User talk:Mabuska/Archive 42017/July

Assessing articles
Hi Mabuska. I was looking at some of the articles you linked to in the IMOS discussion, specifically Northern Uí Néill and Ulaid, and I noticed that in the past you have changed the assessment of articles e.g. here and here. Ordinary editors aren't supposed to change the assessment of articles, and especially of articles that they created and largely wrote themselves. Instead there should be a request made at the relevant WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Ireland/Assessment. If you weren't intending to do that again, then you may ignore this. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I never linked to Northern Uí Néill in that discussion but yes I had just as big a hand in that article as Ulaid :-D And yep I do assess quite a few of the articles I have heavily edited but I do scrutinise myself quite a bit against the criteria given for assessments. Both Northern Uí Néill and Ulaid are beyond start class status and as far as I am concerned fulfill the criteria for B status but I still only gave them a C unless someone else thinks otherwise. The FAQ of the NI WP assessment does state of which I am a member of so yes ordinary editors can assess articles.
 * I may put up a lot of the articles I've worked heavily on up for reassessment to see what someone else may think, may get a few upgrades :-) Mabuska (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually Northern Uí Néill may only merit a C at present. Mabuska (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, you didn't link it. I looked at his and your contributions to see what articles were affected, and that's how I found it. Yes, I think it's wiser to leave it in the hands of a disinterested editor. I have assessed a few articles myself back a few years ago, but only as a volunteer, and never in topic areas that I work in. I think that's what's meant by "any member is free to add or change the rating of an article." Scolaire (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Provinces of Ireland
You are going to tell us what your sources are, aren't you? At the moment there are 11 "refs" with name=Koch, name=Clontarf9 and name=IrishKings, but no actual citations. Scolaire (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Give time will you, all is being added as you speak. Impatient much? Mabuska (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! I've just never seen it done that way before – adding the citations after the refs. I'll come back tomorrow and have a read of it. Scolaire (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have most of it already sandboxed and am simply copying over hence why it appears the way it is. Mabuska (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Out of curiousity... should prehistory go before or after the actual historic period? Wondering as historical I feel should come become prehistoric myth? Mabuska (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also obviously the article is not a finished piece and may never be but there will be some more bits to go into it and sources for some of the stuff currently missing some. It is hard to keep track of it all when you have the vast amount of stuff I've come across over the years and not always easy to refind. Mabuska (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would leave the prehistory where it is. Scolaire (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Limavady
Hi Mabuska - I'm intrigued by your comment in this edit "removing notice as hidden tags aren't meant to be used" There are so many guidelines in Wikipedia, that I am sure no-one knows them all, but I am unaware of any statement to that effect - could you please point me to where that is stated? - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I should clarify... not used in that way. It is part of the standard Wikipedia MOS in section Manual_of_Style. Preventing someone from adding a "notable person" because they don't have an article is as far as I am aware not in the MOS. Rather the issue is sourcing, which the editor can be notified of directly. Hope this helps. Mabuska (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The third point of Manual_of_Style/Hidden_text basically says the same. Mabuska (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Battle at Lisnamuck 1978
You may wish to take a look at this new article, Battle at Lisnamuck 1978. I've just converted it from a pro-IRA fansite article to a more encyclopaedic article but it needs more work and references. I thought you may be able to assist. Canterbury Tail  talk  11:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The small row of houses that form the hamlet of Lisnamuck is just a couple of miles away from me and I have never heard of this "battle". Also the article has quite a few geographical, flaws. The co-ordinates for the map are nowhere near Lisnamuck which is north-west of Lough Neagh! Lisnamuck is a townland in of itself south of Maghera. Ballyknock is north of Maghera with several townlands and the Glenshane Pass between it. Even the date of this "battle" is wrong in the actual body of the article. Cain Sutton Index of Deaths states it was on the 17th not 16th of March when the British soldier was shot in a gun battle. Mabuska (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)