User talk:Aircorn/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Aircorn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Nice work
Although I disagree with your removal of the book reviews (I think they could have been summarized rather than removed) I'm not going to make a fuss about it :-) as I really like the way you have reorganized the article and given it a very nice flow. Great work my friend! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 06:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Left a comment specifically regarding the book reviews at the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
— ΛΧΣ21 is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— ΛΧΣ21 05:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeffrey M. Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kraft (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Aircorn. I have recently posted some comments at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Misuse of quickfail and I have also been vocal at what I see "Misuse of quickfail" in a recent article that I was failed in the wrong manner (not wrongly failed, just failed in the wrong manner). I'm beginning to suspect that these "errors in process" might have arisen following your changes to Wikipedia:Good article criteria in May 2012. This is not allocation of "blame" in anyway, but if that was the reason for the problems then Wikipedia:Good article criteria need to be restored to what have always stated and not what they appear to be stating. Pyrotec (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, I have replied there. From reading your comments I think we are in agreement about how a review should be conducted. Do you have any objections to my bulletpoints? AIRcorn (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, you've lost me on my bulletpoints?. Those extra three words make a difference. So I'm happy. There is also a certain desirable "vagueness", i.e. If a nominated article meets any of these six criteria prior to reviewing it may be quickfailed without further review.[1] Make sure you are not viewing a vandalised version of the article. These words seem to permit "failing" in the WP:GAN the queue without signing up for a review and they also allow "quickfailing" after a reviewer has signed up for the review, but before starting to review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sweet. I just listed what I thought were the reviewers options under Reviewers options at WT:GAN in bullet point format. A few other editors have agreed with them, but as you are one of the most experienced reviewers out there I would like to hear your opinion. I was thinking of trying to make it clearer in the WP:Reviewing Good articles guideline as it seems to be a source of confusion. AIRcorn (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not have this page on my watch list and the topic sort of slipped my mind. I now know what you where asking, but as a result of recent communications/conflicts/miscommunications (I'm not sure of the "right label" for this) with ChrisGualtieri I may not be the best person to ask/respond. I regard the review as a two-stage process. The first stage (generally) involves little effort, such as looking for the first five non-compliances listed under "quickfail" and if they are present you can "quick fail" without doing a full review. Copyright and close paraphrasing are also grounds for "quickfail" ("quickfail 6) but I'd hardly describe then as involving "little work". As an aside, Piotrus (see Wikipedia:School and university projects/User:Piotrus/Fall 2009), used to (perhaps still does) run School and university project assignments and I took three group nominations, all three had what appeared to be gross copyvios apparently put there by just one member in each of the three separate groups. I had to put all three reviews Hold and seak expert advice: in the end the copy-vios were cut out and I reviewed what was left of each article. Returning to topic: If the article is not "quickfailed" then you move onto stage two and assess in depth (to a level appropriate for the article) against WP:WIAGA and provide a review. From this comes a "pass" or "fail" result and sometimes there is an intermediate step a "hold". Copyright and closecopy may well appear or come to light in the second stage, in which case the article can be failed against Wikipedia:Good article criteria clause 1(a). I think that it is important to know where you are in the cycle and "fail" or "pass" against the right set of criteria: i.e. in stage one copyvios are quickfailed against quickfail clause 6 and in step two against WP:WIAGA clause 1(a). If it was lack of referencing that results in noncompliance its "quickfail #1" or GA clauses 2(a) and/or (b), as appropriate. That was why I was so pleased to see those three new words: ....prior to reviewing..... . I suspect that ChrisGualtieri and I have different interpretation of what Reviewers options at WT:GAN is saying. Pyrotec (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's not clear from the review nor the postscripts on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations but I suspect that the English-language Friedrich Eckenfelder was being reviewed against the German-language article, reviewed against the German-language reference (a book), or both and close copying was found to be present. That to me is reviewing, not assessing against the "quickfail" criteria, so the nomination should have been "failed" not "quickfailed". The Reviewer options should point the reviewer in the right direction. Pyrotec (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- You may be right. He is a relatively new reviewer so I left some more comments at his talk page to try and encourage him (I didn't notice you had too until afterwards). I think he will learn from this and keep reviewing.
- It's not clear from the review nor the postscripts on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations but I suspect that the English-language Friedrich Eckenfelder was being reviewed against the German-language article, reviewed against the German-language reference (a book), or both and close copying was found to be present. That to me is reviewing, not assessing against the "quickfail" criteria, so the nomination should have been "failed" not "quickfailed". The Reviewer options should point the reviewer in the right direction. Pyrotec (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not have this page on my watch list and the topic sort of slipped my mind. I now know what you where asking, but as a result of recent communications/conflicts/miscommunications (I'm not sure of the "right label" for this) with ChrisGualtieri I may not be the best person to ask/respond. I regard the review as a two-stage process. The first stage (generally) involves little effort, such as looking for the first five non-compliances listed under "quickfail" and if they are present you can "quick fail" without doing a full review. Copyright and close paraphrasing are also grounds for "quickfail" ("quickfail 6) but I'd hardly describe then as involving "little work". As an aside, Piotrus (see Wikipedia:School and university projects/User:Piotrus/Fall 2009), used to (perhaps still does) run School and university project assignments and I took three group nominations, all three had what appeared to be gross copyvios apparently put there by just one member in each of the three separate groups. I had to put all three reviews Hold and seak expert advice: in the end the copy-vios were cut out and I reviewed what was left of each article. Returning to topic: If the article is not "quickfailed" then you move onto stage two and assess in depth (to a level appropriate for the article) against WP:WIAGA and provide a review. From this comes a "pass" or "fail" result and sometimes there is an intermediate step a "hold". Copyright and closecopy may well appear or come to light in the second stage, in which case the article can be failed against Wikipedia:Good article criteria clause 1(a). I think that it is important to know where you are in the cycle and "fail" or "pass" against the right set of criteria: i.e. in stage one copyvios are quickfailed against quickfail clause 6 and in step two against WP:WIAGA clause 1(a). If it was lack of referencing that results in noncompliance its "quickfail #1" or GA clauses 2(a) and/or (b), as appropriate. That was why I was so pleased to see those three new words: ....prior to reviewing..... . I suspect that ChrisGualtieri and I have different interpretation of what Reviewers options at WT:GAN is saying. Pyrotec (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sweet. I just listed what I thought were the reviewers options under Reviewers options at WT:GAN in bullet point format. A few other editors have agreed with them, but as you are one of the most experienced reviewers out there I would like to hear your opinion. I was thinking of trying to make it clearer in the WP:Reviewing Good articles guideline as it seems to be a source of confusion. AIRcorn (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, you've lost me on my bulletpoints?. Those extra three words make a difference. So I'm happy. There is also a certain desirable "vagueness", i.e. If a nominated article meets any of these six criteria prior to reviewing it may be quickfailed without further review.[1] Make sure you are not viewing a vandalised version of the article. These words seem to permit "failing" in the WP:GAN the queue without signing up for a review and they also allow "quickfailing" after a reviewer has signed up for the review, but before starting to review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I perhaps have an intermediate step between your two, although I guess it depends on how we classify in-depth (yours are some of the most in-depth reviews that I have seen). I use it when an article does not meet the quickfail criteria, but I don't think it is worth holding the article. With these I usually leave relatively (it varies as to what it is failing and how badly) comments on the criteria that it is failing and finish the review at that. If say an article is completely lacking a section that is required (for example a reception section in a film or music article) I don't see the point in doing an in-depth review of the prose and simply fail it on the broadness criteria. A recent example is Talk:Lynsey Nolan/GA1, which is also mentioned a few threads up.
- Thanks for your input into the reviewer options. There is also a collapsed table at WT:GAN of changes I proposed for the how to review a Good article that no one has commented on yet (see this diff). You may a=want to give your opinion on them (they are relatively minor, but you may be able to improve on them). The copyright one is actually a recent addition to the quickfail criteria (I am the culprit again, although it was mentioned by other editors at a few different talk pages). It is a bit different as, like you say, it sometimes is not obvious and needs some work to find. I think it became an issue after problems at DYK and with some student noms.
- Speaking of student articles, I decided for the latest batch that I would tag any that had obvious problems that related to the criteria (short lead, lack of references, prose, incomplete sections etc) and then go back after a week or so to and fail them if the issues weren't addressed. A problem with student editors I found is that some would nominate an article and then leave, so I thought it was a good way to make sure they were interested in completing the process. I mentioned it at WP:ENB#Good articles and got support (there are a few other comments there you may be interested in too). I didn't end up failing any as other editors beat me to it. Given we have such a large backlog I was thinking we could extend the principle to any articles that are nominated. Maybe special templates could be made that specifically reference the criteria and encourage new reviewers to allow time for nominators to address the issues. I may post this to WT:GAN when I have thought it through a bit more, but would be interested in your thoughts first. AIRcorn (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've not been stalking your talkpage. Thanks for the prod. I also do short reviews such as Talk:Cynesige/GA1 on articles that have been produced by an editor that has a lot of FAs. Sometime ago, I forget when, there was a "war of words" with DYK getting a "lot of stick" for allegedly undertaking poor reviews and promoting articles that had copyvios. One enterprising DYK reviewer checked some recently awarded GAs and found four articles with copyvios and gave GAN a "lot of stick": two were awarded GA by me and the other two by a (nameless) reviewer who had been reviewing much long than I have, but appears to have done fewer GAN reviews. After that, I check every word and every online reference. I used to do about one review per day, but I have done 58 reviews in one month in the April 2009 backlog drive, but the leader did 91 and I "burnt out" trying to keep up with him. So now, I pick long articles and I spend several days on each review. I was quite happy plodding along on several of the June / July nominations, but now I'm doing one September and two October nominations. I will respond to your points tomorrow. I'm too tired to comment on anything now. Pyrotec (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking of student articles, I decided for the latest batch that I would tag any that had obvious problems that related to the criteria (short lead, lack of references, prose, incomplete sections etc) and then go back after a week or so to and fail them if the issues weren't addressed. A problem with student editors I found is that some would nominate an article and then leave, so I thought it was a good way to make sure they were interested in completing the process. I mentioned it at WP:ENB#Good articles and got support (there are a few other comments there you may be interested in too). I didn't end up failing any as other editors beat me to it. Given we have such a large backlog I was thinking we could extend the principle to any articles that are nominated. Maybe special templates could be made that specifically reference the criteria and encourage new reviewers to allow time for nominators to address the issues. I may post this to WT:GAN when I have thought it through a bit more, but would be interested in your thoughts first. AIRcorn (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 03:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I tried but
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment#Badly_written_instructions. Thanks for the reminder, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Wonder Woman
Essays are a very bad reason to delete things, so WP:DENY is right out. I'm willing to delete pages under G7 if all contributors wish for them to be deleted, and the same would be true for a page whose creator was a sock of a blocked user if all other contributors were happy to see the page deleted — it's not precisely the letter of G7, but it's in the spirit. However, WonderBoy1998 has contributed to the page to a significant extent, and I can't find any evidence that he agreed with deletion. Get his permission and let me know about it, and I'll be happy to delete it, but until/unless that happen, it won't pass any speedy criterion and will need to remain or be MFD-ed. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- WonderBoy1998 is an established contributor with an empty block log; I don't understand why you believe that they're the same. Of course, if you get a checkuser result that agrees with your statement, I'll not dispute it, but we'd need checkuser results or other solid evidence of sockpuppetry to speedy the page purely on a G7-and-G4 combination. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oops, I forgot to check the links you gave me. No more dispute now, but since WonderBoy has never been blocked, G4 isn't applicable; it won't be unless you show that WonderBoy is also a sock of yet another username that was blocked at the time when the GA nomination was created. I'm going to ask for input from Dennis Brown, who blocked WonderWoman. Nyttend (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think G4 would apply because it is by a blocked editor, technically. That one account isn't blocked, but they are the same person, so they are blocked by virtue of the other account. I've explained more on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry folks, I have to hit the hay. I have no evidence that WonderBoy has any other sock so I am not sure if there is a cut and dry speedy. We routinely delete reviews accidently started by the nominators, which this is technically. I will leave the decision up to you. It won't be the end of the world if I have to archive it in the {{article history}}, but I don't think it should be kept (obviously). I am a little protective of Good articles and this is probably the worst way to abuse the process and I feel it should not be rewarded in any way. BTW I approve of your methods Dennis, they appear to have got over excited if anything and I am sure you made it clear there will be consequences if it happens again. Although the depths of the deception present on Amadscientists talk page are worrying. AIRcorn (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Page deleted per Dennis' advice. Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry folks, I have to hit the hay. I have no evidence that WonderBoy has any other sock so I am not sure if there is a cut and dry speedy. We routinely delete reviews accidently started by the nominators, which this is technically. I will leave the decision up to you. It won't be the end of the world if I have to archive it in the {{article history}}, but I don't think it should be kept (obviously). I am a little protective of Good articles and this is probably the worst way to abuse the process and I feel it should not be rewarded in any way. BTW I approve of your methods Dennis, they appear to have got over excited if anything and I am sure you made it clear there will be consequences if it happens again. Although the depths of the deception present on Amadscientists talk page are worrying. AIRcorn (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
2013
| File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg | Have an enjoyable New Year! | |
| Hello Aircorn: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 04:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Talkback
Message added 12:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
If you see the top of my talkpage it shows all recent edits 8) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Merging after AfD
Hi Aircorn, and thanks for merging List of Universitas Nasional faculty per AfD. I just converted the old article into a redirect to complete the process. If you like this sort of thing, I hope you'll consider joining WikiProject Merge and helping us with our substantial backlog. See Wikipedia:Merging and Help:Merging for more information. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Computational criminology, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Recognition and Likelihood ratio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Aircorn, it looks like you were the last person to review this nomination, and it doesn't appear that your comments have all been responded to. It's been over a month: can you make the next move here? It would be good to get this one moving to a conclusion again. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Will leave a note with TheHistorian as they opened the review. I just commented on it as it was nominated with outstanding cleanup tags and I was a little surprised that the reviewer looked like they were going to pass the article without these being addressed. AIRcorn (talk)
GA
Happy New Year! Hope you had a good one.
- I was wondering if you think Long March (Pakistan) is GA-able? Considering its mostly done now (maybe a few more reactions would come, but thats about it)Lihaas (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Genetically modified food controversies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superbugs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 11:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Till 11:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Association football around the world, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Primera División (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Beyonce reassessment
I've left a reply to your note there. Please respond, the rabid fans are starting to come out of the woodwork. Thanks.--Aichik (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I kindly request you to stop calling me rabid. Let me tell you that I also have very nice vocabularies to label you if need be. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for reverting that guy who blanked my review! Retrolord (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. Reviewing is supposed to be a collaborative affair so both the nominator and reviewer need to communicate. Some of your requests probably went beyond the criteria, some could have been interpreted either way, while others looked fair enough. At the end of the day it is up to both of you to come to some sort of agreement on what is required, what is necessary and what is not that important for the article to be passed. I would recommend failing that article now, not because it deserves to be failed, but because you two are unlikely to get to the collaborative stage now. I have seen these get rather nasty (a lot nastier than it is currently). Your review will still stand so other reviewers can give it weight if it is renominated. Worst case scenario it is passed and you can put it through community reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Baldur's Gate II GAN
Hey there. I hate to be a bother, but I wasn't sure if there were any outstanding issues with the good article review for Baldur's Gate II. Your last comments were five days ago, and I think I've addressed everything. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 14:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. I was just looking for my manual to check some more of the sourcing. Unfortunately I can't seem to find it. Will look online or just AGF. Will hopefully finish up by the end of this week. AIRcorn (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. Try here. —Torchiest talkedits 23:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review and the pass! —Torchiest talkedits 13:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. It is a nice article you have there. 21:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review and the pass! —Torchiest talkedits 13:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. Try here. —Torchiest talkedits 23:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you ...
... for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union (A simple link to the discussion suffices) –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 22:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. I was struggling to follow the conversation myself so hopefully it helps others too. I don't see the harm in having the table myself, although I don't particularly like the colour scheme. AIRcorn (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have really just been giving User:Rugby.change some encouragement. He does a great deal of painstaking editing on the articles in question and the other guy can do no more than revert.
My main concern here is the Paris argument. Do you have views on this? –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 22:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)- Don't know enough about Paris sorry. Could ask at WP:Wikiproject France maybe. AIRcorn (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea! Thank you again –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 23:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea! Thank you again –
- Sorry to intrude, Aircorn, but I won't have people talking about me behind my back. Gareth, I'll have you know I do more than just revert on this encyclopaedia; and even if that was all I did, it wouldn't be a bad thing – not every edit made in good faith is a good idea, and this site needs people like me to apply a bit of resistance when it is required. Fair play to you for supporting a new editor who has, no doubt, made some positive contributions since he joined, but this is not one of them. I know full well that you disagree, having seen your unsubstantiated statements telling me I'm "wrong" on several occasions; perhaps next time you could provide an explanation for your position rather than simply stating it. Oh, and keep your personal attacks to yourself. They're not wanted here. – PeeJay 00:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have corrected the chronological order of postings, thus keeping consistent with WP policy
I have noted your observations above, and I trust we can now keep out of each other's hair
– Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 09:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have corrected the chronological order of postings, thus keeping consistent with WP policy
- Don't know enough about Paris sorry. Could ask at WP:Wikiproject France maybe. AIRcorn (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have really just been giving User:Rugby.change some encouragement. He does a great deal of painstaking editing on the articles in question and the other guy can do no more than revert.
Please refer to this thread
– Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 14:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help!^^ It's now under "Culture, sociology and psychology". Any review would be highly appreciated. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
GA Reviews
Hi! I noticed your fairly active in the GA review area, so would you mind clarifying this question im not sure about?
My problem is, I started a review of the Walmart article, but after doing a preliminary review of the article, I am yet to recieve any response from the nominator or any other significant contributor.
In this situation do I leave it on hold indefinetly or should I fail it after 7 days?
Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I came across this post and started picking up where the previous submitter left off. Shame to see someone provide so much feedback and not have it implemented. CorporateM (Talk) 14:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like it still needs to be failed. It's not ready for a GA review and needs a substantial amount of trimming, checking sources, re-writing, etc. I'm not sure I'm ready to take on that large of a project to make it ready for a nomination. But I'll add it to my watchlist and may work on it from time to time. CorporateM (Talk) 15:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry Retrolord. I actually wrote a longish reply to this but must not have saved it. The short answer is that there are no definitive hold periods. Seven days is standard, but there is nothing stopping you holding it for one or two days if you felt that was appropriate (maybe you put it on hold and then later decided that it should be failed instead). After about a month of holding (or even just under review) you will start getting inquiries about the articles progress or some bolder editors might just pass/fail it for you. AIRcorn (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Abandoned nominations are not uncommon, mainly due to the delay in receiving the review (can be three months) or simply drive-by noms. I usually just leave a preliminary review before my main one if I am unsure whether the nominator will respond. You can also ask at the other contributors talk pages or at Wikiprojects if you think it is close to passing. I have usually had positive responses. I would advise you to fail it anytime after a week of no responses (you can leave a second notice at the talk page indicating these intentions if you like). You shouldn't get any grief for that and if you do let me know. AIRcorn (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like it still needs to be failed. It's not ready for a GA review and needs a substantial amount of trimming, checking sources, re-writing, etc. I'm not sure I'm ready to take on that large of a project to make it ready for a nomination. But I'll add it to my watchlist and may work on it from time to time. CorporateM (Talk) 15:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- @CorporateM. Thanks for the offer. One approach that can be taken is for you (and the other nominator if they return) to work on the article after it has been failed and then renominate it and, if Retrolord is still around, asking him to re-review it. You will have to start another GAreview, but he could refer to the old one saying that all the points have been addressed (after making sure that no new problems are introduced). This can save time and you won't have to worry about the article being left on hold indefinitely. I have used it in the past when a nominator went on holiday for a couple of months midway through a review. AIRcorn (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- See Talk:Diabetes mellitus type 2/GA2. AIRcorn (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
GA Instructions
I have written a draft of detailed instructions on how to start and review an article here. What do you think?--Dom497 (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was just thinking of copying the instructions from WP:GAN over, but this could work better. AIRcorn (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
SBW fight
As you may know, there are various heavyweight titles even within one organisation. The one SBW won in specifically "International" title as shown here [1]. Thankyou.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Signature
Hi, Thanks for helping out with the reassess at Risk parity but there seems to be a problem with your signature here. maybe check it out. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
PS have you had a chance to look in on the Jeffery M. Smith article? any thoughts?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Aircorn, how goes it? Recently an editor has rewritten the Jeffrey M. Smith article and in the process deleted more than 15 sources. I'm not sure what to make of this or how to respond. If you have a moment, could you take a look and make a suggestion on the talk page? Thanks so much. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- It was probably all the verify quotation tags. It appears to have been done in good faith and the gist of the article is much the same. We could re-revert to the earlier version, but maybe it would be easier to just add back the ones we think are important with a reason why. AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. I hesitated to do a mass revert because for fear it would create drama. So I"ve started a conversation at talk and its going well so far. Please jump in if you have any time. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
In need of a little help
Hi, I know you did a second opinion review on one of my reviews, so I'm asking if you could take a look at this, somebody didn't agree with my review but I don't know what I did wrong, I gave my reasons and I did a proper review. Can you take a second look at my review and comment at the re-assessment. Thanks JayJayWhat did I do? 16:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am pretty active at WP:GAR so will have a look at this. Hopefully I will have some time later tonight. AIRcorn (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Are you stil willing to take a look at the article. JayJayWhat did I do? 01:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
RE: Until the Quiet Comes
Yeah, just logged on. Dan56 (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Proposal
Hi Aircorn, as i'm sure you know I am relatively new to wikipedia in the scheme of things, so I was wondering if you could give some advice on whether I need to do anything further regarding the proposal I made at GAN RFC, or if i should just leave it to run
Thanks! ★★RetroLord★★ 10:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Let it run. You can respond to comments if you want, but don't do it too much or you will get accused of badgering (I have probably already overstepped a bit). I would say it will struggle to pass, it has been proposed a few times before, but you never know. AIRcorn (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Igor Denisov
The Zenit fans' group: Don't sign black players web page doesn't mention Igor Denisov, but his article says 'echoing the ideas of Denisov', is there evidence to support this statement? Denisov's objection appears to have been the salaries that Hulk, and Axel Witsel command, and not the colour of their skin, or sexual orientation. As it is possible to be a Russian of African descent and/or LGBT, I think to say that Landscrona's demand not to buy black or gay players was 'echoing the ideas of Denisov', there would have be a reference explicitly stating that, at the moment there's nothing in the article that even indicates he has a nationalist tendency. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Feel free to comment on the review. AIRcorn (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I will certainly nominate if you want me too, but I'd have to wait until Thursday or Friday. There will probably be some lively discussion on the number of items, and I want to make sure I respond quickly. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just letting you know I did this since it looked like you missed a step. [2] GamerPro64 16:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Noted it elsewhere, but perhaps it's best here. It would easily fail FLC due to there only being three counties; as a result I undid the delisting, which was out of place. Technically lists should go through FL rather than GA, but instances like this are an exception. Wizardman 17:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 09:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
alt=
Hi
Just to continue our discussion about the alt= parameter. I realise there has been a gap, but RL just won't leave me alone!
I have had a little look through, but some of the conversations I had were a year or so ago and often on ppls talk pages so not that easy to find.
The first one I remember was this one Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_criteria/Archive_3#Alt_tags closely followed by Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_criteria/Archive_3#Alt_texts_part_of_WP:WIAGA.3F, where the recommendation seems to be to encourage its use through reviews (though MF has already changed his mind and wants them out of FAs at this point).
As I have already pointed out we have this in the alt text page: "For images that link to their image description page (which is nearly all images on Wikipedia), the alt text cannot be blank nor should the alt parameter be absent."
I would suggest that your comments on the talk page of the GA review show to other editors the opposite of encouraging their use; however there is the issue that WIAGA notes "Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles."
Can we first agree that encouraging alt parameter usage is a goal?
Chaosdruid (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Real life is more important than playing around here so no problems there. Out of curiosity I looked at a couple of recently passed Featured articles and found a few (California State Route 52, Canis Minor, Kenneth Widmerpool, Rakoto Frah and Neville Cardus) that don't use it. I looked at about ten all up that had been promoted this year, so it doesn't even seem to be a strong requirement over there. All I said was "Also images don't need to have alts in good articles", which is what I see the consensus of the above discussions (and the others I linked to at the review). If someone wishes to encourage them that is fine by me, but it should not be used as a reason to delist an article. I am not sure what you mean by having a goal of encouraging the alt parameter. If you meant that during a reassessment or review we should encourage alts to be added to images, then I would actually disagree. I think they should stay as focused on the WP:GACR as much as possible, we already have too many editors that try and add their own personal preferences to reviews and reassessments. However, if it became a requirement that would be another story. A discussion or rfc could be opened up at to get more input at WT:GAN or WT:GACR pages. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| Thanks for your help with the Warren article. Your patience was much appreciated! Gandydancer (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks. I will leave it for a few days before closing the review to make sure that it is stable. AIRcorn (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Could you please close out the GA reassess? Don4of4 has not done it despite his comment in this now archived conversation here. thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am a little wary of jumping out of process unless it is really necessary. I find that if you do it for something obvious then it can be used as justification to do it with something that is not obvious. Plus what is obvious to one person may not be to others. In that vein I have left a final note at Dons talk page asking him to close it. If he delists it then we can take it to a community reassessment. If he doesn't within a week I will close it myself. Sorry about not being assertive, it is just that in the long run I think this might be easier. AIRcorn (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 09:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Re: Cow Clicker
I did the edits you suggested. ViperSnake151 Talk 04:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing the second opinion! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hollywood Ripe Ride Rockit GA Review
I have addressed all your comments on the review page.--Dom497 (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Forgot to tell you that I addressed you additional comments.--Dom497 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I just saw that this article became a Good Article recently and looking at it, it doesn't exactly look complete due to a lack of refs in some sections. I need a second opinion though since Entertainment is such a high tier article. GamerPro64 15:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I saw it when it was nominated and was going to review it, but someone bet me to it. My main initial concern was that it may not be broad enough for such a large topic, but I was very impressed with it. Will have another look at it now that it has passed. AIRcorn (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately you are right. Only gave it a scan, but it is short on referencing. I think these sentences are part of 2b and need some decent references (nowhere near a complete list).
- An entertainment might go beyond gratification and produce some insight in its audience when it skilfully considers universal philosophical questions such as: "What is the meaning of life?"; "What does it mean to be human?"; "What is the right thing to do?"; or "How do I know what I know?". Questions such as these drive many narratives and dramas, whether they are presented in the form of a story, film, play, poem, book, dance, comic, or game.
- storytelling has been an important part of most forms of entertainment.
- Many entertainments, including storytelling but especially music and drama, remain familiar but have developed into a wide variety of form to suit a very wide range of personal preferences and cultural expression.
- Many of these once perhaps necessary skills, such as pole vaulting, need equipment, which has become increasingly sophisticated.
- One of the most famous venues in the Western world is the Colosseum where spectacles, competitions, races, and sports were once presented as public entertainment.
- During the 20th century, it became understood that the psychological development of children occurs in stages and that their capacities differ from adults.
- Some contests involving animals have both supporters and detractors and so are more controversial than ones already prohibited.
Okay those are only some. I don't think any of these are wrong, but they fall under the likely to be challenged part of the criteria. The writing style is possibly a bit essayish, but it is well written so I would probably let that slide a bit (although I seriously question the use of the first bulletpoint). However, it does make the lack of referencing worse as it uses Wikipedia's voice alot to express opinions. I would leave a note at the talk page first as it has a few collaborative editors (was part of WP:TAFI I believe). A sprinkling of {{cn}} tags might help give some idea on what statements need references. I would only concentrate on the obvious failings of 2b and not bother with the one reference per paragraph or sentence that some seem to demand. Its a shame because it is a great article, especially when you look at its condition a couple of months ago.[3] AIRcorn (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I left a note at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#Good Article. I am hoping there will be a group of editors from there willing to help make sure it meets the standard. AIRcorn (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I wonder what rename title you prefer, as you support the proposal. --George Ho (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Beyonce GAR
Hi. Hope you are fine. Can you please help me keep an eye on Aichik's edits on this article? He has removed some important information from it and sometimes he/she even mask those edits in the edit summary. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I assume you mean the removal of names from the influence list. I guess the problem is that I don't necessarily disagree with the general idea, although the execution is not great. Look at The Beatles legacy section. It doesn't list a large number of people influenced by them. I do think there is merit in discussing who should be in the list and who can be left out, especially as there is now a List of artists influenced by Beyoncé Knowles. However, the constant reverting is not good, so the next time it happens I will open a talk page discussion so we can maybe get some consensus on who should be mentioned. AIRcorn (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly speaking, I did not know about that list. Thanks. That's a great idea and in this way, we will not lose the information. I will take care of expanding that article. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Aircorn, I really do not like the direction all this is taking. Why do you and Kww make me feel like I am the one who has wronged. I know this may not be your intention but this is how I am feeling taking into consideration all that is being said to me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Because you have. Just because you don't see that doesn't make it false. Even if it wasn't your intention it gives the appearence that you are looking for people to support your position (i.e. votestacking). It is not the first time this has been brought to your attention (see below) so the final warning is appropriate. Next time just drop a note at the Wikiproject page and let the chips lie where they fall. I don't know what to do about that discussion now, everyone whose vote was solicitated by you is now tainted. AIRcorn (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. I shall do that only in the future. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Because you have. Just because you don't see that doesn't make it false. Even if it wasn't your intention it gives the appearence that you are looking for people to support your position (i.e. votestacking). It is not the first time this has been brought to your attention (see below) so the final warning is appropriate. Next time just drop a note at the Wikiproject page and let the chips lie where they fall. I don't know what to do about that discussion now, everyone whose vote was solicitated by you is now tainted. AIRcorn (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Aircorn, I really do not like the direction all this is taking. Why do you and Kww make me feel like I am the one who has wronged. I know this may not be your intention but this is how I am feeling taking into consideration all that is being said to me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly speaking, I did not know about that list. Thanks. That's a great idea and in this way, we will not lose the information. I will take care of expanding that article. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Beyoncé talk page
Thanks for your participation on this. I have found evidence that Jivesh boodhun repeatedly canvasses editors to get his way: His claim "I was not aware I would be assumed to be doing something I did not even do. Sorry." was just empty posturing because you caught him. Look at this on the Dangerously in Love 2 talk page which he helped promote to a Good Article. What can be done about this?--Aichik (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not good. I find it particularily telling that Adabow was asked last time, but disagreed with Jivesh. This time he was not sent a message. Jivesh just received a final warning from Kww, but still doesn't seem to get it though so I fear it will not be the last time. You could raise it at WP:ANI, but that should really be the final choice. I would let Kww know first. AIRcorn (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Aichik, your selection of words have always been so inappropriate. Repeatedly? Really? You are truly impossible and this is the last time I am talking/replying to you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, AIRcorn. And Jivesh's response (to me and not to the issue at hand) says it all. So I guess we'll wait and see, although I don't have high hopes. I find Jivesh's lowered Wikipedia's quality across the board: He's made minor Beyonce songs GA's when not even Diana Ross or Jennifer Lopez's main articles are GA's and just keeps plugging away.--Aichik (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Wedlock Article GA Discussion/Reassessment
- Hi Aircorn, I took a shot at revising the article.Please tell me if it's what you had in mind, and let me know what sentences may be too long? I also posted to you at the GA discussion page. Thank youSlowFatKid (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Were there any further steps that need to be taken on this article? Anything I should be doing? Are you in charge of the article, or should JayJay be doing this?Thank you.SlowFatKid (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- As it is a community reassessment someone will close it based on the discussion we have been having there. Anyone can close except the person who started the reassessment and editors who have been involved prior to reassessment. The exact wording is "Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators, unless the closure involves withdrawing the nomination; reviewers are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment." Ideally we can get agreement with JayJay that it now meets the criteria and it will be uncontroversially listed. If we don't then hopefully someone uninvolved will come along and close it relatively soon, or if no one does I will do so. AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Aircorn,those IMDb sources you mentioned have been changed. I haven't seen a note from you lately; just wondered what the situation was. Is there anything else that needs to be corrected on the page? Can we list this now? Thank you, I know you're busy in real life.SlowFatKid (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- As it is a community reassessment someone will close it based on the discussion we have been having there. Anyone can close except the person who started the reassessment and editors who have been involved prior to reassessment. The exact wording is "Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators, unless the closure involves withdrawing the nomination; reviewers are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment." Ideally we can get agreement with JayJay that it now meets the criteria and it will be uncontroversially listed. If we don't then hopefully someone uninvolved will come along and close it relatively soon, or if no one does I will do so. AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Were there any further steps that need to be taken on this article? Anything I should be doing? Are you in charge of the article, or should JayJay be doing this?Thank you.SlowFatKid (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Currently not sure what is going on with the article? Can you advise?SlowFatKid (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- It seems like the GAR was closed, but it did not look correct; the article did not seem to be properly re-nominated so I reverted it until hearing from either you or JayJay officially? Can you please adviseSlowFatKid (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, Aircorn, I just wanted to say "thank you" for taking time out to advise and guide throughout the process of improving the Wedlock(band) article. Over time I am sure someone else will expand it and keep the information current. Meanwhile there are numerous other Wikipedia projects to be done.Where should a novice begin?Thank you againSlowFatKid (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- It seems like the GAR was closed, but it did not look correct; the article did not seem to be properly re-nominated so I reverted it until hearing from either you or JayJay officially? Can you please adviseSlowFatKid (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Currently not sure what is going on with the article? Can you advise?SlowFatKid (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
GA topics
Hello, I don't believe we have met. I am active at WP:FA and have done a lot of work with {{ArticleHistory}}, which is what brings me here today.
Over the years I've fixed many errors in ArticleHistory implementations, and one of the prime causes has turned out to be 'wrong' |topic= values for GA topics. I noticed that you did some reorganization of the topics about a year ago, so perhaps you would review and comment on my proposed improvement of the topic lookup list? I haven't tagged it with an {{edit-protected}} request because I want some informed confirmation of my changes first. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am not so sure about informed, I was flying a bit blind at the time and still am a lot with templates. Saying that your proposal looks good. AIRcorn (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking it out. Maralia (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- When I was preparing the update above, I used the page WP:GA to obtain the names for GA topics. I assumed that pages within WP:GA would all carry the same topic names; as it turns out, not everything agrees with WP:GA.
- At Wikipedia:Good article nominations/guidelines, 'Warfare' is not listed as a main topic (rather it's listed as the subtopic 'warfare and military' under 'History').
- On the same page, 'Theatre, film, and drama' was renamed to 'Media and drama' in late 2012. This change (discussed here) does not seem to have been propagated anywhere, which is problematic.
- The first issue looks like an easy fix that wouldn't affect any other pages. If the latter change is to be fully incorporated, however, at the very least WP:GA needs to be updated, the bot operator needs to be notified, Category:Theatre, film and drama good articles needs to be changed to match the new name, and I need to update the topics lookup list so it gives the proper name. Perhaps this one should be raised for discussion again first, since it hasn't actually been propagated anywhere.
- Sorry to lay this in your lap, but in such a decentralized project, sometimes the best we can do is pester someone who seems to know what they're doing :) Maralia (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was aware of the Warfare issue. It was changed soon after I did the other ones. I was going to get Chris (owner of the GA bot) to update the WP:GAN page to reflect WP:GA one, but just recently a discussion on splitting up the sports topics was initiated. I thought I would wait for that so he only had to update the bot once. I think I will reopen that debate and push through the changes. It should be the last one for a while, but I will let you know when it is done in case it changes anything from your end. I will have a go at updating for the second issue. AIRcorn (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for working on this. Regarding #2, at Template talk:GA/Topic#Edit request on 22 February 2013 another editor pointed out a real problem with the premise of altering 'theatre, film, and drama' to 'media and drama': the word 'media' has already been in use there for years, as a synonym for 'media and journalism', a subtopic in socsci. If 'media' is to be used with a different meaning moving forward, all existing instances of topic=media on article talk pages (within implementations of the ArticleHistory, GA, DelistedGA, and FailedGA template calls) would have to be changed before I could update Template:GA/Topic. Something to consider; change #2 is starting to sound like more trouble than its worth. Maralia (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was aware of the Warfare issue. It was changed soon after I did the other ones. I was going to get Chris (owner of the GA bot) to update the WP:GAN page to reflect WP:GA one, but just recently a discussion on splitting up the sports topics was initiated. I thought I would wait for that so he only had to update the bot once. I think I will reopen that debate and push through the changes. It should be the last one for a while, but I will let you know when it is done in case it changes anything from your end. I will have a go at updating for the second issue. AIRcorn (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- When I was preparing the update above, I used the page WP:GA to obtain the names for GA topics. I assumed that pages within WP:GA would all carry the same topic names; as it turns out, not everything agrees with WP:GA.
- Thanks for checking it out. Maralia (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am going to leave the sports one for now as I am not sure how to frame it and will ask Chris G (talk · contribs) if they can split out Warfare into its own section. AIRcorn (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I will have a go sorting the Media one out. I know it is a lot of extra work, but it is so hard to get consensus to change something around here that I feel it is worth a go. AIRcorn (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I fixed some talk pages that had topic=media but really belonged in film or television. There are some where 'media' was used in a broader sense, such as articles about radio stations. Not sure where those are meant to belong now, since you are changing 'media and journalism' to 'magazines and print media'. Maralia (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just trying to match up WP:GAN and WP:GA. Media and journalism was changed to magazines and print media there. I moved some of the articles around so it makes more sense although the new Media and drama page is all over the show (why we have sections for shows with only 3 articles I don't know). Anyway sorting that out will be a job for another day. I changed the topic names over for those on the talk page so they point to the correct article (many already did). I think you should just change the GA topics template and then I can mop up any that point to the wrong place. Do you know of a scrip or tools (AWB?) that can compare a category with a list of links on a page? If there was an easy way to find articles that had the wrong topic parameter I could probably fix them all in a hour or so. AIRcorn (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping clean up topics in Category:Uncategorized good articles. I noticed a couple other things that need cleanup:
- The text on the page Category:Uncategorized good articles needs to be updated to reflect the new topic scheme; and
- There are something like 1,000 articles tagged with topic=Arts (plural), which is currently an alias for 'Art and architecture'. I think very many of these are mislabeled; I looked at five random articles tagged with 'Arts', and only one of them was actually about art (the other four were film, film, television, and opera).
- We can work on improving those with the topic 'Arts', but the problem will persist: no matter what I make it an alias for, "Arts" is an awfully vague term. Ideas? Maralia (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping clean up topics in Category:Uncategorized good articles. I noticed a couple other things that need cleanup:
- Just trying to match up WP:GAN and WP:GA. Media and journalism was changed to magazines and print media there. I moved some of the articles around so it makes more sense although the new Media and drama page is all over the show (why we have sections for shows with only 3 articles I don't know). Anyway sorting that out will be a job for another day. I changed the topic names over for those on the talk page so they point to the correct article (many already did). I think you should just change the GA topics template and then I can mop up any that point to the wrong place. Do you know of a scrip or tools (AWB?) that can compare a category with a list of links on a page? If there was an easy way to find articles that had the wrong topic parameter I could probably fix them all in a hour or so. AIRcorn (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I fixed some talk pages that had topic=media but really belonged in film or television. There are some where 'media' was used in a broader sense, such as articles about radio stations. Not sure where those are meant to belong now, since you are changing 'media and journalism' to 'magazines and print media'. Maralia (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Ask
Hi Aircorn. Hope you are fine. Please tell me what exactly needs to be clarified here? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Originally the article said that her parents were involved in the music industry. After reading further down I realised that they only became involved after Beyonce started her career. The wording however made it sound like they were already involved when she was born. I found out that Micheal was a medical-equipment salesman, but could not find out what Tina did. That was what I was hoping someone could clarify; what her occupation was at Beyonces birth. If no one knows then it is better to probably just leave it blank. Also there is another clarification tag further down that I think is asking for the verse that Destiny's Child came from. I had a look, but all the sources seem to do is repeat what we already have. Maybe you could find that out too. If the book of Isaiah is the best we can do then we can probably remove that tag too. AIRcorn (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK Aircorn. I will see what I can do in both cases. Thanks for all your help. <Much appreciated. :D Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Beyonce
Thanks for your continued help on this monster. If you'd look at my comments that are unaddressed here (under "Current State of GA") I'd love you for it.--Aichik (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Responded there, but will add a bit here. Good articles are not meant to be perfect and apart from the image paragraph (which was probably my fault) I don't think any of the other objections are delist worthy. The major issues as I saw them when the reassessment was started have been mitigated. If I was reviewing this from scratch (i.e. as a WP:GAN nomination) I would probably pass it in its current condition. AIRcorn (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
ITN for 2013 Six Nations Championship
 | On 18 March 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2013 Six Nations Championship, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--SpencerT♦C 03:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I passed it on to the major contributors, I just came in at the end and did some tidying up. AIRcorn (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Gilderien's talk page.
dead links in GAs
Hey Aircorn, did you mean to cut out the sentence "Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url" in this diff? Looking at it, I'm guessing that this is just a consequence of our having two RfCs running at the same time, so the dead links sentence wasn't in your proposed draft stored elsewhere--but I thought I'd check. Cheers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- My bad. I forgot that when I copied the new one over. Will fix now. AIRcorn (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not a problem, I do that all the time myself! Thanks for looking at it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Stalled GA reassess
Hi Aircorn, Any suggestions on what to do with this reassess? [4] Don4of4 has not edited on WP since his last entry at the reassess page on March 8th.. How long do we wait? Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- We are still near the bottom of the pile (see WP:GAR for the full list). I am the only regular there and I will close it if need be, but would rather someone uninvolved did. I left a note at WT:GAN a while ago and got a few keeps and delists for some, but so far no one has stepped up to close any. AIRcorn (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree it would be best for another editor to close. Thanks for listing it at GAN and keeping things moving along as best you can. I suppose it will resolve itself in time. Thanks again, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello busy user
 |
Hello Aircorn, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 04:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC) |
Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions
A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dick Conway (rugby union), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Number 8 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)