User talk:Coemgenus/archive2012-1

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially began at the start of 2012 (UTC), and so you are free to claim any content from after that time. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Lumley.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Lumley.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Warrington.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Warrington.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Godolphin.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Godolphin.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Tyrconnel 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Tyrconnel 2.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Philip Cardinal Howard.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Philip Cardinal Howard.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Striking thru - see below :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Art images
Can you please consider adding the 'exact' sources so I don't have to leave numerous requests? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I added those images more than five years ago. I have no idea what the "exact sources" are.  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you read your own tags? bsr contains the text, "This image has source information, but it either links directly to the image or is a generic base URL, or is not an Internet source for an image that was likely found on the Internet."   Now the Twinkle menu might have sounded like a good choice at the time, but the resultant tag is far from helpful here.  You've clearly seen the URL embedded on the image page, as you tagged it for "bad source" not "no source".  You've even discussed the text of this warning box previously on the template talk page.
 * None of this is appropriate. The URL is to a catalogue page that offers all the source image metadata we might expect, at least for the original painting. This is not the sourcing issue that the tag box describes.


 * As to the digital image, then this is unclear. Who photographed or scanned it? I suspect that this was the NPG and so it may not be acceptable for use here. If they did produce it, that would certainly be the big problem (just discussed on my talk:) about claiming copyright on old PD materials, and whether the British legal interpretation of copyright on 2D reproduction is followed. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It was probably NPG who photographed it. I sure didn't do it.  I haven't dealt with these since 2006 and have no recollection of where they came from.  I knew far less about Wiki copyright issues then, and we were far less active in enforcing our rules in those days, anyway.  I have nothing else to add.  If you want to delete them, I won't object.  --Coemgenus (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Per the above I've removed the BSR tagging on the images, they still need somone to look into the exact status of them though,

in a calm and objective manner. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Little Rock and Fort Smith Railroad
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ephraim Blaine
Mifter (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
 * was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
 * is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
 * was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
 * was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Rutherford B. Hayes hates Kentucky
Just noticed that your TFA request for Rutherford B. Hayes replaced my nom for Kentucky governor Martha Layne Collins for International Women's Day on March 8. If you'll remember, you were kind enough to withdraw the Hayes nomination to allow me to request Governor of Kentucky back in November. Just thought it was funny that our nominations seem to keep conflicting with one another. We aren't requesting the same date this time, and I'm sure there will be plenty of time for me to request Collins between now and March 8. Good luck on having Hayes featured for whatever day in March. I'll probably drop by and add my support later. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Buckner is indeed one of mine, as are all 57 governors of Kentucky. It's a good topic that I have pipe dreams of making a featured topic one day. Buckner is really one of the ones I'm most proud of, given his long and eventful life. Just noticed it'll be the quinvigintennial anniversary of his birth on August 30. Hmm. Gotta remember that closer to time. Would appreciate your support for Collins when I can get her back on the TFA request page. If I can't get the request in for March 8, I may list her in one of the non-specific date slots and just ask for some date in March (Women's History Month). Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

McKinley
When do you want to start and what parts do you want to do? I really don't have any enthusiasm for any more articles about the era and would like to press on to the man himself.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Gregory of Nyssa
Would you be able to briefly suggest what work I would need to do on the article to get it to Featured status ? Sorry, but I'm pretty new to Wikipedia so I'm not really sure how the standards differ. Thanks. --He to Hecuba (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your best bet might be to look at Gregory of Nazianzus, but even that is probably below the standards of current FA nominations. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no word count requirement, or other such particulars ? The article on Gregory of Nazianzus is comprehensive and well written, but I can't see a way in which the quality greatly differs from that of Gregory of Nyssa. --He to Hecuba (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, no word count as such, and there are shorter FAs than Gregory of Nyssa. Check out Featured article criteria and look at some of the nominated articles at Featured article candidates for a better idea of the process.  It can be difficult, but I find it rewarding.  --Coemgenus (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Vicinage Clause/GA1
Thanks for your review and sorry for my belated response. I have expanded the article and responded to your comments. Savidan 02:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Butler family tree
Hope you don't mind me being nosy, but I just had a look at your sandbox#4 and saw the Butler tree. Wow. It's a thing of beauty. You MUST publish it. I suggest the Butler Dynasty page. My only quibble is with the 20th Earl of Ormond - the title is officially in abeyance until Mountgarret can prove his claim. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I know the title hasn't been proved yet, so if I do publish it, I'll have to change that, but I'm glad you like it.  --Coemgenus (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Added it! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jabari Parker/GA1
I have responded to your concerns at Talk:Jabari Parker/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

McKinley 2
I plan to start today or tomorrow, and start with the aftermath of McKinley's 1890 defeat for Congress, then work forward from there through the campaign.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm nearly finished the Civil War section, but I'm still not satisfied with what I wrote for Early life and family. I should be through both sections this week.  --Coemgenus (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've started work and will speed up as I re-familiarize myself with the material. What I was thinking of in terms of was having straight biography up to the time he's president, then divide by domestic and foreign policy, various subsections of those.  Then finish off with 1900 campaign, assassination and death, relationships (wife, and Hanna), and legacy.  Just what I was thinking of, you may have better ideas.  I suggest trying to keep it under about 125K because review inevitably adds to length.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the pattern I've used on other presidential FAs. Size limit is fine with me, too.  --Coemgenus (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. The governor's done, I'm going to do congressional career next, then '96 campaign, if that's OK.  We will probably write too long and have to cut, but that's better than the other way around!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking of working in the wife and kids, and the children's deaths, into the "Legal career and marriage section", since it all happened at the same time. What do you think?  If we decide to change it, it will be easy enough to move it later.  --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. The public perception of McKinley as a good husband was a big plus to his career, and this seems like a good point to tell the reader that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the campaign. I will probably play with it some, I don't mention the other candidates, or the populists much.  I'll take a day or two to do some reading and catch up on other stuff, and then I'm going to gingerly deal with that civil rights section.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll be mostly reading the next few days, too, then I can see what needs doing in the Presidency section.  --Coemgenus (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There will be a lot. I might work on the assassination section after that.  Kinda nibbling around the edges.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Katherine
Yeah, I saw it. I didn't have the heart to AfD it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Same here. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

GAR: Michel Aflaq
Thanks for taking you're time to review the article. --TIAYN (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. The initial review is finished.  --Coemgenus (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for William A. Lynch
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

William Osborne
Is this the same as William McKinley Osborne? If so, I would spell it out. It must be from Armstrong, I checked Phillips. WMcKO is mentioned in other wiki articles, though he lacks one himself.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, same guy. I'll add the middle name.  --Coemgenus (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You refer to West Virginia in the section title, but "western Virginia" is used throughout that section. I know what is going on, but I'm not sure I can fix it without Armstrong.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, it was not West Virginia until 1863. I changed the section title.  --Coemgenus (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:James G. Blaine/GA1
So ... I noticed you have it up for GA, and decided to kill two birds with one stone. Usual 7 day hold, etc. etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I should be able to resolve those things today or tomorrow.  --Coemgenus (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also: do I close the peer review, or do you? --Coemgenus (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're aiming for FAC, leave it open until the bot closes it... see if someone else will weigh in. Sometimes you can get a couple of other opinions. No sense not trying! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The more the merrier! --Coemgenus (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the promotion! The Gilded Age is starting to lose just a bit of the tarnish thanks to your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And yours as well! Thanks.  McKinley should add a bit more polish to the era pretty soon.  --Coemgenus (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's all these interesting characters no one has touched. Hay, Cortelyou, I'm thinking maybe Garfield sometime.  I'd love to do Foraker if I could find enough sources.  But it is cool to take someone forgotten like Blaine or Hobart and make him live again and accessible to the world.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hay is especially fascinating, and I think people would enjoy reading about him. His friend Henry Adams is also worth reading about.  Garfield's not in bad shape, it just needs a little polishing and condensing, I think.  I was thinking about Matthew Quay for some time down the road maybe, just to give my home state some attention.--Coemgenus (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Quay also interested me as I passed by descriptions of him. Sourcing is always hard, alas.  Finding enough sources to do a FA on someone can be challenging.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the lead image in McKinley has got to go! There are much better images of him, or possibly the official portrait.  In that one, he looks startled and irritable.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. There are plenty to choose from.  --Coemgenus (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Morgan's book From Hayes to McKinley, would be worth your while to leaf through, if you can conveniently get a hold of a copy.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Levi L. Lamborn
Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ledes...
Re: The TJ lede - That's what I thought about them too. Shearonink (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they only seem to attract footnotes to settle edit wars. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hist list of US bps
Hi, Coemgenus. In the draft of your "Hist list of US bps" article, I noticed there is no entry for 1853 (for the 1st archbishop of San Fran), when San Fran was split off from Monterey and received its first bishop (archbishop). Monterey was re-named in 1859 and was further split in 1922 and 1967, per Roman Catholic Diocese of Monterey in California. Good luck as you continue to work on this magnum opus. Eagle4000 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason is that the list is of bishops, not dioceses. The entry for the first bishop of SF is not in 1853, when he took over that diocese, but in 1850, when he was ordained a bishop (#58).  --Coemgenus (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Rutherford B. Hayes
This is a note to let the main editors of Rutherford B. Hayes know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 4, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/March 4, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



Rutherford B. Hayes (1822–1893) was the 19th President of the United States (1877–1881). Taking office as president on March 4, 1877, he oversaw the end of Reconstruction and the United States' entry into the Second Industrial Revolution. Hayes was a reformer who began the efforts that would lead to civil service reform and attempted, unsuccessfully, to reconcile the divisions that had led to the American Civil War fifteen years earlier. When the Civil War began, Hayes left a successful political career to join the Union Army. Wounded five times, most seriously at the Battle of South Mountain, he earned a reputation for bravery in combat and was promoted to the rank of major general. After the war, he served in the U.S. Congress from 1865 to 1867 as a Republican. Hayes left Congress to run for Governor of Ohio and was elected to three terms, serving from 1867 to 1871 and 1876 to 1877. In 1876, Hayes was elected president in one of the most contentious elections in American history. Losing the popular vote to Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, Hayes narrowly won the presidency after the Compromise of 1877, in which a Congressional commission awarded him twenty disputed electoral votes. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)