User talk:Maralia/Archive 13

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, July 13!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, July 13 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 00:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
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) 15:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

 * As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat&#124;Contributions 03:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, August 24!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, August 24 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 04:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you free on Wednesday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Wednesday, August 24 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 11:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch!
Tks for cleaning up those errant FAs from July, Maralia. The bot guys don't seem to have been able to respond to queries about them, although it looks like it's worked since then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish it were only errant FAs from July! I've also found four from August, as well as two valid FACs that were created but not transcluded, and two that look like drive-bys. And I'm not done looking...Maralia (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah-ha. I generally spot the un-transcluded ones when I compare the list in WP:FACL with that in WP:FAC, once a week or so, but tks for picking those up. I didn't see any drive-bys highlighted by reviewers last time I looked at the top of the list but will check again, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's what it amounted to:
 * one drive-by nomination from 28 July (Robert Frost; it wasn't transcluded, so I removed the FAC template and notified the nominator);
 * three valid but untranscluded nominations (Sarnia, waveguide filter, and Joseph Smith, all transcluded now after notifications to nominators); and
 * eleven missed or incomplete closes since 01 June.
 * I sure hope the bot op will dedicate some time to ironing out whatever kinks are causing the missed closes. They are a nightmare to find and finish manually—took me a good two or three hours to straighten these out. Now, if only someone would step up to the plate for full ArticleHistory implementation...Maralia (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
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) 23:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Smith
Thanks for the heads-up. Joseph Smith is now officially a candidate for featured article status. I hope you wouldn't mind taking a few minutes more to review the article (as it now stands) and post your comments on its FAC page.

Thanks again! —Trevdna (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sarnia FAC
Hi, Maralia,

Thanks for the heads up! Feel free to comment once it's on WP:FAC. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Article history work
Thanks for cleaning up several T:AHs today and for several months of service in this regard. WP:FOUR runs smoothly when it can rely on T:AH to point out all FAs that have been GAs and DYKs in the past. Withouth the T:AH being updated, I have to troll around a bit to find potential FOUR articles. Thanks for your efforts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you are following anymore, but User_talk:VoxelBot is an issue again. Of all the FAs promoted in October and November, these seem to be the only two.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw your posts there. It is an ongoing, if intermittent, issue. As the bot already did everything but article talk, you can update yours, and I'll update the other one. Wish we could motivate the bot op to fix the underlying problem, but he seems to be otherwise occupied. Maralia (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is wrong to update the T:AH of your own WP:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

When God Writes Your Love Story
Hi Maralia,

Thank you for manually archiving the FAC page for the When God Writes Your Love Story article. The article's talk page states "Error: Invalid time" in the "Date" column for the promotion. Do you know how to fix this problem?

Neelix (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Meet up with local Wikipedians on September 14!
Are you free on Saturday, September 14? If so, please join Wikimedia DC and local Wikipedians for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages are welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please visit the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 18:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 5 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 14:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you! Maralia (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 26 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 05:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!!
For your time in cleaning up my "mindblowingly ludicrous number of categories," which I was about to clean up, after talk with another who noticed it. Your note made me chuckle with embarrassment. I wholly appreciate your description.

You beat me to correct it .... thank you, kindly. Wil 76.180.38.195 (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's awfully generous of you to thank me despite my snarky edit summary, which is likewise embarrassing to me in hindsight; I had clearly reached my limit on category work for the night. I'm glad you got a laugh out of it! Maralia (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Been there, done that! Besides, what are friends for, if we can't "vent" once in a while, eh! (Besides, your snark happened to be a shoe that fit me well!!) I can tell you are a creative mind?
 * Hope you've found your much deserved rest (esp. after suffering such ludicrous mind "blowing," for which I truly do apologize!), (smiles) Regards, Wil 76.180.38.195 (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
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) 23:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Request
As you seem to able to make my Gaelic types too fast incoheriance understanable to English speaking folk, can you cast an eye over Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents. Its necessarly a short article, Dürer's juvenilia, but I think very affecting. Would like to push but need help from correct people. Which would be you. Ahem. Ceoil (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Gladly. Love those portraits but haven't looked in on the article in some time. Headed out now to a party, so don't expect me until tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, and enjoy. BUT I need you intact in the morning though, so no fights in the parking lot after mmm, ok. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be nice to see Lotte Brand Philip on the main page; I hope you will nominate at DYK. Ceoil (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I prevail upon you to nom it for me? I haven't done so before and would have to reread the instructions etc, but am headed out for the evening. The article is missing an entire section about her Durer work, but I suppose it's still adequate for DYK. Hope you have nommed your Madonna as well? Maralia (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, and for your edits—can see you have read my sources, that is above and beyond. I will have the Tribute to book shortly (arriving in the mail today) so I may have more to add, if the book doesn't turn out to be too much of a fluff piece. Have suggested an alternate hook; dunno if it is too wibbly for DYK but thought I'd have a go at it. I owe you one. Maralia (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Close call on the tranclusion though. I was peaking when I saw Vic's post and your query on the DYK talk. Another fine mess I've somehow scraped through. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No big deal—glad Victoria caught it, but I wouldn't have lost sleep either way, honest. Watching your diptych edits and will be along to pick at it after, as usual. Just realized I botched something in Heckscher, dammit. Don't bother reading it yet if you haven't. Will you be around this weekend? Maralia (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I will, and starting now to reread and go through Victoria's notes and your additions. Lots to catch up on. Which is nice. Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Have fixed Heckscher if you want to have a look now. Sorely lacking in detail on his career (as Lotte's is lacking on her Ghent work), but at least it's a start. Having a look at your edits to the diptych now. Maralia (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Arthritis in the Durer family
Hi, sorry for replying so late - here is the paper you were asking for. Best wishes, Filip em (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

John Edward Brownlee
Hi Maralia,

I noticed that you have been involved with the John Edward Brownlee articles in the past and I thought that you might be interested in the current featured topic candidacy for these articles. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you free on Sunday? Join us for a special Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for a special WikiSalon at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library's Digital Commons Center. We will gather at 3 PM on Sunday, October 13, 2013 to discuss an important topic: what can Wikipedia and the DC area do to help each other? We hope to hear your thoughts and suggestions; if you have an idea you would like to pursue, please let us know and we will help!

Following the WikiSalon, we will be having dinner at a nearby restaurant, Ella's Wood Fired Pizza.

If you're interested in attending, please sign up at the event page. We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 01:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ghent Altarpiece
Brand Philip was somewhat neglect during the work on the altarpiece (the article was only half finished), I've been reading back and her research was obviously pioneering. I'm very curious to see this, but not yet sure what to make of it.

Bty, you mind if I steal from the new sect in the Brand Philip bio. And agree re Victoria's page, though she is welcome to mention there if/when she is able again. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ha I see that you already have. Fine by me, although it will need some altering for focus; I'll do that if you don't beat me to it. Nearly everything I can find on de Noter is in French. Please tell me you read French. Maralia (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I know enough to make a stab. Anyway I could sandbox and ask a friend who reads excellent French to give a look over. Ceoil (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
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) 22:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lotte Brand Philip
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Thank you! She is now featured on Portal:Germany. If you have other DYK related to Germany, feel free to place it there yourself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats Maralia for finally having this approved! I've been sitting on my hands watching, wanting to chime in since the answers were sitting on my page (moved here now, but didn't want to muddy the waters more. Good luck to you guys with the diptych. Victoria (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Victoria; without the kick in the pants from you and Ceoil, it wouldn't have happened. Maralia (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats from me two. Its a really strong article, great work. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

FA tally
Hey, dear! This popped on my watchlist because I was involved in that topic/FAR. One of the things that I knew for sure and certain while delegate was that the tally at WP:FA and the stats at WP:FAS were correct. An added bonus was that Gimme watched and made doubly sure those pages were correct, and that WP:FA and WP:FFA were correct. No one is doing that anymore (unless you are?), and each time I have checked archives, I've found problems. I'm wondering if you want to doublecheck that the number at the top of WP:FA is correct, and that it matches the articles listed, ditto for FFA? Because I'm pretty sure no one else will :) All the best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy! I still audit the FA tally every once in a while; I most recently did so in November of last year, so it's probably about time to do it again. WP:FFA has never really been on my radar as being problematic, but now that you mention it, I imagine no one has checked that number in years. It's more difficult for me to audit than it used to be, since I can't use AWB anymore (I'm on a Mac these days), but still possible; I didn't have AWB last time I audited either.
 * I'm not sure what to do with WP:FAS. I couldn't tell you who is 'reponsible' for updating it these days, but from time to time I have noticed it getting done by various people, so I hadn't worried about it. I'm not sure how I could audit it, given that a note at the top states "Some of the numbers linked to by the historical version do not match the numbers on this page. In such cases, the numbers on this page are correct."
 * Another historical/stats page that gives me fits is WP:Unreviewed featured articles. I tried to update it earlier this year, but (as you can see from my note on the talk page) it's not clear to me HOW to update, and when to change the counts. DrK's last update to the page did some things I still don't understand: for example, in the 2004/2005 list he removed 3 articles that I had tagged which were demoted and changed the count from 23 to 19 (!), but it actually lists 20 articles...maybe that was just a typo, but I'm truly lost there. Maralia (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, my, I forgot to get back to this. I see you updating the pages and finding errors.  I am not understanding why the delegates aren't keeping those pages updated, and worried what will happen if you don't do it.  On the Unreviewed featured articles, I used to work very hard on that page, that is, until Mattisse intervened and made it difficult ... and now that FAR is moribund and no one is systematically tracking which articles need review, I gave up completely on that page.  The only thing I can offer there is to go back to the last time I edited to check, but not sure it is worth it.  What may be worth the effort would be trying to figure out why there is no longer any attempt whatsoever to systematically identify and review older FAs.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll just muddle along as best I can with FAS and URFA. I should get around to auditing WP:FA fairly soon; hopefully I'll remember to do it after Ceoil and I finish the article we're working on. Thanks for the reminder. Maralia (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You lucky duck, getting to write with User:Ceoil (who owes me about a thousand songs). This is getting tedious, but I've just realized that VoxelBot is invalidating the use of the articlehistory script, because he/she/it doesn't use any of the terminology when updating articlehistory that is recognized by the script.  And I'm finding missing oldids, but then when I run the script to find them, it can't, since his edit summary doesn't mention any of the key words.  Do you speak Voxel Bot?  Do you know who to talk to?  sheesh, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, fiddlesticks, I don't even speak the language, but I tried.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Very brave of you to give it a go :) I've clarified there; it's a simple fix. I never noticed that issue because I always input the date manually, since Voxelbot has had some difficulty maintaining consistency in running every day. Maralia (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I audited today. Here's what I found when I compared WP:FA with Category:Featured articles (populated by the star template) and Category:Wikipedia featured articles (populated by AH): I fixed the first three. Still need to take the upmerged article to FAR (the FA 2nd Canadian Infantry Division was merged into non-FA 2nd Canadian Division). The number at WP:FA is actually correct at 4,093. Maralia (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1 botched AH (multiple currentstatus=)
 * 1 missing FA star
 * 1 fully fake FA star
 * 1 FA that needs demotion due to upmerging

Black Ice FAC
Yeah, I even thought if the lack of responses was due to an error, when I remembered doing all correctly. But can you please take a look given so far only I have talked there so far? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 11:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
 Blurred   Lines  21:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Template editor
Your account has been granted the  user right, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

Before you use this user right, please read Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no-one else should be allowed to access your account. You may wish to take a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links:
 * All template-protected pages
 * Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! Rschen7754 07:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there a tool for that?
Do you have a tool that helps with this sort of edit? – Quadell (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have to manually build the ArticleHistory (Gimmebot did that, but no more), but User:Dr pda/articlehistory.js will help you find the oldids. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately no (although User:Dr pda/articlehistory.js is helpful for getting oldid values if they haven't already been provided by a bot). Reading the contents of a single GA implementation and converting it to an articlehistory is wholly bot- or script-able on the face of it, but there is a complicating factor: since articlehistory is meant to record all content assessments, any extant GA attempts, FACs, PRs, etc are also supposed to be incorporated—and in chronological order, hence action1, action2, etc. We haven't had a bot capable of doing this since GimmeBot left, and we've never had a script for it. Maralia (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. What's the easiest way to see which article talk pages need ArticleHistory fixes? I can go through the FA and GA logs, of course, but is there an easier way? – Quadell (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Quadell, I used to routinely follow Category:ArticleHistory error, which should always be a red link. It contains known errors that need to be fixed, although now, there is somebody's sandbox in there (can't do anything about that except ask him/her to remove it).  If you check that daily, you can find screw-ups that need fixing.  Should you decide to take on that work, perhaps ping Maralia or me when you fix a few, so we can doublecheck and guide your work.   Here's another thing that might need to be done (unless Maralia has already done it).  I once clicked on a TFA, checked the articlehistory, and discovered that the oldid from the promoted version wasn't listed ( see ). User talk:Fox Wilson doesn't have a TOC, which is irritating as hell, so go there and find my post describing other problems (that is, the way the bot is working invalidates Dr pda's articlehistory script).  Anyway, if you can look at the promotion date of Bob Feller, and go back and check the FAC archives around that date, you might find a whole lotta FAs that are missing oldids.  Then you have to use Dr pda's script to find them manually, based on the promotion timestamp listed on the FAC.  A whole ton of tedious work, really sucks, glad Maralia has been doing it, grateful you are willing to help.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, keeping an eye on the error category wouldn't hurt (the sandbox page there can be ignored; the guy is drafting a rewrite of the template in Lua, which should run much faster). We don't see nearly as many errors these days as we used to, though.
 * Sandy's second suggestion would have more impact. The new bot (VoxelBot) started up on 19 February 2013 and did not start adding oldids until 4 April 2013. All of its closes during that period should be checked; you can see links to them here. You will find that some of them have had oldids added in the interim (I have been keeping an eye on TFA scheduling to make sure those articles have oldids), but I'm sure there are many more from that period that still need the work. Thanks for getting involved. Maralia (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'd rather appear dense than make annoying mistakes on a bunch of templates, so I'm going to over an example here for the sake of absolute clarity. Belle (Disney) was an unsuccessful FAC back in march, but there is no action3oldid for this. First off, am I correct in thinking that there should be? Second, the article history tool doesn't give any useful ids for this; which ID should I use? Should I "click here to add a date manually" and enter "March 31, 2013"? Thanks for the explicit help. – Quadell (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ask away! When Maralia and I built the ahs originally with Gimmetrow, we set up a subpage for discussion.  If you want to do that, it might free up some of Maralia's time (for the cases when I can answer); I worry that she is doing too much.  1.  Yes.  2.  Correct, the tool for some periods won't work because the edit summaries used by VoxelBot were wrong (see the discussion I referenced above at Fox Wilson's talk which I didn't link because he has no TOC).  You have to manually find the oldid by looking at the timestamp on the closed FAC, and entering that into the tool manually in a little blue pop-up box.  If that doesn't work, you have to manually go back through history to find the last id before the timestamp.  We've asked the VoxelBot people to fix this-- no response.  See that talk page.  A problem.  Yes, "click ehre to add a date manually", but get the full timestamp, including time, and it will return to you an oldid.  I will follow Belle to see if you get it right.  Thanks again !!!!!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. You picked a bad example to start on, Quadell.   redirected that FAC in a way that messes up archives.  Perhaps you should test your skills on another closed FAC, and I will go to work to try to sort out that mess.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sandy's explanation is technically right, but because VoxelBot only uses the date it updates articlehistory (rather than the precise date and time of the promotion), you can simply use the date that you see in the correlating actionxdate= parameter. This is as accurate as we can get under the current scheme. Maralia (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. OK, that FAC was redirected, which shouldn't happen, but too late to fix it correctly. Quadell, another thing that Maralia and I used to do regularly (that is no longer being done by anyone), is watch for name changes mid-FAC so that we didn't have messes in archives-- because no one else seems to know how to do it correctly. They are hard to fix after the fact. I punted on Belle, not worth the effort, and articlehistory can handle old names, so redirect wasn't necessarily. But if you feel up to the task, watch FAC daily for name changes so we can get them right ... if you see one, you can ping in Maralia or me before the delegates close them and the nominators mess up the name change ... we can explain the steps. Which reminds me, here is an old version of my sandbox, with the GimmeBot steps (Maralia may have parked that somewhere). I did Belle ... have a look at the oldid the tool produced based on using the time and datestamp on the FAC, just so you can see how it's done. Ugh. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Your edit makes sense to me. Is my edit of Talk:Wario correct? – Quadell (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You got it (except put the 1, 2, 3 events before the other general stuff at the bottom -- I moved it. And, watch for errors made by earlier entries when you're in there.  Have fun :)  Now you are stuck for life!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sandy my friend, perhaps you should check things before making sweeping statements. Someone is indeed watching for name changes mid-FAC. I generally spot them because I often use WP:FACL, wherein disagrees between FAC and article name show up as red links, and alter things accordingly. Not that this was ever part of the handover when you retired but that's okay, I believed I was following the method you used when you did it as a delegate. If there's a general error in my method, or just a one-off with Belle, pls point it out so we can all avoid it in future. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , I realize y'all didn't exactly get a "training manual", but the absence of an experienced delegate (Ucucha) after you all came on board-- along with the continued attacks on me if I even posted at talk-- affected that. If there is anything you ever need to know, you can always ping me.  In the case of Belle, the problem with the redirect in archive is that it makes it harder to use the archives the way we once did (and hopefully someday will again)-- that is, to read through archives to do things like generate statistics for reviewer awards, etc.  The archives need to show the actual FAC, not a redirect.  Also, another complication, is that since I'm not an admin, I can't delete the wrong page to overwrite it, and I used to have to db-tag them for admin deletion so I could do them right-- and when I went to look yesterday, the db-tag I used to use no longer exists.  So I punted.  It sounds like you are saying you usually do find those mid-stream and that the situation I found yesterday is unique, which is good, but even then-- it would be good if other FAC regulars knew how to help with that sort of thing (as Maralia and others always did for me).  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

An odd one
At Talk:National Hero of Indonesia, I added the oldid for the successful FLC. But I see also that it had a peer review back in March that was never added to the Article History at all. I'm not sure what actionXdate to use, so I didn't add the PR to the Article History. How would you handle this one? – Quadell (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actions should be chronological, so you should insert the PR as action1 and move the FLC actions down to action2. To get the actiondate for a PR, you can click on the archived link in the PR template, go to the article's history, and use the timestamp of the archival—in this case it was manually archived, but 95% of the time they are archived by PeerReviewBot with the edit summary "Archiving peer review (bot task 1)". Thanks so much for helping with these; the barnstar was very kind of you. Maralia (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I have fixed it. – Quadell (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Just one more (and please, tell me to get lost if I'm bugging you): I added "on this day" information to the article history template of Talk:Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), but that template only seems to provide a single date. According to the On this day template on the the talkpage, this article has appeared on the main page six different times. I didn't want to remove information, so I left both the On this day template and the otddate and otdlink params in the Article history template on the talk page. Is there a standard way to handle this? – Quadell (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You're not bothering me: it's worth a hundred pings a day to have some help on articlehistory. There is an (undocumented) parameter otddate2. There is no corresponding otdlink2; I don't know why. (Will make a note of this for when the template is revamped). For this reason, I often don't bother incorporating OTD events unless there is obviously just going to be one. The way you've handled it is fine. Maralia (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been fixing a lot of these, and it's been going well. But Talk:Wicca (terminology) has me flustered. I have no idea how to fix this one. – Quadell (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean because the GAN was redlinked? I saw further down the talk page that the article had been moved since then. The actionxlink variable will take either a short or a long value; see . Maralia (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I have now fixed all the candidates that VoxelBot updated between Feb 19 and Apr 4. Unless there's a clear list of ones that need fixing, I'll just fix them when I run into them. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
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) 05:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Dürer by Strieder
Hi Maralia! Sorry, I saw your talk on my discussion page a little late. But I already ordered the 2012 edition now and I'll try to help then. Greetings, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank for your patient explanations

 * It is nice of you to give me a barnstar on Maralia's page ... I am thinking of asking TonyTheTiger if he would be a dear and place a copy on my talk page, since I feel an extreme COI were I to do it myself, and my self-esteem will suffer if I don't have this :) :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive
{| |}

Strieder, Peter (2012). Dürer.
Hi Maralia! I got the book of Strieder (2012) now. Written inside: "Albrecht Dürer d. Ä. mit dem Rosenkranz

Links das später verwendete Monogramm des Künstlers, und die Jahreszahl 1490, nachträglich von Dürer selbst (?) zugefügt. Auf der Rückseite Wolken, das Allianz-Wappen Dürer-Holper und die Jahreszahl 1490. Gemälde auf Tannenholz. 47,5 : 39,5. Florenz, Galleria degli Uffizi.

Das Porträt bildete mit dem Bildnis der Mutter in der Slg. Imhoff ein Diptychon. Das Bild gelangte in die Sammlung des Willibald Imhoff und wurde aus dieser zwischen 1588 und 1630 an einen unbekannten Sammler, wahrscheinlich den Großherzog von Toskana Ferdinand II., verkauft. 1675 wird es unter der Hinterlassenschaft des Kardinals Leopold de’ Medici genannt."

- Strieder, p. 222

"Bildnis der Barbara Dürer geb. Holper

Nürnberger Maler in der Werkstatt Michael Wolgemuts. Auf der Rückseite eine nicht deutbare Höllenszene und die Inventarnummer 19. Gemälde auf Tannenholz. 55,3 : 44,1. Nürnberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum.

Im Inventar der Sammlung Imhoff von 1573 als Bildnis der Mutter Dürers und Gegenstück zum Porträt des Vaters genannt. Kurfürst Maximilian von Bayern lehnte 1630 den Kauf des Bildes ab, worauf es 1633 nach Amsterdam abgegeben wurde. 1925 ohne Kenntnis der Zugehörigkeit zum Bildnis des Vaters vom Germanischen Nationalmuseum erworben und als Arbeit des Wolgemutkreises veröffentlicht. Heute gilt es im Germanischen Nationalmuseum als Arbeit Dürers."

- Strieder, p.226

Do you need a translation to English?

So yes, Strieder means now that it is a diptych. There's nothing to read about Lotte Brand Philip.

-- Waiting for your reply, happy Sunday evening, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will translate:

"Albrecht Dürer the Elder with the rosary

On the left: the later used monogram of the artist, and the year 1490, later added by Dürer himself (?). On the rear: clouds, the escutcheon of the impalement of arms of Dürer and Holper and the year 1490. Painting on wood of fir. 47.5 × 39.5. Florence, Uffizi Gallery.

The portrait formed a diptych with the portrait of the mother in the Imhoff collection. It has got hold into the collection of Willibald Imhoff and has been sold between 1588 and 1630 to an unknown collector, possibly the Ferdinando II, Grand Duke of Tuscany. 1675 it has belonged to the estate (Nachlass) of Cardinal Leopoldo de' Medici."

- Strieder, p. 222 (transl.)

"Painting of Barbara Dürer née Holper

Painter in Nuremberg, workshop of Michael Wolgemut. On the rear an unrecognizable scenery in hell and the inventory number 19. Painting on wood of fir. 55.3 × 44.1. Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum.

In the 1573 inventory of the Imhoff collection it has been described as the painting of Dürer's mother and as pendant to the father's painting. Maximilian I, Prince-Elector of Bavaria, refused the purchase of the painting in 1630, so it has been given away to Amsterdam in 1633. Without knowledge about the accessory to the father's painting it has been purchased by the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in 1925 and has been published as work of the Wolgemut circle. Today it is considered as Dürer's work in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum."

- Strieder, p. 226 (transl.)

I hope, my English is good enough, that you have understood it. Nice evening, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Or not? Did you read the translation? -- Doc Taxon (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to reply—yes, that helps, thank you! May I have the page number(s) of the quotes, and the ISBN of the book, so I can cite it correctly? Appreciate your help very much. Maralia (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for page numbers see quotes above.
 * Peter Strieder et al.: Dürer. 3rd rev. and upd. ed., Langewiesche jr. & Köster, Königstein im Taunus 2012. ISBN 978-3-7845-9142-1. p. 222, 226.
 * there were small chapters by Bruno Heimberg, Georg Josef Dietz, Joseph Harnest and Anna Scherbaum as co-authors in it, too.
 * --Doc Taxon (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read my reply? -- Doc Taxon (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you (and sorry for not noticing that you had provided the page numbers in your first post). Very grateful for your work on this! Maralia (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing of Japanese battleship Mutsu FAC
I'm comfortable updating the article history and adding the FA star, but I'm not sure what else needs to be done regarding the closing procedures. Let me know when it's OK to do so and I'll lighten your burden a bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are four steps; I'll summarize them below (details at User:Maralia/FA bot). You know how to do #2 and #3 already, so there's not too much more to it.
 * Archive the nomination page, using information from the diff when the nomination was moved into the featured log.
 * Add the star, replacing the GA symbol if it was there.
 * Remove the FAC template and implement articlehistory.
 * Remove the article from WP:GA if it was a GA.
 * Thanks very much for offering to do your own. Maralia (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Looks good, but you might want to double check anyway. Are you sure about step 4? Because I'm seeing a bunch of FA-class ship articles that are still listed on WP:GA. Or is this a legacy of the bot's problems?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost perfect. Everything looks good except you forgot to incorporate the GA template into articlehistory in this edit. I know you won't have any trouble fixing that; it's actually easier than incorporating FAC, since all the data (even the oldid) was provided in the GA template.
 * Yes, removing GAs promoted to FA from the list at WP:GA is a step that the new bot never took on. I did it manually for a while, but with all the subpages at GA, it's really not feasible on a large scale without a bot. I will probably write a one-time bot request just to clean that list up at some point. Sure hoping we can get a replacement closing bot soon; unfortunately, the response on the discussion page (User talk:Maralia/FA bot) has been nil thus far. It's pretty hard to make a case for urgency when I'm the only one speaking up. Maralia (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops. Added the GA history and purged the recent promotions for Japanese ships. Did forget to change the action numbers earlier, but everything's OK now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

FL Nomini
Hi Maralia. When you made your judgment on what should be done to get your support, you said you was going to do a full review, but I haven't heard from you since. Where you planning to finish it, or you changed your mind? Blurred Lines 15:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
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) 23:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Best wishes

 * Hear hear! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Dredd
Hi, Maralia. When you edited Talk:Dredd to add the PR to the article history template, it seems to have left a note saying "Error: Invalid time". Do you know what could have caused this? I went to try fixing it, but I'm utterly clueless as to how I would go about doing so. Thanks!  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it. When I copy/paste a timestamp from a page history, some sort of annoying control character is often included at the end of the timestamp, which causes articlehistory to throw a timestamp error.The darn things are invisible even in edit mode, and I must have missed that one. Thanks for pointing it out. Maralia (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)