User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jul-Dec 2016

WWI directory and Bugle articles
Hi there. You may have already seen my note on the MilHist talk page, but I am sending this short note to the regular writers and the editors of The Bugle to point them to a WWI projects directory that I've started (in my userspace for now). Would you be able to look and see if there is anything you might be able to add or advice on what is most useful? You'll note that I've pulled together Tom's timeline articles (which are wonderful, along with the op-eds). Maybe a proper index on the archive page of The Bugle would be useful, plus links allowing readers to navigate through the series? I have also tried to list all the WWI-related book reviews (but only from 2012 onwards), so please feel free to add to or copy that somewhere as needed if not already listed somewhere else. (I also dropped off notes on Tom and Nick's talk pages) Carcharoth (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 37 Squadron RAAF
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 37 Squadron RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 75 Wing RAAF
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 75 Wing RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 37 Squadron RAAF
The article No. 37 Squadron RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 37 Squadron RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Timeline
Greetings Ian, I amended the Somme timeline to take out the French who weren't involved but I would add French captures south of Maricourt and on the south side of the Somme, such as the capture of the Flaucourt Plateau. Keith-264 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine by me -- Tom? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's cool. As an FYI, I take the information from the Timeline of World War I page, so if its there, it usually gets mentioned in the bugle. You may want to cross check the two just in case there is a discrepancy there as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done; I was a bit puzzled because I thought you'd got it from the articles. French operations south of Maricourt aren't as well told in English but Philpott has done a lot to resurrect them. Even French books tend to use British writing as the framework, hence in the sections in the Somme articles about the Sixth and Tenth armies, the French don't seem to have named their battles. Shame I couldn't finish them all by 1 July but I've had so many health problems since last September, that I lost headway.Keith-264 (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/July 23, 2016
Another one of yours, Ian. Do you want to do the honors? - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed... Hope I'm (or rather the RAAF's) not getting too much exposure on the front page -- John Balmer on 3 July, No. 90 Wing RAAF on 10 July, Ian McLachlan on 23 July, and (assuming the nom I put in before McLachlan was chosen goes through), Jerry Pentland on 5 August -- you guys sure about all this...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a big backlog on these Aussie articles, and I've been trying to push a few through in what was, until very recently, a rather quiet TFAR season. After Pentland we'll give you a break for a month or so. Brianboulton (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Heh, no prob. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Next one
I'm not sure when you're going to wade through the pile of the FAC for the Hawaii half dollar, so would you mind if I went ahead with the next one? I think everything's done with the Hawaii.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I did have a look at that one and it seemed to me that one support was only on sourcing, so I'd prefer to see someone else give the article a comprehensive review. It's certainly near the finish line, though, so given the list isn't huge right now I have no objections to you adding another. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 75 Wing RAAF
The article No. 75 Wing RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 75 Wing RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for No. 37 Squadron RAAF
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ping for an update?
Mind having a look at my entry at the bottom here? I'd like to keep this one moving. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted, tks, will return when I get time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Question on FA review process
Hi Ian. I see you're one of the FA coordinators. I just nominated Gospel of John for FA status. It's my first FA nomination, and I see there's a bit of a backlog, so I was just wondering about how long the typical turnaround time is before the review might be started. I'm not in any particular rush, just looking to know what to expect. Thanks! Jujutsuan ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 06:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, if a FAC is particularly well-prepared, and well-patronised by reviewers, it can be promoted in less than two weeks. Generally it takes a good deal longer, at least a month -- there is in fact a discussion and some stats on the subject at the bottom of WT:FAC as we speak. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of No. 75 Wing RAAF
Hello! Your submission of No. 75 Wing RAAF at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Regards, KC Velaga   ☚╣✉╠☛  15:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A class reviews
If you have some time, consider having a look at the A class reviews of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service and Mark XIV bomb sight. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick Question about FAC
Hello, I have a quick question about the FAC process. I have placed the episode "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" as a featured article candidate near the beginning of the month. Unfortunately, it has not attracted any attention after being open for a couple of weeks, and I have a feeling it will be archived soon. I was wondering if you have any advice or suggestions on how to attract more attention to a featured article candidate. I have voted on a few featured article candidates as I thought that would help. I understand that there is not much that can be done, as it is really up to a user's preference and interest on whether or not a FAC gets attention, but I would appreciate any advice (especially since I am still relatively new to Wikipedia). Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not replying sooner, Aoba. You'd think that episodes from popular TV shows would attract more attention, wouldn't you? There's not a great deal more to do when you notify relevant projects, and try to do some FAC reviewing yourself (the return from which can take time to kick in). You could perhaps check recently promoted FAs for TV shows and try nominators or reviewers of those with neutrally worded requests for comment. If we do end up archiving the nom simply for lack of commentary, the usual two-week waiting period before re-nominating can be waived, per a clause in the instructions at the top of WP:FAC. If that did happen, though, I always like to suggest people get as many eyes on an article as possible before FAC, so although you've put it through GAN, I would try a Peer Review (again notifying relevant projects) before trying FAC again. We're not quite at that stage yet though, it will probably remain open a bit longer. Good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice, and I apologize for any inconvenience. I would like for the FAC to be kept up for now as there is still the possibility someone will respond to it. I just wanted to make sure I did not mess anything up for the nomination. Hope you have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No inconvenience at all, this is one of the things the coords are here for. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the intrusion again. I have two quick questions about the FAC process. How many days will the FAC for "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" be left open if there are not any additional comments/reviews? While I do not want to sound pessimistic or rude, but I highly doubt this is going to get any more comments as it is pushed further down the list and it is the summer where a lot of users may be away from their computers.
 * For my second question, could I immediately nominate a different article for FAC once the one about the Charlotte King episode is removed or is there a hold period? I have been prepping and expanding several articles for FAC consideration so I was just curious about that (and hopefully the future ones fare better). I hope you have an excellent day. Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I have to admit it is looking more likely that we'd have to archive the nom simply because we don't have enough commentary to say there's consensus to promote. At the same time, we don't generally waive the usual two-week waiting period following archiving unless there's been little to no commentary, and this one is not necessarily in that category.  Can I suggest that if you have some other articles that you think may be FAC-ready, try putting one or two of them through Peer Review now, along the lines of my recommendation above, to a) try and prepare them even more, and b) hopefully garner some interested reviewers who you could ping to take a look when you do eventually bring these articles to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick response. I will try putting some of the articles through Peer Review, but I am not that hopeful on that front to be completely honest. I do not have much luck with Peer Review with attracting feedback or comments in the past. I am also pretty disappointed in the FAC process where it seems that nominations receive more comments/reviews based on the reputation of the user rather than the actual work. I do not mean to come across as negative or pessimistic, but I was really proud of my work for "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" so it is disheartening and disillusioning to see that it barely received any attention at all. Aoba47 (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess I spoke too soon as I have fortunately attracted a few comments and votes since the last message. I shouldn't be so easily disheartened. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Quick question: how many votes are required for an article to be promoted to FA? Aoba47 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Jack Verge - FAC
I've just seen your archiving of this FAC due to calls for a full copyedit. I think the call for a full copyedit is completely unreasonable, while I accept that some improvements can be made. We have one oppose and a few supports. As it's my first FAC, I don't know what it takes to be promoted, but the nomination was open a long time with nothing but supports and no further comments until the last reviewer popped up. The way you've handled this seems to me to be unfair not only to me, but to all the others who put in effort at this FAC. It's also completely ridiculous that you take a presidential approach to a collaborative process. You have made this an unpleasant experience. FunkyCanute (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A presidential approach? Well, I've heard everything now... Anyway, I'm sorry if you've found the experience unpleasant, but it's not uncommon for one reasoned oppose from an experienced reviewer to derail a long-running FAC, as deflating as that can be. I offered a suggestion for helping prepare the article for another nomination -- there is unfortunately a fair distance between the GA and the FA criteria, and PR can be a useful way station; given his military service, MilHist A-Class Review might be an even better route, as it can often attract more reviewers than a PR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award

 * Tks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wolfgang Lüth
Hi, I've been thinking about reassessing the above article due to less than reliable sources being used:
 * 12 citations to Karl Alman aka Franz Kurowski
 * 12 citations to a self-published source Florian Berger
 * 6 citations to Gordon Williamson (writer)

Please also see: Wolfgang Lüth. I've tagged the article accordingly.

Since you reviewed the article back in 2009, I wanted to check in beforehand to see if there would be any concerns. If you could let me know that would be great. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Garage rock article
Hello, this is Garagepunk66. For over a year and a half, I've been working to expand and improve the Garage rock article. Last November the article became listed as GA. I have since done a lot of additional expansion and improvements. I am thinking about nominating the article for an FA review. But, before I submit the article to peer review, I'd like to first get some feedback on the article's prospects. Perhaps you could read it over and tell me what you think. Should I proceed with a peer review? Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I had a very quick look over it last night before I hit the sack. It's certainly appears comprehensive at first glance.  Although a rock fan in general I don't know enough about the subject to comment too much on content.  Some of the expression seems a bit journalistic rather than encyclopedic, although of course that can also make for more engaging prose -- it's a balancing act.  There are some obvious MOS issues like the year ranges (we use ndash, not hyphen, and only the last two years in the second part, e.g. 1964–66, not 1964-1966) but that's pretty minor stuff.  Taking it to PR before FAC is an excellent idea -- I think do that and let anyone you believe might comment (individuals interested in rock history plus relevant projects) know about it. Good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, one other thing before even taking to PR... If you haven't done so already, I'd take a look at a recently promoted similar article, New Wave of British Heavy Metal, just to get a comparison on structure, level of detail, and so on. You could also do worse than check the article's FAC nom to get a better understanding of how the article reached its current form. After that I think you should be armed with all you need for PR and, later hopefully, FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks mentioning the New Wave of British Heavy Metal article--I'll definitely take a look at it. Throughout the peer review process and candidacy phases, we will have a chance to iron out any imperfections in the Garage rock article now has.  I know that it is a process and will work for the best.  My first step, of course, was to do what I could for the expansion, which is now pretty much done.  That effort was such a huge undertaking, that I'm sure I overlooked a bunch of things.  So, now is a chance to look back over it objectively.  In the coming stages, we can go back and improve and refine what is there (and of course add anything that needs to be added) in order to make it the best article it can be.  Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for No. 75 Wing RAAF
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Tks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

My recent changes to the Serong article
Gday Ian. Sorry to make changes to the article whilst it is being reviewed, I hope they haven't caused you any issues. I have to admit that one of the reasons for a few of the changes was because I ran the Earwig tool (which I should have done before putting it up for review in hindsight) and it detected that some of the language used in places was a bit too similar to that of one of the sources (the Obituaries Australia source). I'm unsure if I added this text or if it was in there from a previous editor to be honest. Hopefully the changes I've made are now sufficient but it is probably an area you will need to check as part of the review now in light of this (if you didn't plan on doing this anyway). All the best and apologies for any inconvenience. Anotherclown (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No prob AC, I still hope to review this w/e but hadn't begun in earnest yet so no inconvenience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The Dawn of Love
Hi Iain; just to say my comments at the end were not grandfathering; these articles represent an uniquely unfortunate period in English art history which I am recently captivated by. Especially the contemporary critical analysis is worth reading, though I wish Iridescent might now release us all from this hell. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Heh, no prob -- the subject may be painful but the FACs are generally mercifully smooth... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A fear amonst the 1980s art wank community is that a series of lesser Julian Cope albums will follow from this editor. Do you know any admins. Ceoil (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"Wholesale changes" under Wikipedia policy/77 Sqn RAAF
Hi Ian,

I have left a message to you regarding the above matters at User:Grant65/sandbox.

Regards,

Grant – 05:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

--

Hi Ian,

Thanks for replying.

My response is at the same place.

Grant &#124;  Talk  08:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

---

I'm happier with the general content of that section now. I think I'll leave the article alone for a while.

Thanks for your help.

Regards,

Grant &#124;  Talk  10:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Problem with FL
See Talk:List_of_Asian_American_Medal_of_Honor_recipients. I've asked the MOH society to send me a list of the 33 names. Pililaau being added should not be a problem. If they send me the list how would the article get fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:ad00:9c9d:6ab3:cbf8:a317 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not an expert on US military history or MOH awardees, but generally speaking it would be reasonable for you or any editor to add a name to a Wikipedia list such as this, as long as the award (and in this case, I'd assume, the recipient's heritage) can be cited to a reliable source. I don't know if the CMOHS is counted as such a source, but it may be. Let's see if anyone replies to your message of the article talk page while you wait for the list to be sent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I got an answer already! They sent a PDF with 34 names on it. I said a big thanks and suggested they update that web page from 33 to 34 or even put up web pages with the lists. The email they sent explicitly said 34 is the correct number. I only dabble in wiki by making small helpful edits but will see what I can do about getting the article up to date. The list they sent says 4 are "native Hawaiian" and also has an ethnic Chinese (Franics Wai) who was born in Hawaii. 2600:8805:5800:AD00:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_Asian_American_Medal_of_Honor_recipients&type=revision&diff=734901475&oldid=734844598 no wonder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:AD00:9CA3:541A:7FB0:A1A8 (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

C/E advice
Hey Ian, is it correct to use "a three-bill tour" for a tour that features three bands? Asking in case if can be interpreted as paying three tickets for the tour or something else.--Retrohead (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good question... I wonder if "triple-bill" might be preferable to "three-bill" -- I'm sure I've heard the former term used to mean three bands in the one show, so if you added "tour" to "triple-bill" I think it'd get the point across reasonably well. Perhaps even "triple-header"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Just checking
Ian, I noticed your edits and wanted to make sure you knew that number was the number of FAs at the time of the nomination, not as of now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, you mean the number I corrected for myself at the time of 90 Wing? Yes, I assumed it's as you said and it was just an error before -- did I get that right? BTW, the reason I wanted to update is to get Brian's percentage at the mentoring proposal up-to-date as of 1 Aug noms and earlier. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was an error; thanks for fixing it. (I was trying to decode the diff on my phone, so I misinterpreted it.)  FYI, I will probably keep that table up to date for a few months after we start the mentoring, just to see if it makes a difference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC closing same day as latest reviewer?
Ian Rose, it was in quite bad form the manner in which you closed the FAC Featured article candidates/Gog and Magog/archive1. Your comment that "after six weeks or so I'd expect this to be closer to consensus" as if issues raised weeks ago remain ignored. But that is not the case here.

In fact, you artificially made the archived review look like 20 issues were left open-ended; they were only posted yesterday by JFH and you closed the FAC the same day! --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll just mention I thought about saying the article is not ready for fac but didn't because I'm a little new to these reviews. I can see how the fact that someone brought up so many issues late in the process made it clear that it won't pass any thing soon.--JFH (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks JFH. As for Kiyoweap, your wild interpretation of a straightforward note that offered explanation for the closure and guidance for a future nomination does you no credit. If I believed that the nominator was ignoring comments I'd have said so plainly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What Ian Rose said was: "Sorry, but after six weeks or so I'd expect this to be closer to consensus ... please work on resolving outstanding issues outside the pressure of the FAC process"


 * But these "outstanding issues" being yet unresolved were an artificial circumstance of your making. You closed the FAC only <10 hours after JFH's new issues were posted.
 * Up to few days before that, there was no lack of willingness to "resolve" open issues by editors presently involved.
 * However, we just didnt get the fair opportunity to respond to the last ones.


 * JFH's list, contrary to how damaging and long he thinks it is, is quite typical of the lists of minor defects that are brought up routinely in FAC.
 * Usually, the FAC candidates are given fair opportunity to correct or address them, and the FAC able to move on.


 * So, what I dont see is the mechanism whereby the candidate(s) were deliberately denied such an opportunity on this occasion. The process is opaque, and does not have the appearance of fairness and impartiality.--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Kiyoweap, after 6 weeks you were the only support, with 4 other commenters, some old, some new, who had not yet declared. Archiving seems fair and usual in such circs. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod, yes, I am seeing there must be some sort of a six-week cut-off rule being instituted. Whether six-week cut-off is unfair, I'll discuss below. Whether the remark contained unfair characterization, was discussed above. These are each issues on their own.

You also advise that after 6 weeks we needed to have collected more votes. But in reality, how? Random walk-in reviewers may not vote at all. We have no control. A regular FA reviewer this time (FunkMonk), who problably would have voted, but got cut short. Clearly then, to ensure votes got cast within that time, candidates would have had to garner a group of FA reviewers, pre-arranged ahead of time, so they would participate and vote without time loss.

It goes to show the compromised integrity of FA which has been turned into a gamed system. --Kiyoweap (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Your insinuations of "bad form" and "compromised integrity" are a bit on the bizarre side and I'd suggest you tone down the hyperbole if you expect to have a productive conversation with someone. I am the other FAC coordinator and I fully support Ian's decision to archive this nomination. I would have done the same. We do allow some leeway when nominations have not received sufficient feedback to make a determination, but this nomination received quite a bit of feedback and almost no compelling consensus for promotion. Such nominations are archived, sometimes even sooner than six weeks. It's the way FAC has always operated. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. New reviewers may well be put off by having to read a long series of comments & discussion. Better to spend 2 weeks or more sorting out the points raised so far, then renominate. The rough cutoff is necessary simply to stop the FAC page from getting too long - we don't want to look like GAN, with stuff sitting for months. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Finding a solution
Hi. ,, , , , , , . I think it's become very clear that this infobox warring situation has got out of hand. It seems to drain most of the energy of a lot of us on a daily basis now. Rarely a day goes by when I don't see a mention of an infobox. It's become an impossible situation to deal with and has grown out of control, especially when articles written by one or two editors are systematically targetted. It's become a form of bullying on here. Even more concerning is that the way that articles are targetted especially once they're promoted to FA/GA. We're in danger of losing FA contributors because of it. I think it's high time we did something about it and propose a change to the arb ruling which protects quality content contributors from non contributors trying to "force" an infobox. I think we need a serious discussion on what we can do to address this problem because it is a problem, a permanent one, and the only way things are going to change is if it is formally identified as disruptive behaviour on here and content contributors protected from the "cult". Or at least something to start with which changes what one can do with "infobox proposals" once an article is promoted to FA. Editors who work hard to promote articles don't deserve to have to deal with this. How do we put an end to this current situation?♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it be appropriate for me to comment here whilst there is yet another bloody ANI thread that has just been started for saying "lol" and, perhaps more embarrassingly, spelling "playwright" wrong (auto spell, honest).  Cassianto Talk   21:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, I spotted the ANI thread after I posted here, even more justified now, and it's more potential time wasting! I'm sure the pro infobox lot think an infobox is of vital importance and that the site is better off with one in every article like a uniform. That's fair enough. But what's not fair enough is targetting articles by a small groups of editors who dislike them in arts bios and non editors ganging up to try to force something that people who've spent weeks and months improving something don't want. The time wasting, hostility and disruption it causes is the reason that it should be stopped, not that people aren't entitled to their opinions.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked for Discretionary Sanctions to be authorized for this area and was supported by several editors, but I'm rather unimpressed with how ArbCom has (not) dealt with this. One of them requested that the call for DS be its own amendment request, so I may do that this week if I can find the time. There are several behaviors going on that I believe would be sanctionable under a DS system, and the problem would go away quickly. I've said before that the real loss is the distraction from creating content. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Would something like an INFOBOXVAR, along the lines of CITEVAR, be useful, if it had Arbcom support? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree Lazer brain. Perhaps I am an uncivil sod at times, but nobody is willing to look at the reasons why I'm an uncivil sod. There's only so much bullshit one person can take.  The infobox mess needs addressing.  The pro-infoboxers cry WP:OWN at every opportunity, yet it is them who appear to want to OWN the soddin' article when they try and force a box on.  The Coward RfC is a complete joke: a bunch of people turn up (who know nothing of the subject, know nothing of its construction, who call the featured text "stupid", and admit that they will probably never look at the article again) and try to force a box on to it for the sake of the poor "reader".  They vote "support", and then give sweeping generalisations for justification, not taking into account the actual article they are looking at.  Then, when someone challenges that support, or calls it out to be a generalisation, the WP:CIVIL card is played which then gets the backs up of the challenger, which then leads to ANI.  In fact, as shown in the last ANI, someone doesn't even have to be uncivil to be reported, as was the case with me.  It's a bloody farce!   Cassianto Talk   23:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * , I proposed INFOBOXVAR in 2012 on WT:MOS (though not by name), but it didn't gain support. It would be a good solution. That and discretionary sanctions. SarahSV (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Solution-wise I agree with Sarah (and by extension Mike and Andy). FAs are not set in stone, and are subject to change by local consensus like any other article, but those that were promoted to FA without IBs have two aspects that weigh against an IB being added largely through the efforts of otherwise-uninvolved editors: consensus, implicit or explicit, for the IB-free version of the article that achieved the necessary support to promote to FA; and the evident preference for the absence of an IB by the editors who improved the article to FA-level. I disagree with those who say that an IB counts as "content" -- by its nature, an IB should not generally contain info that isn't available in other parts of the article, most often the lead, which is itself a summary of the article. To me it's always been a style consideration, like the format of citations, the variation of English used, and so on. If IBs are not required in every article -- and they weren't last time I checked -- then we should treat them the same way as the citation style and the variation of English: all other things being equal, respect the preference of the main editors and only overturn that after achieving consensus on the talk page. Now, though, it seems like that sort of AGF is losing out to a sledgehammer approach on the part of those who think that in fact every article needs an IB no matter what. So I agree, time for a new approach so those who care about content can get back to building an encyclopedia. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sarah, it seems one thing that shot down your proposal was the "first major contributor" language. How about some language such as "consensus of active content editors of the page"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , yes, that wording would be good. The "first major contributor" principle is intended as a fallback position, in the sense that, if no consensus on talk can be reached, then defer to the first major contributor. See WP:CITEVAR: "it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page ..." But if that's a sticking point, then "consensus of active content editors of the page" would work. SarahSV (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Infobox warring has shown to cause contuining disruption and time wasting. As Laser says it's a clear problem which should be dealt with by arb primarily because it distracts people from writing content, and puts people off wanting to produce FAs and dreading TFA because it means dealing with infobox fanatics. I suggest we come up with a proposal to this because this really can't go on. It drains most of our energy and enthusiasm! What SV proposed should have been enforced years ago. I'm going to approach a few arbitrators and ask them about it anyway. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Before a formal arb request is made, I've brought it up here. I'm sure not exactly what we should do here. Something like SV proposed is much needed, but the fanatics will only turn up in their droves and oppose it again. Ideally we need some sort of intenvention which the fanatics can't control.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If anyone proposes INFOBOXVAR anywhere, please let us know. I would like to participate in the discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As would many of us on the pro-infobox side. We have rather similar emotions and sense of being drained, we too feel the opposition has an OWNership problem.  The Pro-Infobox view is, most likely, the position of the "silent majority" of wikipedia editors, but those who feel strongly about the issue, well... are here, and I think, almost all of them.  While a minority view is entitled to respect, there is also a question of whether we have a walled garden problem or people who are holding back the tide.  We have seen articles with perfectly good infoboxes be challenged at TfA by a reviewer who demands their removal (one of the Catherine Zeta-Jones FACs was an example).  Another problem is the phrasing "consensus of active editors" when we are talking about the question of what constitutes an "active" editor -- the first person to start the edit-war by changing an article that has been stable, but ignored, for several years?   My take is that one solution would be an RfC that goes up on the big banner we all get when there is a need for a community-wide discussion.  We could get the input of hundreds of editors and maybe from there we could have a crowdsourced solution.   Montanabw (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The difference though is that we don't systematically go across the site removing infoboxes. And removal of an infobox is usually when we've significantly improved an article and see it of no use. On the contrary, the infobox warriors go from one article to the other commenting on infoboxes and trying to impose them on articles they've contributed bugger all to. And it's the same small group of editors targetted time and time again. That's by far more irritating.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved person - for sake of all the gods - can ya'll (on both sides) just ... drop the freaking issue. The world will not end if there is or is not an infobox. If you didn't actively work to improve an article - don't "join up" just because you like or dislike infoboxes. At this point, I'm thinking the "silent majority" of wikipedia editors is probably a lot like me - where I just want ya'll to stop it and quit squabbling. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Erm, Ealdgyth, that's exactly what I'm trying to do, by getting arb to alter the current ruling to stop this happening time and time again. It's not as if the issue is going to go away, it needs to be enforced, so I'm trying to start to do something about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I think, Ealdgyth, that if one looks at the issue carefully, one will see that a guideline like INFOBOXVAR would solve the issue and discourage the drive-by shooters. "Active editors" could be defined as the top *content* editors of the article, not counting infobox edits. The fact that Montanabw would define it as s/he proposes above should make it crystal clear that the IB adders are acting in bad faith.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the "drive-by shooters" are on both sides; removing infoboxes that have been in an article for 10 years is also very disruptive, particularly where there is a class of articles that typically include them (i.e. movie stars, for example). The problem was that the ArbCom decision that declared infoboxes to be a case-by-case situation and the general direction WP is going to thrash local consensus in general has created anarchy.  What is really going on here is twofold:  one one hand, infoboxes are not easy to add for those of us not conversant in all the syntax needed, and the templates are suffering a bit from instruction creep.  So the pro-infobox side really does need to make their creation easier.  But on the other hand, the anti-infobox side has traditionally been very quick to personalize and attack anyone who presents a pro-infobox position, and some (but not all) mombers of that group have a steadfast refusal to accept the reality that some summary information, preferably in machine-readable fashion is necessary in encyclopedic articles, and they have to understand that only a very small minority of editors are vehemently opposed to infobox inclusion.   Montanabw (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Given that the MoS includes advice on infoboxes as a style issue (WP:INFOBOXUSE), does that place infobox disputes under the MoS discretionary sanctions? They were based on Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation:


 * "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed" (note: broadly construed).


 * what do you think? SarahSV (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That hadn't even occurred to me, but yes, it seems that infoboxes would fall under DS for the Manual of Style. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'll wait to see how quickly the ArbCom makes its decision, but if there's delay, the MoS DS could be used in the meantime. SarahSV (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you dodge the point yet again. Your inaction on something so black-and-white just enables this sort of disgusting behaviour. If I went round making similar slurs about the mental state of other editors, I'm sure you'd be joining a queue to slap a block on me, but you refuse to make even the smallest comment here? – Gavin (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added my (scattered) thoughts on the request spot. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Sarah, Will it stop admins from questioning people's mental health? I'm sure you must have missed the ping the NC thread where I provided the link where I was accused of "bad faith bordering on paranoid conspiracism". I'm sure you would have made a comment or taken action if you had seen the ping. – Gavin (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Add, , and some of the others on the pro-infobox side to get a fuller sense of the matter.  But I will say that there is a widespread belief on both sides that the "other side" engages in unnecessary personal attacks, that "the other side" has nefarious motives, and so on. The problem is that I read the MOS DS to be mostly linked to the capitalization and titles battle (which was almost as bad as this one and we lost several good editors because of it), and I am concerned about expanding its scope beyond that; however, if asking there for clarification and amendment would help, I do not oppose doing so.   Montanabw (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , DS are authorized for the entire MoS. That was deliberate and editors have been sanctioned for poor behavior in areas like LQ without issue. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you link to the specific place where it stated an intent to apply to the entire MOS? Either way,  the problem here is that there is just too much emotion going on.  DQ is not going to ratchet down the emotion; in fact, it might just create yet more ill feeling.  I'd like to see if there is any way for people to just dial it back.  Infoboxes are reality and hating them won't change that reality, neither will attacking people for trying to do the right thing, even if no one can agree on what the right thing is.   Montanabw (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have been called. Sorry, I'm at a loss in finding any "sense of the matter". I have no idea what DS means but understand "sanctions" which I oppose. I thought I made a good proposal to not call each other by group names, - it resulted in more colourful group names. I thought I made a neutral list of articles where an infobox was reverted, - it has been described as breeding ground for warriors which needs to be deleted. Sorry, life is too short, I don't want to be involved in the topic, at least to the end of the year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, we've now lost four featured article contributors, Tim, SchroCat, Cassianto and We hope. Who wants to make a formal arb proposal ammendment before we lose any more?♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The matter is being discussed here, with several Arbs already opining that DS should be authorized. I think the best course of action right now is to await that decision and operate within the system (at least in the short-term) to address behavior issues and disruption. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Well I've had enough of the silly issue for the moment so I'll move on, and just hope these great editors find reason to continue at some point.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

The link is here if you are interested: Featured article candidates/Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?/archive1. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Aoba, thanks for your post. As one of the coordinators for the FAC process (along with Laser brain), I do tend to be fairly active in it! While I sometimes make small tweaks to an article before it gets promoted, I don't do too many in-depth reviews because it means I have to recuse from my coordination duties -- in other words, if I review an article in depth, and especially if I then explicitly support or oppose promotion, I can't be the one closing the review (i.e. promoting to FA status, or archiving as not promoted). When I do comment at FAC it tends to be an article I've reviewed previously (e.g. at GAN, or at the Military History Project's A-Class Review, as I'm active in that project). I think the "Charlotte King" FAC may well have had enough eyes on it now for you to just sit tight, I'll probably walk through the FAC list in the next couple of days to check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, and I apologize for the intrusion. I still have a lot to learn about the FAC process lol, so I greatly appreciate the message. Aoba47 (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No intrusion at all, pls ask anything, anytime -- you seem to be finding FAC a worthwhile experience and that's always good to know! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I like learning as much as I can about Wikipedia, and I want to try to improve the content that I work with as much as possible. I do find FAC to be a very interesting and worthwhile experience. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Mentoring proposal
I think we should now go live with the voluntary mentor scheme for FAC. This means I will transfer the instructions for the scheme from my sandbox to WP mainspace. There should then be a prominent link in the FAC instructions, directing mew nominators to the mentor page. I also hope to have a permanent note on the FAC talkpage performing two functions: advising novice nominees about the scheme, and encouraging experienced editors to sign up as mentors.

Ten have signed up so far, which isn't many, but I haven't begun my general recruitment drive yet; the early signers are mainly those who participated in the original talkpage discussion. I hope to double the numbers after my trawl, and perhaps take in more when the scheme is established and there are results to show. Of course, it's not necessary to sign up on this list to be a mentor, and I suspect some who support the scheme may prefer not to sign up formally.

If you have no further queries or reservations, I'll create the WP page approximately 24 hours from now, and will then begin my recruitment drive. (Copied To Laser Brain). Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to advise you that I have now created Mentoring for FAC.  A link to  this page within the FAC instructions will be important if this scheme is to reach its target clientele. I am currently sending out a note trawling for mentors to add to the list. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps also a sentence in the edit notice that shows up when you create a FAC? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

FAC urgents?
Ian (and LB): any urgents? I might get one or two done this weekend if you want to pick out what needs looking at. On vacation with little internet 9/16 through 9/24 so this will be the last time in September I can put in a chunk of hours. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks Mike, I hope to have a trawl through the list tonight Sydney time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, four added. There's other noms further up the list that might be "promotable" so I'll probably continue tomorrow and so may add more to urgents as well, unless Andy gets there first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sydney Meetup next Thursday evening
You are invited to the Sydney Meetup!
 * Thursday 15 September at 6PM at Petersham Bowling Club.
 * (a) accessible by train - Petersham station
 * (b) has some nice draught beers
 * (c) has some nice food
 * (d) has some quiet areas outside and inside...so people can chat without getting a hoarse voice by shouting over 100 decibels of muzak etc.
 * (e) accessible by car with straightforward parking nearby
 * This message was delivered to the invitation list - to opt out of future invitations please remove your name from the list. 04:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A quick note
I replied on Catherine Zeta-Jones. I've been meaning to drop a note for a while. I'm not always around, but I always reply to a ping and try to keep my hand in at FAC. If there are ever any articles that need reviews, or another pair of eyes, or have a source review missing, please feel free to ping me. I'm always glad to wade in! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks so much, Sarastro, I'll definitely keep that in mind. On a day-to-day basis, a good place to keep an eye out is at the top of WT:FAC, where we list articles needing source reviews and spotchecks, and the FAC urgents box for those in need of more comprehensive reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dick Cresswell
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dick Cresswell you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dick Cresswell
The article Dick Cresswell you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dick Cresswell for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Richard E. Cole
Ian, could you take a look at User talk:Nick-D? You can comment here if you want. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, will try and stop by later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Ian. I just wanted to pop over and express my gratitude again for your edits on Sabrina Sidney. I have read through it a number of times and it has always felt not-quite-right, but I couldn't put my finger on why, but your tonal changes seem to have made the world difference. I really appreciate that you've put your experience into helping improve the article and really wanted to say, Thank you. WormTT(talk) 20:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's very thoughtful of you, thanks -- I'll try and return to the article in the next couple of days. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Dick Cresswell
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!
In recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, I hereby present you with these co-ord stars. I wish you luck in the coming year. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tom, and to you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

FA mentoring scheme
Hi,

You mentioned I do the FA mentoring scheme as I haven't got an article to FA yet. Are you suggesting I do this for Ridge Racer (video game)? I think the FAC demonstrated that if an article isn't popular, it's never going to be an FA, full stop :(. I'm actually beginning to think it's a lost cause, and I just can't help but feel I'll be wasting mine and someone else's time. A similar thing happened with a peer review of Dungeon Keeper, and it seems nobody (apart from myself) is interested in that article. I'd like to think FA is a possibility for Ridge Racer, but the evidence so far overwhelmingly suggests the opposite, and I'd already failed before. What's going to happen the third time? There's no guarantee it won't just stall again. I hope that isn't commonplace amongst FACs, because if it is, then it's no wonder so many fail. If I am going to do this, I need some assurance that it's worth doing. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Adam, the mentoring scheme is new so I can't look to "past performance" to give you an idea of how it would go, but I don't think teaming up with an established FA nominator -- if one agreed to come on board -- could hurt. I wouldn't be too discouraged by the result of the two previous nominations -- the first was affected by your being distracted elsewhere on WP, the second may have suffered from being buried among a somewhat longer-than-usual list of competing nominations. If you feel you don't want to try the mentoring, but you would like to renominate Ridge Racer, there are other ways to attract commentary, such as leaving neutrally worded requests for review at relevant project talk pages, or with editors who have reviewed your article(s) previously at GA/PR/FA, or simply by asking directly some of the editors you've seen round the traps who might be interested. It also helps long-term to review others' FACs, even if a bit outside your comfort zone and even if you don't feel confident to support or oppose, to get yourself more established in the community and perhaps gain more interest in your nominations. Hope this helps! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't see your comment until now! I would like to renominate Ridge Racer, but doing so again so soon after the previous nomination might be seen as disruptive. As it so happens, the article is a GA and has been through peer review. Unfortunately, I don't see how I can review other FACs without getting an article to FA myself, as I don't see how my arguments could be credible unless I demonstrate an understanding of the FA criteria. I think there is one person on the mentoring thing who might be interested; should I approach him directly or just do it normally? Adam9007 (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

History documentaries
Hi. I was wondering are history documentaries considered reliable sources and if so what is the best (feature article equivalent) way to cite them here (i.e. what format and template to use). If you don't know the answer to this can you point me in the right direction. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there. To answer the second question first, Template:Cite AV media can be used to cite audio-visual documentaries. The documentary's reliability should be considered in the same way as any other source -- WP:RS offers a guide. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Rogožarski IK-3
G'day Ian, the GAN for this article is stalled due to the original reviewer having RW issues and the 2O only being intermittently available. It's not a huge article, but I hope it is of interest to you with your aviation speciality. I wondered if you would mind taking it over and finishing up the GAN? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, the current review's about as long as the article... Okay, will watchlist and try and get to it this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

fake/false
Hi Ian, In the Overlord article, Deception section, I changed 'fake' to 'false' simply because 'fake' had already been used a few sentences prior to "the broadcast of fake radio traffic" bit.

At the time, I couldn't think of a better word than 'false' - any ideas?

Regards RASAM (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, tks for taking the time to stop by. Sorry I hadn't spotted that repetition, which is something I also like to avoid where possible. What do you think of "dummy radio traffic" for the second mention? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me RASAM (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Jul to Sep 16

 * Many thanks Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/November 1, 2016
I got this one down to 1288, but he had such an interesting life that I'm not sure what to cut next. Can you get it below 1200? - Dank (push to talk) 11:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Jeez, no rest for the wicked, less than a fortnight after No. 91 Wing... ;-) Okay, Dan, will have a look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to go, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring IP at Noel Coward
I left edit war warnings on both of his IP addresses. BTW, I am not sure whether or not I agree with what he is trying to do, but I agree that he needs to discuss it on the Noel Coward talk page, per WP:BRD. Feel free to open a discussion there yourself if you want to give reasons why the roles should not be added to the filmography. I'd be interested to know the pros and cons. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks mate. My reasoning was primarily per my initial reverting edit summary, that it's unnecessary bloat, but I'm also quite happy to discuss on the talk page if the IP wants to initiate something there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Trinity (nuclear test)
I didn't mean to prod Trinity (nuclear test), but First Atomic bomb. I got an error message that the tag couldn't be placed, saw that the article had been changed to a redirect and forgot about it. Apparently the prod tag was placed where I didn't mean it. Sjö (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Sjö -- no prob, I don't think we've interacted before so I quickly looked at your talk/contribs pages and I did get the impression there must have been some kind of mistake... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The Left Hand of Darkness
But it indicates that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. If an automotive writer describes the VW Beetle as "an excellent example of a low-cost pickup truck", I'd want to warn people who don't know autos that the Beetle is not in fact a pick-up truck. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Help?
Hey Ian, a long time back I added the duplinks tool importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); // User:Ucucha/duplinks and got the "highlight duplicate links" link in my tools, but it doesn't seem to work. I click on it and nothing happens, as far as I can see. I've tried this in both the editing window and on the main page... question: I still use the Monobook skin, would that be the problem? (I also have craploads of other tools enabled, would this conflict with some of them?). Wha is supposed to happen? Montanabw (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Heh, TBH the first time I used it I thought nothing happened but then it doesn't give messages per se, it just puts thin red boxes around the duplinks (not the first instance of the links, just the duplicates). I have monobook too and it works on that. Have you scanned the entire article you've used it on to check for those red boxes? I just tried it on Secretariat now and no duplicates showed up, but then I see from edit history that Jlvsclrk went around removing them, so I put one back in and tried it in preview and it displayed as expected. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome.  rocks!   Montanabw (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Re. Pop Warner Featured Article Candidate
Hi Ian, my question is in regards to the FAC review process of the Pop Warner article. Is it going to take place at the article's talk page or at Featured article candidates forum? Thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there, the review takes place on the nomination page that you've created, and that goes onto the Featured article candidates (WP:FAC) page (I've just done that for you) so, in effect, yes the review process is at WP:FAC but there is also a link to the nomination/review page at the top of the article talk page (where is says "leave comments"). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it, thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, what should have I done for it to go to the Featured article candidates page before? Rybkovich (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again. When you've created and saved the nomination page, copy its name (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pop Warner/archive1) to your clipboard, edit WP:FAC and paste at the top of the list under the Nominations heading. Put two pairs of curly brackets " " around the page name to make the template link. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it, thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Bond films
I want to know if it would be appropriate to add Weapon of Choice, which surely can't be the only fictional Bond film, and if there are more we could start a section of those. It was made in 1964 and starred Sean Connery, according to an episode of Timeless (TV series), and included characters based on people from that series who met Ian Fleming when they traveled back in time.—  Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  23:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know Timeless -- are you saying an episode refers to a made-up movie called Weapon of Choice with Sean Connery as Bond? If so, I don't see how that can be added to a Bond films list, which refers to actual movies... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the movie was made up. I was thinking there must be someplace to put that.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Allen Walker's talk
Thanks for promoting the article. I have one question though. Talk:Allen Walker is a bit of mess considering it says twice it had peer reviews. Will a bot review or is there a way to combine most of them? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Tintor, I'm not aware of a bot that adds PRs to article history, it may just have to be done manually -- I wouldn't combine them if they're separate reviews, they should each have their own line, incl. the date the review was closed linking to the article as it stood at that point, similar to the GAN and FAC review entries. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Peter Sellers
Hey, I can see you've got Peter Sellers watchlisted. Could you keep an eye on SagaciousPhil? She's got a vendetta against me from earlier disputes with her and Eric Corbett and is reverting my edits on sight. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A quick look at the edit history shows she's made a grand total of two edits to the article—the first mass-reverting my copyedits. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good morning (Sydney time) CT. I can't remember ever getting into disputes with either you or SP, I think I've always got on fine with both of you, so I can't take sides. All I can do is try to act as disinterested party reviewing each of your edits and perhaps mediate as necessary. In this case it looks like Ritchie has already jumped in as a third party editing one of your areas of concern, let's see how that goes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

History of the Great War
Greetings Ian, may I have an opinion about the use of references to online copies of some of the volumes please?

Aren't references like this deprecated now? I'd like a method that doesn't require me to copy the volumes again in templates to use the url function but don't know how to avoid it. Any suggestions? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Keith. Yes, the above style isn't very helpful, is it? Because this is simply a scanned/online copy of an old-fashioned paper book, I would cite it the way one would a book, i.e. with author, title and/or year, and page number. The link is of course very helpful for verification purposes, but one only needs to put that in the relevant cite book template under the References section, not for each citation. Hope this helps! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian, My revamp has been standing over for months but I've got more biblio information now. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Edward VI of England
My problem wasn't with your edit per se, it was (as I mentioned in the edit summary) that it built upon this edit by another person which changed a figure from 13 to 9 without explanation (and given the editor's (lack of) history, I'm not going to rule out that it was vandalism).

Ubcule (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see what you're saying. Can you make clear which bit elsewhere you're referring to? The discussion (as requested) is here.
 * All the best, Ubcule (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks, replied there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Featured Article Selection
Ian - there have been 149 Warfare: Military Biographies which have been Wikipedia home page featured articles. It has struck me for some time how often they are not people like Napoleon, Clausewitz, Haig, Alexander the Great, Hannibal etc, but RAAF personnel. I have put a pie chart at http:www.goodmanely.co.uk/wiki/wiki-warfare-biogs-FA.jpg (couldn't upload it here due to it being, for some reason, dismissed by wikicommons). This shows that almost 50% of the FAs which are military biography are of australians, and 50% of those are RAAF. Does it not seem rather disproportionate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magpie55 (talk • contribs) 9:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, but it's not Ian's fault. How's your background in military biographies?  Interested in beefing up any of the above? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks Curly. Yes, this is the nature of a volunteer project -- people invest their time and effort in what interests them, and in those areas in which they have some expertise, and it's all valid as long as the subjects comply with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The other thing, of course, is that if you want to find decent articles on these famous personalities then there are several reliable encyclopedias and dictionaries of biography out there that will feature them. Those won't have bios on the more obscure but still interesting subjects that I choose to write about, though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Grace VanderWaal
An editor at Grace VanderWaal has repeatedly deleted a variety of materials, including external links. VanderWaal was this year's winner of America's Got Talent, one of the most popular US television series. She also has a YouTube channel which has quickly attracted more than 30 million views of her music videos. Would you kindly take a look at the Talk page and comment there? I think a very formalistic and, really, robotic view of WP guidelines, not just WP:EL, but also about everything else concerning that article, has been taking place even before the edit warrior got there. I have done nearly all the research on the article, but my contributions are routinely deleted by reference to the BLP rules, and then when I add more references, it is claimed that I am over-referencing. Very discouraging. But the current issue is the ELs. You can see my arguments on the Talk page, so I won't repeat them here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for contributing to the Talk page. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

TFAR
FYI: Today's featured article/requests/Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service. I'll need to give the article a bit of a tidy up and update, and an extra pair of eyes on it would be helpful :). By the way, I currently have Nelmes' book on the RAAF's B-24s out from the library if you need anything from it (I'm thinking that this could be a good summer project). Nick-D (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw it in the proposed TFAR list a while back, be great to hit the 10-year anniversary of a purchase that no-one seems to complain about... ;-) It's still on my watchlist so happy to give the once-over before The Day. Re. Nelmes, tks, I'll try and check if there's anything outstanding re. B-24s in articles I've worked on. I guess the ideal summer project is fleshing out the B-24s in Australian service article... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Garage rock article issue
As you know, I have been thinking about nominating the Garage rock article for FAC. Last year the article went GA. But, right now an editor has made a move to split the article up. Should I wait until the debate about whether or not to split is finished, and how long do such split discussions take before they are decided? I'll be the first to admit that the article needs to be trimmed down, not only in terms of citations, but also in text, particularly in the regions sections, where it needs more summary of the regional scenes, but less mention of bands--and other sections could use a trimming too. I was actually thinking about this before the present debate, and I was optimistic that all of these issues could corrected in a FAC review process. I had a peer review done and no one there mentioned the idea of split. But, sadly I worry that current attempts to split the article will result in a truncated and unsatisfactory piece on a topic that needs broad coverage. I'm worried that the sections about the world scenes, which need to be there, will be siphoned off and others will be excessively diminuated. What should I do? Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've commented at the article talk discussion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Mail call...
Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota
Hi Ian Rose,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

I would like to invite you for an interview if you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu if you are interested or have any questions.

Thank you, Bowen

Recent lead image changes
Hello Ian Rose, thanks for the thanks :). I was wondering, do you know a good forum to discuss this issue on a more general level, or have there been some recent RfC's about this question ("nice looking painting vs. more realistic photography")? Blocking the IP every few months isn't really desirable or a solution, so it would be good if we could point him/her to a more definitive source of information about the current consensus. GermanJoe (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Joe, I have to admit I don't know any such forum or RFCs... There are some FAs of Australian generals I'm aware of that use paintings, but they went to FAC with those portraits and the reviewers seemed happy with them. I tend to just use the same rationale you did when lead images in community-reviewed articles get changed arbitrarily, whether a painting or another photo is being substituted. In this case with Truman's article, the drive-by editor actually duplicated a portrait already in the main body of the article, compounding the issue... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. I'll watch the issue and will open such a general discussion myself, if the images get reverted again. Of course each article is a separate case, but it would be helpful to have a few specific bits of advice to start a case by case evaluation. Unfortunately MOS:LEADIMAGE lacks such practical details and is rather vague. GermanJoe (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Advice on article structure
Ian, if you have a minute I'd appreciate your input on something. I'm working on History of science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950, which has to summarize the material in the many sf and fantasy magazine articles you've seen come through FAC over the years. The article is only half-written right now, and is not worth reading at the moment, but I have a structural question I'd appreciate your take on. Nearly all the sf magazine articles have had the same structure: publishing history, which gives the story of the companies, editors, finances, and so on; and contents & reception, which covers the fiction and art in the magazines, and any influence or legacy. I started working on the history without using this structure, because I felt it would be odd to run through nearly 50 years of history of magazine publishing without mentioning the stories once, and then go back to the early 20th century and start over with the fiction and art. However, I'm finding it hard to make the narrative smooth while trying to integrate the two into a single story -- a publishing boom, for example, may last three or four years and require a coherent paragraph, but then I have to go back through and pick out the important stories that appear during that boom and discuss them. So my question is: as a reader, do you feel that splitting out publication history and contents/reception for the history of scores of magazines over decades is distracting? Or could it work, structured that way? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, thanks for thinking of me re. this one. The separate publication and content histories work well for individual magazines but my feeling is that integrating it all into one continuous narrative will work better for an overall survey of the field. I realise that was also your first idea and now you're reconsidering but I think it's worth persisting with. I've found that one can pursue a single main thought in one paragraph and then start a new one focusing on a different but parallel theme as a reasonable compromise, for instance in a unit history one might dedicate a paragraph to a spate of equipment changes, then another looking at organisational or operational aspects that occurred over the same period. The first history of the magazines I read as a kid was Mike Ashley's chapter in Robert Holdstock's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (1978) and I think he put the publication and content/reception info together very well -- actually, that chapter resembles a WP article in several ways, covering a lot of ground without being overly detailed, well illustrated, and divided into subsections ("New directions with Campbell", "The Big Boom", "A Golden Age?", etc)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I think you're right. I may go back and re-read that article; that was the first one I read, too.  Thanks for the advice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Cliff Clinkscales
Give me a couple of days and I'll attempt to have a review started by Tuesday. At a glance, it looks like the article shouldn't take too much time to read fully. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 19:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Edit
Please explain why my edit for the article on Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country linking it to the Star Trek: Voyager episode Flashback was deleted. The article in Wikipedia confirms that this is a correct edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashback_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)

In addition, the following links confirm it as well:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708897/

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Flashback_(episode)

Please review this information and reinstate my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayonpradhan (talk • contribs) 06:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, I did review those links when I deleted your additions before: IMDB is not generally considered a reliable source, and I doubt that Memory-Alpha, as a wiki, would be considered one either. Further, as I mentioned at the time I removed it, and as other editors seem to have concurred, such a relatively trivial association doesn't warrant its own section in a Featured Article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ike Altgens

 * Just a FAC coordinator doing his job of judging consensus among the reviewers to promote, but thanks anyway and good luck with your future nominations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ... and . You've earned it. — ATS  &#128406;  talk  23:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Cliff Clinkscales FA nomination
A while back, I nominated Cliff Clinkscales for FA consideration, and the nomination currently has three official "supports" and no "opposes" (the one opponent of the FAC changed his mind). The images are also good to go. However, we have been looking for a reviewer to check the use of the New York Post as one of the sources. If you know anyone who would be willing to review this source, please let me know. A user that you encouraged to help the nomination move forward has already provisionally supported the article, meaning that it will become an official "support" once this is looked over. For more information on the issue with the NY Post, please visit the nomination page. TempleM (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks -- it's on my watchlist, will check in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, could you please give me an idea of when you will check it, because the nomination seems to be stagnating? TempleM (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, it looks like we're still waiting for a source review -- I know the request has been at WT:FAC for a couple of weeks, so I'll try chasing up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

FA withdrawals
I think perhaps it would be appropriate to change the tone of the automated FA closure system. A 'withdrawal' is not an unsuccessful, nomination. Withdrawn before the review process begins means that the process technically never started, and to condemn a withdrawn nomination is to disparage the nominator. Please do something about his. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I assume you're referring to the wording of the edit summary by FACBot, as I don't remember the term "unsuccessful" being used elsewhere in the process... First of all, I'm afraid I can't agree with you re. the review process not having started -- the process starts as soon as the nomination page is saved and placed in the FAC list, and the reviewing started in earnest when the first of several editors made comments. Withdrawing a FAC means you as the nominator asked for it to be closed rather than I as one of the coordinators making the decision -- a review took place, even if it was truncated. I also don't think describing such a nomination as unsuccessful is disparaging; there's no shame in trying and not succeeding. Pinging fellow coord if he'd like to offer another opinion... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdrawal is a good faith action by the nominator. I don't think an article (or its proposer) should be stigmatised by a review that basically never took place. This was my  first FA nomination (after two peer reviews); after the comment by my close friend, I  realised that  an FA nomination  is  not  the place to  ask  for help on it - I was obviously wrongly thining it works like  GAC. To suggest 'mentoring' is patronising - either people see the FA nom and think, 'Hey, I'll did in and help this article', or they state, as they more or less did, 'You're wasting your time, if you can't do it yourself, withdraw.' Please consider pinging  me if/when answering, as most users do nowadays - I have  24,000 (twenty-four thousand) articles on my watchlist and user replies on talk pages are easily overlooked. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
 * Well I guess no good deed goes unpunished... ;-) I'd gathered from your comment "I would never be able to dedicate an estimated 100 hours to getting this single handedly without any help to FA" that you might appreciate suggestions for assistance. There's nothing patronising about it. The mentoring scheme was instigated specifically for editors new to FAC, such as yourself, and it seemed doubly appropriate to mention it given your own statement. To respond to your other points: there's no 'stigma' attached to a FAC being withdrawn/archived, it happens quite a lot; to suggest that the review "basically never took place" doesn't appear to show much consideration for the editors who took the trouble to comment on the nomination; and as far as pinging goes, I kind of expect that if a fellow editor initiates a thread on my talk page they'll keep an eye out for a reply but in deference to your watchlist being four times bigger than mine (and I thought mine was large!) here's a ping... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, assistance, but FGS not mentoring - I'm not some 12 year old errant wannabe New Page Patroller. I simply said in my nom that it -the article- would need help. Does that brand me as a complete idiot?  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * FAC mentoring was not designed for 12-year-old wannabes or complete idiots, so you're in luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thank you for your feedback on the FAC process. As Ian mentioned, the mentoring system was developed (fairly recently) to make the process friendlier and more approachable to the first-time nominator, and we admittedly don't have much feedback as to its efficacy since it's relatively new. I'm sorry to hear that it strikes you as patronizing, but we'll certainly take that feedback on board. If we continue to receive feedback like yours, I'd certainly take that as an indicator that we missed our mark. I'm also sorry that the "unsuccessful" term used in the bot's edit summary strikes you as stigmatising. I recall some years ago asking why FAC nominations are "archived" rather than "failed", and it was explained (probably by Raul or Sandy) that "archived" was seen as softer language. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Mentoring obviously has another meaning  over there in the US. Where I  come from  it very often has connotations of a correctional  process for  behavioural  issues -  like the work  I've been doing  for  6 years to  the children who  vandalise our  pages and who try  to  mess with  our  content  control  systems -  and if not,  it still  means guidance provided by an older person to a younger one. That's very  different  from  saying,  'Hey, I  think this article has great  potential  for becoming  a featured article, but  the people  who  designed the unconventional referencing  system have skidaddeled leaving  me holding  the baby  that  I  provided 90%  of the content  for, and I  need some help  to  untangle it' . I'm  not  some 3,000 edit/3 month vandalism  patroller who  keeps getting  it  wrong.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you bring up my perceived nationality, but I'm afraid I'm far outnumbered in the FA process. Most of my peers, including those who conceived and developed the mentoring system, are Brits or Aussies. Regardless, I recognize your stature and I assure you that we take your feedback seriously. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec), I'd like to add a TPS comment: it's definitely the case that nobody involved with FAC mentoring has any idea that it's a pejorative term, and if it's going to be seen that way perhaps we need to rename it. Editors (of all experience levels) who have never been to FAC may find it useful to have another editor who does have FAC experience look over an article before it's nominated and give some advice: that's the goal of the mentoring program.  In particular, we found earlier this year that first-time nominators almost never succeeded in getting an article promoted, which we felt was unacceptable; the program was intended to make sure all editors had a good chance at a successful FAC nomination.  Can you suggest a name that conveys that but which doesn't have negative connotations?  (post ec): And I am also not American, though I've lived in the US for a while now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think before we talk about renaming a process that's relatively new and went through significant discussion before going live, it would help to get clarification from as to whether it's simply the term or the entire concept that strikes him as patronising, because TBH that's not clear to me. BTW it's past midnight in Sydney, so don't think me rude if I fail  to respond for another six or seven hours... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know,, but for someone with my cultural and professional background the word 'mentoring' is an unfortunate choice, especially as the article in question had not one, but two peer reviews by highly experienced FA creators and reviewers. I work in a different Wiki department from GA and FA reviewing, but while I certainly believe I know know the principles involved and have in fact done some peer reviews for FA, I've never seen an article promoted to FA without some (sometimes lengthy) help. I'm just taken aback by the suggestion that I need 'mentoring' - not even my publishers and my editors would venture to make such a suggestion. They help and make valid suggestions for changes and improvement rather than say something on the lines of 'Piss off and get yourself a teacher!' I fear that you'll be losing FA nominations again even though the 'team' that was putting them off has changed recently. Perhaps the FA system should focus more on a teamwork structure rather than behaving like a military promotion review board (been there done that too). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel that Ian, Mike, and I have taken the time to respond to you courteously and professionally. However, your tone and your mis-characterization of events are making it increasingly difficult to have a productive exchange with you. No one said anything close to "Piss off and get yourself a teacher". Don't be ridiculous. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's quite alright. I don't want a further exchange. I have nothing more to say on the matter except that you must accept the metaphor as meant, because that's exactly how telling me to go away and get help somewhere else came cross. I'm sure that other users will feel the same, and that ultimately, although it's certainly not your intention, you will be reducing the enthusiasm of others to even want to think of FA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Kudpung, you stated that you did not have the expertise to fix the referencing, so Ian suggested the mentoring program, which is set up for just this purpose: to pair a person with someone who can help them with such a technical issue. Your reaction seems defensive, and hung up on semantics.  Why not try it?  If you have a better word for us to use rather than "mentoring", feel free to propose it.  By working with a referencing expert, you'd learn something helpful. Anyhow, the article is missing a lot of referencing, is full of stubbly little one-sentence paragraphs, and has the other major problems that the commenters pointed out. In my view, it should not be a GA currently. Since you are new to FAC, it is not surprising that some of the comments were revelatory to you. You have also learned that Peer Review is not always (not usually?) enough to bring an article up to FA quality. Why not put down the gloves, work with an expert from the mentoring program, and see if you can move the article towards a successful FAC sometime in the future. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Park
I suspect the most recent nom at WP:FAC is from a new Thomas Park sock. I've semi-protected the page for a week. - Dank (push to talk) 12:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging Sarastro1, Laser brain. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks Dan -- I think it's a sock too but in any case the article is not prepared for FAC so I've removed and CSD'd the nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Bugle idea
Since one of the book reviews touched on one of my areas, I suggest a quiz, "Name a Great War battle that did have a breakthrough". ;o)) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Love, Inc. (TV series) - FAC
Hello, I have a quick question about FAC. I believe that a consensus has been reached for the FAC for Love, Inc. (TV series) (four "support" votes, with each vote providing comments that greatly improved the article overall, and the completion of a source and image review). I think that this can be safely promoted given all of this, so I would like to check with you about the status of this FAC. I hope I do not sound rude or presumptuous for pinging you and asking you, as it is probably better to wait to receive your message on how the nomination goes either way. Thank you for your time and consideration. Aoba47 (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I can't imagine a more polite enquiry...! My only (gentle) admonishment is to try not to think of 'supports' as 'votes', because even though we do expect several before promoting, the comprehensiveness of the associated commentary is a big factor. Not saying that there's a shortfall in that regard in your case -- this nom hasn't captured my attention for a while but I expect to walk through the list later this week... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes perfect sense. I think it would be better to view "supports" (and even "opposes") as more like "feedback" than "votes" so I will be more conscious of that when approaching and discussing FAC in the future. Thank you for your help as always! Aoba47 (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

War memorials
Hi Ian, could I have leave to nominate Spalding War Memorial at FAC? It's just passed an A-class review and my current nomination, Devon County War Memorial, appears to be wrapping up. If you'd prefer I approach one of the coordinators or ask at WT:FAC, just say; and if you want me to sit on my hands for a little while I guess I can cope with that too! ;) Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Harry, I don't expect there'd be a prob there but perhaps wait till I make my planned run through the FAC list on Saturday... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Harry, I think it'd be fine for you to start a new one at your convenience... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

 * Thank you Ealdgyth -- and to you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kościuszko
People are "tall"; mountains are "high".

--Tullyvallin (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, while I grant you people are not usually "high" (in the sense we're discussing!), I believe mountains can be "tall" or "high", and I still think the passage read better before -- seems to me that the other editors who've been through the article at its various community reviews were fine with it too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thanks Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

 * Many thanks Ed -- to you too! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * From the sweltering Australian south, thanks and have yourself a great time over holiday season as well, Bzuk! Cheer, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

FAC archiving and revival
Ian -- from your comments above concerning FA review and your participation at this review and closure, I would be grateful for your brief explanation of the archiving process, general rules for how long it lasts, and whether prior editorial reviews, both positive and negative, remain a part of the archive record for future assessments, should they be needed. I was a reviewer for the HMB FAC, although provided criticisms the author/nominator didn't like. Many of them still apply. It appears the article may be revived again soon for the third time within 2016, and I'm wondering about the value (or futility) of my re-entering this debate. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, tks for your query and apologies for not responding sooner... A FAC that's archived may be re-nominated once two weeks from the date of archiving has passed. Although each FAC nomination starts 'clean', nominators are expected to have addressed outstanding actionable concerns raised in previous reviews -- if they have not, it may be grounds for a speedy close of the new review.  The issue of course can come down to what's 'actionable', and this is not always straightforward, even when measured against the FAC criteria.  I invite my fellow coords  and  to weigh in here if they'd like to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , I don't have much to add except that, like Ian says, I'd expect actionable opposes or other points to be addressed before any new FAC. But also it is important that any points made are both actionable and address the FA criteria. Comments about notability, such as a few made at FAC1, would not really be actionable at FAC, nor would the issue of the major contributor also being the nominator; in fact, this is encouraged at FAC so that the nominator is knowledgeable enough about the article, sourcing, and subject to address concerns. But issues over balance or quality of sourcing would be actionable (and it is usually better to be precise about which parts cause concern, why, and what should be done about it), although the person who raises such concerns is not automatically correct and the nominator has the right of reply; FAC is generally about discussion. In short, it is worth "re-entering this debate" as all views are taken into account when judging consensus. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * and . Good feedback. Thanks for responding. --Zefr (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

List of James Bond films
I have nominated List of James Bond films for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Transhumanist 14:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/July 3, 2017
Hi Ian, here's the boilerplate: Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer) has been scheduled for July 3 as today's featured article. I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time to make sure it's up-to-date. You're welcome but not obligated to edit the main page text; I'll be trimming it to around 1100 characters. Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)