be an MoS matter, a non-MoS matter like infoboxes, or whatever).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of having said anything negative about you or other MoS regulars. If you can find a diff that shows otherwise, please share it; I think I'm generally pretty mild-mannered in my talk page comments, so I'd be truly surprised if you can find something that fits the description of "character assassination". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

Edward the Elder

Hi Mike. An IP deleted "His name means "protector of wealth"." I reverted as I thought it is relevant, and the IP deleted again at [7]. Can you see what you think please. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi -- this is something I've run up against a couple of times. On the whole I don't think it's really necessary to include the etymology of a name in a biography unless the sources explicitly discuss the name when talking about the subject of the biography. It's obviously relevant to Æthelred the Unready, but for Edward I'm less convinced. Do you feel these etymologies should be included in A-S monarch articles as a matter of course? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The source cited, Barbara Yorke on Edward as Ætheling, does discuss his name. Her discussion concerns which ancestors used elements of his name, but she does explain its meaning. I think it is relevant as Yorke mentions it and the meaning was one his parents would have been aware of at the time, whereas parents giving that name today would not be. However, I do not feel strongly if you think it is not appropriate. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If Yorke covers it and you feel her points are worth including, that's a good argument, but unless I'm mistaken the version the IP edited only included the definition, not the discussion. I think if you re-add it in the body, with Yorke's points, that would be reasonable. I don't have that source so I can't really judge the worth of the material. You might post on the talk page first, but since it's an IP they won't have a watchlist and they may not notice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Getting Edward to FAC will be my next Anglo-Saxon project, probably after Christmas, and I have posted a note on the talk page explaining this and that I will look further at the issue then. (I currently have Æthelflæd at A-Class and I am planning to ask you to comment when and if I can get it to FAC.) Dudley Miles (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I saw Æthelflæd was nominated, and I'll be happy to review it when the time comes. We're getting a lot closer to having every major A-S king at featured level. The later ones are a lot harder because there's so much more source material, of course; that was part of why I stopped in the ninth century. Do you have visions of getting them all done? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

My long term plan is to get every AS king after Æthelwulf to FA, apart from Æthelstan which is already FA and Harold II which Ealdgth says she is going to work on. It will be very long term as I work slowly and spend much of my time on nature reserves. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Guidance

I'd like to take you up on your offer of guidance re selecting projects. Owing to my background and experience, I feel that I can most help out in the articles about history, particularly antiquity. At this time, I'm overhauling the Romulus and Remus article. It needs it! Anyway, thanks for everything.InformationvsInjustice (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help. I've added that article to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it. If you have any specific questions, let me know; or if you'd like me to review that article as you work on it, I'd be happy to do that too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick check-in. The grunt work on Romulus and Remus is done. It's content has been limited to their tale, and the legend of the founding of Rome is in a new Romulus article. Also, I just completed a She-wolf (Roman mythology) article, which is intended to properly limit the Capitoline Wolf article to the statue. If you are so inclined, any feedback would be welcome.  :-) Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic Adventures for TFA

• Hi Mike. This is just a friendly note to let you know that the Fantastic Adventures article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 10, 2016. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 10, 2016. Thanks!  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi; thanks for the note! The text looks fine as is, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mike. It's 1949 characters; TFA text is always between 1000 and 1200 characters. I'm not sure what to trim on this one; if you want to take a whack at pruning it, please feel free. There's a character counter here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Done -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks great, I tweaked just a little. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick question, what does "upmarket" mean here? (Not upmarket, I bet.) More circulation, higher cover price, association with a publishing house? - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Higher quality, mostly -- Browne wanted to get away from the magazine's pulp roots, and publish stories that were more like something The Saturday Evening Post or Collier's might publish. Of course higher circulation was the goal too, but a high-circulation magazine isn't necessarily upmarket -- The Shadow had very high circulation in its heyday, but it was a pulp. Generally the posher magazines did have high circulation because they needed high revenue to pay the best rates to their writers. Another consequence was that the upmarket magazines could afford to use better quality paper, rather than woodpulp stock, so they could print higher quality and higher resolution images, which was necessary for high-paying advertisers. That meant most upmarket magazines were slicks, rather than pulps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually there's another minor issue -- McCauley's covers weren't melodramatic action scenes; they were popular but should be separated from that description. (I think I introduced that error when I did the original trim.) I'm heading out now but will take a look when I get back, if you haven't fixed it by then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I made that change (if that's okay) ... and now we're at 1192, so I don't have room to be more specific about what "upmarket" means. Nothing short and snappy is coming to me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I went back and reread the sources and made some more tweaks. McCauley's covers often (but not always) featured action scenes as well as the beautiful women, so I think this new wording works. Now at 1191. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Precious again, your Fantastic Adventures, where "artistic highlights include a galloping T. Rex and a phallic submarine", and your willingness to serve as TFA coordinator!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

For assistance beyond the call of duty

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For going the extra mile to help improve my contributions and participation in the community Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas
	Hoping you stay warm and have lots of good times and good food this holiday season! White Arabian Filly Neigh

And the same to you and yours! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Baton pass

• Hi Mike. I've scheduled all the way up to December and updated all of the subpages. TFA is all yours now.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks; I'll do a few days this weekend, just to make sure I have it straight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Love, Inc. (TV series) - featured article candidate

Hello again! I apologize for always asking for your help with my nominations at FAC. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on my current FAC (Love, Inc.). I would greatly appreciate a fresh pair of eyes with this nomination as I have put a lot of work into expanding this article on this relatively obscure television show and want to make it the best that it can be (regardless of whether or not it is promoted) and improve my skills as a user on here as well. I understand that you are busy, so it is completely okay if you are unable or would not like to do this. Just for your knowledge, the FAC currently has three "support" votes and a source and image review.

The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love, Inc. (TV series)/archive1. Thank you either way, and I hope you are having a wonderful end of 2016 so far (this has been a crazy year). Aoba47 (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi -- I don't think I'll have time for any reviews this week as I'm busy in real life and have a couple of on-wiki projects going on that I should be paying attention to, but if it's still waiting in a week or two I should have time over Christmas. With three supports it has a decent chance of being promoted before I look at it in any case. Good luck with it! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response! Good luck with your on-wiki projects, and I hope you have a wonderful Christmas (if you practice it) and a great end of the year. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, just wanted to update you that my article has been promoted. Thank you again for your help and I am hoping you are having a wonderful holidays. I was wondering if you could look at the FAC for Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album) sometime in the future. I was asked to review it by the nominator, and I opposed it as I believe it is not at the level expected for a featured article. However, since I am a very inexperienced reviewer especially in the context of FAC, I was wondering if you could look through it to see if I was being too harsh as I feel somewhat bad for putting up an oppose note, especially since it is near the bottom of the FAC backlog and has been waiting a while for feedback. Have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

And the same to you, from the sf magazine person, who is no longer really an Anglo-Saxon king person, but is considering becoming an upper palaeolithic person. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Until I get moved, I'm more the "hit random article and fix errors" person ... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

You're moving? Are you staying in Illinois? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, we're moving. Mom died early last month so we're free of Illinois. Not quite sure where yet, have to get the house sold before we know how much we have to play with, which will have some bearing on where we go. Ozarks, Cumberland Plateau, or possibly Colorado Plateau or Southern Wyoming... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Sad news before Christmas; I'm sorry. Seems unlikely you'll be coming anywhere near Long Island but let me know if you do. I've moved far too many times; the memory of how unpleasant an experience it is takes a long time to fade. But it can be an opportunity to shed unnecessary baggage and start over with less in the attic. All the best with the move, and the holiday season. In the Saturnalia spirit, here's a favourite poem of mine from Piet Hein: "In ancient times, Christmas was a feast/Not of the spirit, but of meat and drink/Think about that this Christmas, or at least/As soon thereafter as you're fit to think". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

We need a new "anti-thanks" button...

Or maybe a "whimper" button... for this. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. My first month as TFA scheduler and look what I've done. I know you're not keen on having your articles on the front page; I promise to keep an eye on it and try to keep it clean. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Just had one two days ago. Of course, at this rate, I'm going to run out of possibles since I haven't exactly been cranking them out lately. And won't really have the time until we get moved and set up. At least not at the level I used to. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice you'd just had one; if you were less prolific I'd change this for somebody else's, but you have so many you'll get multiple TFAs every year anyway. Happy New Year! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

TFAR blurbs

FWIW, copying in the lead before copying in the blurbs wasn't a mistake ... in fact, in cases where the lead hasn't been copied in, I usually copy it in myself and then self-revert. Some people make great edits at TFAR to the blurbs; some, not so much. So I like to work from the lead as well as the TFAR blurb. Also, it's useful being able to get a diff between the TFA text and the article lead by hitting one button. - Dank (push to talk) 16:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that in future when there's a TFAR blurb to work from. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A little favour

I wonder if I could ask you to cast your eye over the prose of Viking metal (FAC here)? I'd just like someone to take another look at it. No problem if you can't manage it. Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure; tomorrow, or maybe over the weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

If you find yourself with a few spare moments, could you cast your eye over Jennifer Lawrence (FAC here)? Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I can probably get to it some time this weekend, but I was hoping to get my next article in shape to nominate before my current one promotes, so I was planning to work on that during the week. (Hey, you can fix that by refusing to promote my article till I do the review, right? :o)) I think Sunday evening would work if I haven't gotten to it by then. Viking metal turned out to be unexpectedly interesting, by the way, and I think it's really improved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be great, there's no huge rush. Thanks for your review on Viking Metal as well. I'd love to refuse to promote, but everything is a little jammed at the moment while we wait for source and image reviews! I can't even threaten right now! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Anything particular you want me to look at? With Viking metal it was clear that the prose could be improved. Do you have any specific concerns? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Just the traditional actor biography problem of representing the sources accurately; are we giving a sensible overview of her career? And the prose in general. I had a quick look and it seemed very slightly choppy, but I didn't look too carefully so I'd just like some other eyes on it. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1, I'm not going to get to this tonight but can probably make it tomorrow. I see there have been more comments since you posted here; do you still want me to take a look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we might be OK for now. We'll see how things go for the next couple of days. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, let me know. I'm happy to do a review when you ping me, if I have time, but since others have commented I thought it might be best to keep the powder dry. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The Monster (novella)

Hi Mike I was thrilled to see this go to TFA (especially because Maria was a friend) but in case you ever wondered, this is the reason we dislike TFA. In my view Maria went through one of the worst experiences of any woman in terms of bullying, etc, in 2012 when Pilgrim at Tinker Creek ran for TFA. Discussion is here in case you've never seen it. I'm not complaining, just pointing out, in case you were unaware, why some of us run for the hills on TFA day and why a number of us are no longer around or only around sporadically. Victoriaearle (tk) 02:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Victoria -- thanks for the note and the links. I only found out how contentious infoboxes could be late last year, when I discovered there had been an ArbCom case, and saw the request for further remedies; that was around the time Cassianto and Tim Riley stopped editing. I think it's one of the least productive discussions I've ever seen here on Wikipedia. Personally I think some form of INFOBOXVAR based on ENGVAR might be a solution, but it couldn't be as broad as ENGVAR because there are some cases where they're clearly useful; for example it would be silly to have a guideline which prevented editors adding a taxobox to an animal article. I saw this recently and I wonder if the two topics could be combined into a single RfC. The common ground between the two questions is whether changes in article presentation that don't add or remove content count as stylistic variations that might be covered by something like WP:STYLEVAR. As a practical matter the MoS is treated like policy, which is usually harmless because the MoS is pretty sensible. One possible outcome of any such RfC might be that the MoS would formally become policy, which would remove the ambiguity but in the other direction. I don't see that happening for infoboxes, of course. The bottom line is that I think some definiteness, regardless of how little it might be liked by some editors, would be better for the project than the debates that spring up and which are losing us good editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

My feeling is that if there's ambiguity it's okay not to have a box, and that it's also okay to assume that the editor who brought the article through FAC made an editorial decision about presentation. There is some ambiguity in this case. The version with the box, says the publisher was Harpers Magazine, which is true, but it was reissued a year later by HarperCollins. That ambiguity also brings the date into question - the box parameters are beneath the book's caption stating it was published in 1899, whereas the box claims 1898. Both are right, as it happens, but it's confusing. I'm not convinced "Fiction" and "Novella" are genres (I'd say a novella is a form), and Naturalism (literature) might the best description for Crane's work, but I'd want to check a source before slipping that into the box. Anyway, I rarely do anything like that these days and I hope it doesn't blow up. I'm a fan of tolerance and not trying to impose stylistic changes for the sake of imposing, but rather understanding that not every article can be readily distilled with a few select parameters. Over the years I've tried my best to stay away from these discussions (because, as you say they are the least productive on WP); last night's reversion was uncharacteristic. Yes, I agree that if we could find a way forward to pin down some definiteness it might be helpful. Victoriaearle (tk) 14:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Another one, if you have time!

We have a few supports on Burning Rangers (FAC here) but I'd like another look at the prose as no one seems to actually have reviewed that aspect fully. So... if you are at a loose end...! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get my next article up to snuff, but will see if I have time. However, I've been feeling a bit reticent about reviewing articles with reception sections, because having written this, I don't want to cite it as if it were a MoS guideline, but I find problems of that kind in many reception sections. Just taking a quick look at Burning Rangers I see a lot of "A said B". How would you feel about my leaving a link to that essay and saying I think it might be helpful? I don't want to come on like some self-aggrandizing prose god, but I would hope the essay is helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. I haven't actually looked at the article too closely but was just conscious that there was no in depth prose review; we are a little short of prose reviewers at the moment. Maybe they are still recovering from Christmas! And from now on, I think you should change your signature to "The Self-Aggrandising Prose God". Sarastro1 (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Russell family (Passions) - featured article candidate

Hello again! I apologize for always asking for your help with my nominations at FAC. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on my current FAC for the Russell family (Passions). I would greatly appreciate a fresh pair of eyes with this nomination as I have put a lot of work into expanding this article on this soap opera and want to make it the best that it can be (regardless of whether or not it is promoted) and improve my skills as a user on here as well.

I understand that you are busy, so it is completely okay if you are unable or would not like to do this. Just for your knowledge, the FAC currently has three "support" votes and a source and image review. I was recently advised to improve the prose and you helped me a great deal with the FAC for Chad Harris-Crane so I would greatly appreciate your help here again.

The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russell family (Passions)/archive1. Thank you either way, and I hope you are having a wonderful start of your new year. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi -- I just nominated an article at FAC and I always try to do some reviews after I nominate, so I'll be taking a look over the next few days. I'll probably review some articles near the end of the list, though; I hate to see articles get archived because they don't have enough reviews. Once I've done that, if your article is still waiting, I'll be glad to take a look. I see Ian feels a copyedit would help, so I'll do that if I get to it. Might be a week or two though. Best of luck with the article -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you and good luck with your FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

• Partner resource expansions
• New search tool for finding TWL resources
• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Alexandra Stan v. Marcel Prodan

Hi there! Could you do a copy-edit on the article above, as well? I think it has many grammar issues (especially tense), and it would help with its GAR. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If I get time I will, but I can't guarantee anything -- when I put up an article at FA I try to do several reviews in return, and I need to do those first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick Question about Redirecting

Hello, thank you again for your review at my FAC. While revising the article for Russell family (Passions), I noticed that all of the information from the two articles Whitney Russell and T. C. Russell can already be found on the main page related to the fictional family. Even though both articles have been passed as good articles, I think that they can be safely redirected to the Russell family (Passions) article. I was wondering if I could get your opinion about this: if the articles should be redirected and if so, how would I go about the process of doing so? I apologize for any inconvenience. I hope you are having a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in that case I think those could be redirected. If you haven't created a redirect before, there are instructions here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Aoba47 (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nike-X/archive1 - well, I remain a bit concerned about most of the remaining points. I can't say I'm getting warm and fuzzies from the nominator either. The discussion on the source here where I asked "Okay.... then what is the source for the first part of the sentence? If the reference at the end of the two sentences doesn't cover both sentences - does this sort of unsourced sentence followed by a sourced sentence happen elsewhere in the article?" and got a reply of "a) the one before and after it, b) no idea.". Or a further question "Did you access the actual book or just through google snippets/page preview?" and got the reply "I don't recall. " I also remain concerned about the reliance on the source from Bell Labs. Since the whole article appears to imply that Bell Labs was the main contractor, I'm not sure it's the best independent source. But the replies on the other issues above (especially the one about whether the sentence is covered by the source or not) gives me great pause. I just don't have the time to dig into the situation enough to do a full dig into it and get all the sources and see if every sentence matches up to the sources given. I just can't deal with that much flak. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I have a good relationship with the nominator; I've reviewed other articles of his. I'll see if I can work through the source review issues with him. He hasn't been to FAC much, and I suspect he's not yet acquired the thick skin and calm demeanour that works best for a nominator. I'd like to see him come back to FAC with other articles of his; he's done a series of excellent articles on radar and missile defence systems and there's no reason he can't get several more stars. I'll ping you on your talk page if I have specific questions about your source comments, if that's OK. I doubt it'll be this weekend -- I have about four active FAC reviews I have to go back to first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Ce

Hello, Mike. May I ask you for a favor? I was wondering if you had the time to copyedit Hrithik Roshan. I will appreciate your help (no problem if you cannot). Thank you either way. – FrB.TG (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't promise anything, and if I do get to it it'll be at least a week or two till I have time -- I have several FAC reviews going at the moment and since those are deadline-driven I need to attend to them first. If I have time I'll take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It's okay. You seem to have many commitments here. It's not something it really needs, just something I thought would be nice. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

New FAC

Hi Mike. I have nominated Æthelflæd at FAC. Any comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It'll be a week or more till I can get to it; I'm backed up with reviews at the moment. I'll put it on my watchlist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

Btw, I pinged David because he's asked to be pinged for image issues. If you'd like me to ping you as well whenever there's a comment about the image during your month, I'll be happy to. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but no need; I have ERRORS watchlisted and I'll always reply if I can. From watching it over the last month or two I'm impressed with how quickly things get dealt with there! Ping me if you really need me to comment and I haven't shown up, but as a rule I'm happy to let the experienced editors handle things there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought your first month went really well. - Dank (push to talk) 00:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! No disasters, and I enjoyed looking through old FAs and figuring out what to run. I hang around FAC enough that I thought I'd recognize most of them, but there are a lot of FAs now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxons

Do you hate the Anglo-Saxons? I can't see any other explanation for claiming everything before 600 AD was fake. People never went to such great lengths to make things up, and obvious made-up things (Geoffrey of Monmouth's pre-Cassivelaunus list, Port founding Portsmouth) are obvious. Is it because they were pagans? We have literally nothing other than the textual sources, given the archeological evidence is historically worthless and excavations are rare. To say Ælle wasn't real is ridiculous. There is literally no alternative. If you say he didn't exist then you're damning an interesting area of history to be trampled on and forgotten. The Britons have already had this happen to them (thousands of books about how attested people from the Migration Period didn't exist). ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Since you ask, I'm keeping it because I prefer to be able to search my talk page archives and see all the conversations, rather than having to hunt through diffs for a conversation that I know I remember but isn't in the archives. I didn't reply because I took it to be a rhetorical question, and because we were already having the discussion at Talk:Ælle of Sussex. I plan to clean up some of the technical problems with that article in the next month or two: if you have other suggestions for improvement please post them at the talk page, or go ahead and implement them. It appears you're knowledgeable in that area and we can always use more editors who know what they're talking about. And I'll repeat my offer to help, and answer questions; it seemed from that conversation that there are some Wikipedia policies you're not completely familiar with yet. If you'd like to be effective as an editor, by which I mean your edits to articles remaining in place, I think you'd be best off understanding what people mean by verifiability and reliable sources. These words have specific meanings here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Marvel Science Stories scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Marvel Science Stories article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 13, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 13, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the "part of two booms in science fiction magazine publishing, in 1939 and again in 1950"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Another request...

Not sure what your workload is like, but I'd appreciate someone taking a look at Nyuserre Ini (FAC here). It's looking OK on content based on the review, but the prose looks like it needs a little work. No worries if not. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a couple of things I want to get done this weekend, but will try to take a look after that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1: I finally got to this. You're quite right; the author is actually not a native English-speaker, and in a couple of places it shows, though they're extraordinarily fluent for a non-native. I tweaked a few things and will do another pass after the nominator responds. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Eve Russell - featured article candidate

I've nominated the article about the episode Eve Russell for Featured Article consideration. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on this nomination. I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience.

The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eve Russell/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of another round of reviews but am probably going to leave this for a bit since there are a few languishing at the bottom of FAC that need reviews to avoid being archived. I'll keep an eye and if it gets to the bottom of the list and needs a review, please ping me again, though as usual I can't promise anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries, thank you for the response! It should wrap up relatively soon as it only needs a source review now. Aoba47 (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Mike, I don't believe we have really communicated here on Wikipedia before, so nice to meet you ;). Anyway, I see you've been around the block before when it comes to FAC, but you do have a lot on your plate. I'm here because there have been some concerns regarding my open FAC for Make Me Like You and I was wondering if you could assist me, if you're not busy of course. If you are, do you know of anyone else who could possibly help me out? Thank you very much, Carbrera (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC).

I should be able to get to this over the weekend, though there's one other article I'm going to try to review first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Carbrera, it's now been archived -- if you would like me to help improve the article to get it through FAC, let me know here or ping me at the article talk page and I'll comment there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That is beyond generous of you. If you wouldn't mind of course, I would be so grateful. Thank you very much, Carbrera (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC).

I'll see if I can make a start this weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Léal Souvenir

Thanks for the intervention. I could see what was going on, but cant really do anything at work - and it was a long, long, late night week! Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Quick Question about Reference Formatting

Hello, I apologize for the intrusion again. I just have a quick question about the formatting for a few of my references as I keep receiving error messages. I am currently working on an article about an EP in one of my sandboxes (here), and I keep getting error messages for the following references: 10, 11, and 12. I was wondering if you could help me figure out what I am doing wrong, as I am not sure why the error messages keep popping up and I would like to correct this before doing further work on the rest of my draft. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: If you were to click on the help link presented in the bad version (I've since fixed it), you would see that the error means the template found weird characters that aren't well-supported by browsers. In this case, the characters are basically invisible, which is why you couldn't see what you were doing wrong. In the future, be careful with the lines you are copy-and-pasting, and you should avoid the problem. --Izno (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Izno. Aoba47, the reason Izno mentions copy-and-pasting is that word processors such as Word tend to include invisible characters when they copy, and that's the likeliest source of this problem. If you're working in Chrome you can paste the buffer as plain test with Ctrl-Shift-V, which should avoid most instances of this problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I usually sanitize by running it through notepad++, since apparently Ctrl-Shift-V opens up Adblock+ on Firefox. --Izno (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: Thank you for your response and I apologize for the trouble. I will be more careful and aware about this in the future. I am not sure why I did not just click on the help links lol. Hope you both have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Fantasy Book

I just promoted this and noticed that the title of the article isn't italicised like all the other magazine articles (although it is in the main body). Glitch, or deliberate? (Not that the world will end in any case; maybe I'm being thick) Sarastro1 (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Glitch. Thanks for spotting that! And now that I'm about to nominate another article, I'll be doing more reviews; I'll see if I can get to the acne article, though I am going to try to get some content work done this weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

My comment

Hi Mike, I'm taking a few days off because of a family emergency. Thought I'd let you know, because I won't be able to reply to your post until I'm back again (but I have seen it). Best, Victoriaearle (tk) 20:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note -- I hope the emergency is nothing serious. Looks like the conversation will still be going on when you get back. I look forward to your comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I posted a reply today. Thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering you: I regret having posted this comment. Would you mind if I delete it? There aren't any replies so it won't interfere with the threading or the page flow. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with you deleting it, though I don't recall if there are any etiquette rules about striking posts in project space instead of deleting. But why? It's a perfectly coherent and well-argued comment. I don't agree with everything you say, but I think it's a good contribution. What's the problem with it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed. I was quite honest and regret it. Sometimes it's simply better to say nothing. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

New articles on Anglo-Saxons

Hi Mike. An editor has created a set of articles about supposed ancestors of Cerdic of Wessex who are described as Kings of the Anglo-Saxons. These are based on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which of course does not give them any such title, and is also OR. I think the articles should be deleted as not notable, but is there a way of flagging them without a load of hassle? Maybe the editor should be warned? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Just saw this but am about to leave for work; I'll look later but one option might be a mass AfD. If they're still creating more of them I'd leave a note on their talk page asking them to stop while notability is discussed. Without looking at them, I wouldn't be too sure they'll be deleted; I've tried in the past to merge some minor figures into other articles and got nowhere. Can you give me a link to a couple of them? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Elesa of the Anglo-Saxons, Esla of the Anglo-Saxons, Gewis of the Anglo-Saxons, Wye of the Anglo-Saxons, Frewin of the Anglo-Saxons, Frithgar of the Anglo-Saxons, Brand of the Anglo-Saxons, Balday of the Anglo-Saxons, Woden of the Anglo-Saxons, Fritholaf of the Anglo-Saxons, Frithowulf of the Anglo-Saxons, Finn of the Anglo-Saxons, Goldoph of the Anglo-Saxons, Geata of the Anglo-Saxons. These are kings of the Anglo-Saxons going back to the third century. Woden is an interesting one! Dudley Miles (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

FAC William Pūnohu White

Hello, I don't know if you came across Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive1. It was closed today because of no traffic and only 1 review after a month. The quality of the article is FAC material in my opinion. I did not ask anybody (except two users) in the initial run to review it since I was trusting that it will receive reviews. Now I am asking a couple of people here and there to see if there is enough interest to renominate it again as recommended by the closing admin. I will only go ahead and renominate it once I find a few people who wants to give it a review. Please let me know if you are interested. Thanks either way.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi -- I tend to review articles at the bottom of the list that are short of reviews, so if you renominate it and it doesn't get attention after two or three weeks, please feel free to give me a nudge. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Here is the second nomination Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive2. Look at it when you can. Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Boing Boing's "Sci-Fi Sundays"

Hi Mike, you may be interested in having a look at Boing Boing's Sci-Fi Sundays It features an issue of a SF magazine each Sunday, and discusses the cover and inside art work. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer -- I'll take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Limca Book of Records

I'm sorry I didn't discuss this earlier, but now I know what to say. LBR did claim Andha Naal to be the first songless film in all of India (supported by AVM Saravanan), but I think that's erroneous as the honour actually goes to Naujawan (1937). Rather than remove the claim, could we rework the footnote to make it similar to that in Yesterday? Vensatry, what do you say? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you need to change it; my comments at the FAC were based on a misreading of it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

About citation in History of US science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950

Hello!.

I am translating History of US science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950 and others of your great articles about magazines for the Wikipedia in Spanish language.

Davin (1999) is cited several times in the History article, but I can't find that author in the Sources section. Davin, Pioneers is cited once too.

Is that source missing?

I hope not to bother you or waste your time. Thank you in advance for your response. Regards, --Furado (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi -- I've fixed the citations and added Davin to the source list; thanks for spotting that. I'm glad you're enjoying the articles! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help with the translations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick response, and especially for offering me your help with translations. Greetings from Northwest of Spain, --Furado (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Simone Russell - featured article candidate

I've nominated the article about the fictional characterSimone Russell for Featured Article consideration. The FAC has received some commentary and a source and image review, but the discussion has stalled over the last week. I would greatly appreciate any comments or feedback on this nomination if possible. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on this nomination. I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience. The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Simone Russell/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)