User talk:Rodney Baggins/Archive 1

A kitten for you!
Kudos for your comprehensive work on 2018 Winter Olympics!

LRataplan (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC) 

@LRataplan Thanks, it's good to be appreciated. I'm actually loving this (unpaid) job!! The kitten was a nice surprise too. Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@LRataplan Please can you help me. I'm trying to embed an image file from Wikimedia Commons into an article and it just isn't working for me. How exactly do you do it? I thought you would be a good person to ask after you sent me that kitten! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh man, Wikipedia syntax is hard - but I'll give it a try. If you look up the picture on Wikimedia Commons, there's five links above it, the middle one being 'Use this file on a wiki'. Click, and then it's just selecting the link (image or thumb) and copy it into the text: All Eyes on Oldest Recorded Supernova (7064828617).jpg
 * Now you probably want to give it a border, center it or put it left or right... this page. There. That's all I know :) HTH! LRataplan (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And don't forget the Sandbox! LRataplan (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks that's really useful info. I'm busy working on another article about Aileen Riggin at the moment - she was a totally fascinating lady and my interest was piqued the other day when we were talking about women winning Olympic medals in different sports. Anyway I want to put another picture of her on the page. Check it out later if you want to have a look! I'll let you know if I have any problems with the images. Thanks again. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions on Women's sport
Hi Rodney Baggins, We’ve noticed that you edited articles related to Women's sport. Thank you for your great contributions. Keep it up! Bobo.03 (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

About italic on article 2018 Winter Olympics

 * see also: WP:FUTURE

2022 Winter Olympics is a future event. So, I wrote the "future event" in italics, like 2018 FIFA World Cup (see right table) and Asian Games (see right table). Thanks. --Garam (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, slightly dubious, don't really see the point. I don't think WP:FUTURE says anything about italics. If you look at info box top-right on 2018 Winter Olympics page it doesn't use italics for Beijing 2022 or Tokyo 2020 labels, so I don't think this convention has been used for the Olympics articles. Suspect it may have crept in as a convention for other sports, it's probably a matter of opinion/preference. By all means, go ahead and implement it, but you need to be consistent and make sure you italicise the infobox labels for winter and summer olympics pages, including winter and summer Paralympics, and of course you need to remember to remove the italics at some point in the future when the future events are no longer in the future! Like I said, I don't see the point personally. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I forgot to write it in italics on info box top-right of article. And I think the "italics" is a kind of Consensus and a matter of preference. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

OK no probs, but consistency is always key so please make corresponding changes on other olympics pages: 2016 Summer Olympics / 2020 Summer Olympics / 2024 Summer Olympics / 2028 Summer Olympics / 2016 Summer Paralympics / 2020 Summer Paralympics / 2024 Summer Paralympics / 2028 Summer Paralympics / 2022 Winter Olympics / 2026 Winter Olympics / 2018 Winter Paralympics / 2022 Winter Paralympics / 2026 Winter Paralympics (currently redirects to 2026 Winter Olympics). So it looks like you've got yourself a bit of a project there :) Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All done. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks, apart from main 2018 Winter Olympics page that you seem to have missed for some reason! Done now. Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops. Thanks a lot! :) --Garam (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Olympic Games - Most (physical) medals won.
I know I'm taking the risk of being held as stupid for asking this, as I am fully aware of how we count medals. Still I dare ask if someone can tell me what nation, at which game, brought home the largest number of (physical) medals.

Reason to ask, is that we always count medals won in team events like ONE gold medal in the statistics. Actually a number of athletes have their part in same medal in team events, like relays (track-and-field running events, skiing, swimming and more), and in team sports (like football/soccer, ice hockey, land hockey and many more) but still award each team member a physical medal. We do not split such medals in as 1/4 medal in the athletes' statistics, so Usain Bolt won 3 gold medals as well in the 2012 summer games in London, as the 2016 games in Rio de Janeiro. Not 2,25 each time, just check Usain Bolt if least doubt. As for football/soccer, Germany returned home with 19 physical silver medals from the men's tournament in Rio, and 19 gold medals from the women's ditto.

I do not have statistic material to count this "odd way". It may also complicate the calculation that some teams in the early summer olympics were NOT awarded physical medals for each member in 2nd and 3rd place, just diplomas. And some events, like the "Gymnastic team" events, did not even have a fixed number of athletes, rather a maximum number of athletes.

So, is there anybody out there, with unlimited time and patience, willing to dive into the history to find out if there is an answer to my quest?

Rodney Baggins: I post this here in your User talk page, leaving it to you to decide whether this has any common interest, or if it's just a strange idea from this Norwegian user - TorSch (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

My honest opinion? I don't really think it's all that relevant I'm afraid. The number of gold medals won by a country literally means the "number of events" they've won, not the actual number of gold medals per se. So when a relay team wins an event (for example) each gold medal handed out to the individual athletes really counts as a fraction of the "win" although of course it is still physically a whole gold medal and to the athletes it counts the same as if they'd won it individually. If you were to count up the number of physical gold medals brought home after the Olympics, logically speaking I think you would have to count the jointly-earnt medals as worth a fraction of a whole gold medal, so it would add up to the same thing. This is only my opinion and not something I've ever really thought about before, so feel free to ask others what they think! I'm sure it would be fine to bring it up on the Olympic medal Talk page if you so wish.

Interestingly, I did some work recently on an American athlete called Aileen Riggin who won two medals at the 1924 Olympics in Paris, one in a swimming event and one in a diving event. She went down in history as the first (and only) woman to win medals in two different sports at a single olympic games. However, I also came across another female athlete called Hjördis Töpel from Sweden – she too won medals at the 1924 Olympics in Paris, again in swimming and diving, but she had conveniently been forgotten about until I got involved in updating their respective wiki articles. Please do look them up and have a read. The conclusion I have come to is that somehow Töpel's achievement has less significance because one of her medals (the swimming one) was won as part of a relay team, so it was in theory watered down (excuse the pun!), whereas both of Aileen Riggin's medals were individual. Or maybe it's just that Riggin was American so received more exposure. It seems very strange as you would have thought that anyone involved in those sports at the 1924 Games would have been well aware of the situation. The medal tables speak for themselves and I'm pretty sure I've not misread the information. In any case, I have to say Riggin went on to live an extremely interesting and successful life and since researching her I have become rather a fan (almost 100 years too late though!) Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:STiki!
Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Greyhaven article overwrite
Hi Rodney, you probably know me as the anonymous user who updated the "Greyhaven" band page, but my name is John. I have created a draft for the currently active band. Still lots of work to do with filling and sourcing, but it's a start. As far as differentiating the bands, "2014 band" was placed next to the current Greyhaven by another user, but I think it would be more appropriate to alter the title of the defunct band, considering they haven't been together for nearly two decades and seem pretty obscure as well.

As far as the name rights issue goes, the current Greyhaven is also signed with a record label that distributes through a subsidiary of Sony, whereas the older Greyhaven was signed to a non-profit French music label. Though I really do appreciate the concern, I doubt any legal action is imminent.

-- This email was sent by user "Jbernardb3" on the English Wikipedia to user "Rodney Baggins". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

May 2018
I noticed that a message you recently left to JBW95 may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Thank you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I know editing gets heated but you should try and discuss the issue on the user's talk-page rather than slam him/her in an edit summary. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't know what you were talking about at first but I've just realised it's the revert I made earlier on the MH370 page. We've been in a discussion on the very subject of the pilot suicide theory so I'm afraid JBW95 was really very naiive to make the edit when they did. The MH370 infobox has very clear warnings about making changes without consensus and we certainly didn't have consensus on that issue. Unless I am very much mistaken I would say that JBW95 blatantly ignored the warning text and went ahead anyway in the midst of a very contentious issue. I was going to revert it as vandalism but decided to just undo the edit with a stern warning. Frankly they were lucky it was me that made the reversion because I anticipated they were about to get some flack from others, which is why I stepped in when I did. You have to be thick skinned to work in this environment and you certainly don't need other people fighting your battles for you. Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Flag usage
Hi Rodney! I wanted to drop a line to elaborate a bit on my thinking with regards to flag use in articles. My reading of the various guidelines is that with certain topics, people for instance, the use of flags can be problematic. The idea behind that is that the placing of a flag next to a persons name or their picture can have the effect of focusing on the nationality aspect of that person in a way that may be overtly promotional of their nationality. For instance, when you placed the Netherlands iconography in the infobox of Suzanne Schulting, you were simply wanting to correctly associate her with her country of origin - a completely legitimate desire, seeing as how people who may not be familiar with her would want to know what country she was from, and the flag would help in that association. But as you discovered from other editors, that is frowned upon here, because it could be seen as unnecessarily wrapping Ms. Schulting in the context and viewpoint of nationalism, which I agree can be problematic.

That, IMHO is the purpose of WP:FLAGCRUFT, which states "Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things." (italics are mine). This is also, to a degree, the reasoning behind WP:INFOBOXFLAG, which states "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." The overriding concern of these two guidelines is that flag use not become too distracting.

However, the nationalities table as it is used in Air India Flight 182 is a table, not an infobox. And the something as I italicized it in my quote from WP:FLAGCRUFT is the country itself - not a person. The flag in the Air India context is not being associated with any one individual, rather it is being associated with a group of nameless individuals, in a manner similar to a statistic. This is because in air crashes, the passenger's nationalities are very important to investigators. In a nationality fatality table, no one nation is being promoted over another. The only aspect in that table is the nationalities themselves, and unlike Ms. Schulting's infobox, they are focused on the various countries involved purely from a statistical viewpoint (i.e., "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason"). Similar to a list of countries receiving large amounts of rainfall, there is no way to place a nation's rainfall in an overtly nationalistic manner by using a flag icon, in contrast to the way you could by using a flag next to a person's name.

As far as aviation articles go, there is guidance which comes from the WikiProject_Aviation, which states "In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited." So that's the situation from my viewpoint, but I was curious to hear what your take on these guidelines was. I thank you in advance for any time you can offer. Regards, .   spintendo ⋅ ⋅ )  14:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi there and thank you for you post which was very comprehensive and incredibly polite, much appreciated! To be perfectly honest, I don't have strong views either way, but if I had to make a choice I would err on the side of not putting the flags in the list of victims, simply because I don't really think that it adds anything when the nationalities are perfectly plain to see in text form as it is. In fact, I sort of think it looks a bit gruesome with flags. WP:FLAGCRUFT says something about not wanting to display nationalistic pride, and that makes me think that in a bizarre way maybe we're almost celebrating the nationalities of the dead by including their flags, or is that just me? At the end of the day, it would probably be better if you took this up with Bohbye because it was he/she that really started this and I guess I just jumped on his/her bandwagon after I saw that you'd reverted his/her edit to Air India Flight 182. S/he made the same edit to Metrojet Flight 9268 today too, and possibly some others that I'm not watching. Out of interest, MH370 doesn't include flags in the victims list and I always tend to use that article as a bit of a yardstick as it has almost 700 watchers. But then again, that in itself is probably an invalid argument according to WP:OTHER. Maybe we need to start a discussion and get some other people's views because it should be consistent across the plane disaster articles. One of my main raisons d'être is consistency! Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
If your edit summaries were more descriptive of your edits this sort of thing would be less likely to occur. Britmax (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to check the previous edit you would have seen that I was responding to PhilipTerryGraham with whom I was in the process of finalising the new lead section. He's made a very good job of reworking it and I then responded by copyediting the text and we were in the process of doing a final couple of tweaks. A quick glance at the revision comparison view would have shown you that my edit was entirely reasonable and reverting it was purely disruptive on your part. As for the edit summary, occasionally people make sarcastic comments in edit summaries, sometimes there's a bit of "to and fro" (when opening a new discussion on the Talk page would be unnecessary). If you spent more time making useful contributions to Wikipedia, rather than consistently reverting and undoing other people's work (which I notice is your favourite pastime judging by your Contributions list) then maybe "this sort of thing would be less likely to occur" as you put it. Hurried reverts, without checking the context, are a form of vandalism. Whenever I check edits on my watchlist I always establish in my own mind exactly what's going on before taking any action. Please be more careful in future! Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ice dance vs ice dancing
Hi Rodney,

I've been around WP for a long time (11 years), but I've just started editing FS articles in the last month, my username notwithstanding. I've been looking at Ice dancing, and saw your request, way back in Feb., to move the article. There was some initial discussion, but nothing came of it, as you know. I've learned that here in this project, silence equals assent, so I suggest that we move ahead and make the move. Yes, it means that we need to change every instance of the term "ice dancing," but I suggest that we handle the task slowly, or get a bot to do it. Personally, I'm not that technical, but it'd be easy to find someone who can take care of it for us. What do you think, sir? ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Christine, pleased to meet you. It's always good to meet fellow figure skating fans, it's such a beautiful sport. Thank you for supporting my idea to rename "Ice dancing" to "Ice dance". However, I've possibly had a change of heart since February. Certainly a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then and I'm a lot more experienced in Wikipedia matters now than I was back then... In my opinion, we actually have two separate subjects here: the leisure activity of "ice dancing" which has a long history and amateur following through social dancing clubs at various ice rinks; and the serious sporting activity of "ice dance" which, while based on the leisure activity and obviously very closely connected with it, is a serious business with rules and regulations and competitions and profile and a slot in the olympics. The same could not be argued for the other figure skating disciplines of singles and pair skating, which may be dabbled with in general public sessions or practice ice patches, but would just come under the basic umbrella of "ice skating" and I certainly don't think you would see social clubs devoted to practising camel spins and double salchows!


 * So I would suggest there are three options.


 * 1) Leave the "Ice dancing" article alone, but make sure the terms "ice dance" and "ice dancing" are used correctly in context throughout the article. Include an explanation of the fact that ice dancing is a historical leisure activity enjoyed by people of all ages for fun, and ice dance is a serious sport regulated by the ISU. Reorganise the article accordingly (if necessary). Expand on the existing Recreational section towards the bottom of the article.
 * 2) Rename the article to "Ice dance", again making sure the terms "ice dance" and "ice dancing" are used correctly in context throughout the article. Include an explanation ... (as above). We would need to submit an official move request and sit on it for 7 days before taking any action. The actual article name change is an automatic process which includes setting up redirects for all pages that link to it, so there's no need for a bot or any legwork on our part.
 * 3) Create a second article called "Ice dance" (and keep the "Ice dancing" article) so the two activities can be addressed separately, with relvant cross-referencing between the two.


 * At this stage, I'm not entirely sure which of these three I would favour so I'll be interested to hear your thoughts. Once we have a plan of action we can take it onto the Ice dancing talk page and take it from there.


 * Thanks for your interest! Bye for now. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey again; here are my thoughts about the above. The problem with creating a new "Ice dance" article is that I'm not sure that there's enough information out there about recreational "Ice dancing", so I'm inclined to support a page move.  I'd support creating an "Ice dance" article if we accepted that the original "Ice dancing" article might be a stub.  If we decided that there was enough info for "Ice dancing", we'd leave things as is.  If not, we could ask to delete it and like you say, include the information about recreational Ice Dancing in the new article.


 * OTOH, you're also right about the historical aspect of Ice Dancing, and how it evolved into the modern sport of Ice Dance. Any discussion of Ice Dance needs to include recreational Ice Dancing.  The "Ice dancing" article would have to state that it was the precursor of Ice Dance, and the "Ice Dance" article would include the historical connection to Ice Dancing.  And they'd be linked to each other, of course.


 * The question we need to answer is: Is recreational Ice Dancing notable enough to deserve its own article? We could use Ice skating as a guide, since it treats the history of the activity as a recreational sport, and discusses how it evolved into a sport.  My suggestion is to go ahead and create "Ice dance" and then see if recreational Ice Dancing is notable enough. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I've taken a while to reply, been rather busy. Anyway, I agree with you that recreational ice dancing is not notable enough to deserve a separate article so we should keep all the info for ice dance and ice dancing together in one article. We should try to get a page move agreed so we can rename it from "Ice dancing" to "Ice dance", and also clarify the difference between the two activities, pointing out that recreational ice dancing has its own place in the ice skating world, dance clubs, dance intervals, little old men and ladies having a jolly old time at their local rink, etc. whilst ice dance is a serious competitive figure skating discipline with a whole set of rules and regs and not necessarily just done for "fun"!

So rather than create a new "Ice dance" article, we should request a page move to get the existing Ice dancing article's name changed to "Ice dance", which I guess is what I first wanted to do a few months ago! I suspect there won't be an awful lot of interest and we might just get a couple of oppose votes and it will end in stalemate, but we might as well give it a go. In any case, name change or not, the article does need to be reworked a bit to clarify the difference between the two activities.

Here's my understanding of the various terms:

Ice skating is the most basic generic term for skating on ice. (history/evolution/links to dedicated articles, e.g. Figure skating)

Figure skating is the modern sport of ice skating that encompasses men's singles, ladies' singles, pair skating, ice dance. (as stated in lead)

Ice dancing is a recreational form of ice skating, literally "dancing on ice", still exists as a recreational activity, was incorporated into the sport of "figure skating" as a discipline with the name "ice dance". Not notable enough to have its own article, therefore included in "Ice dance" article.

Ice dance is the figure skating discipline that evolved from the recreational activity of ice dancing. Majority of information in "Ice dancing" article is actually about "Ice dance" rather than "Ice dancing."

(please correct if you disagree with any of this!)

I'm happy to put in the page move request with an explanation of why we want it. Maybe you could draft some alterations to the content of the article? Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey again. I agree with everything you just said, although I'm not sure there are sources out there about recreational ice dancing.  The current section about it on the article is small and only has one source.  I've been surprised about sources before, though, so I'll do some research and see what I can find.  For now, I agree that we should request a page move, see what we can include about recreational ice dancing, and then delete the Ice dancing article.  I just looked at Football, Basketball, and Tennis; the 1st 2 have sections about their recreational versions, so I suspect that's common practice.
 * I've already started some work on Ice dancing; see here for the discussion I started on the talk page . My plan is to tackle each section, offer up some discussion, and then replace it with my version.  The article is woefully out-of-date; it looks like the last time anyone really worked on it and other ID articles was in 2011, after the ISU removed the Compulsory Dance.
 * Speaking of, I've been working on Compulsory dance, too; tell me what you think, please: . I've suggested that the Ice dance CD and the Artistic Roller Skating CD have their own articles;  you'll see that I'm revamping the ID CD article, but just doing a cut-and-paste for the ARS CD.  I won't take either to DYK, but I may bring them both to GAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You're busy, so I went ahead and move the move request. Put it under uncontroversial because we're the only ones discussing this. I always say, silence means assent, so I suspect that we're the only ones who care enough. ;) Not that that's a bad thing; I have the personality type that avoids conflict, so I tend to focus on articles that no one else seems to care about.  It also helps being established around here, with a proven track record in other articles. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Compulsory dance, as per the recommendation at AfD, is now a disambiguation page, and Compulsory dance (ice dance) and Compulsory dance (artistic roller skating) are now hot. In other news, Ice dance has been moved. I will now work on it some more. Thanks for your assistance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That's great, good work! I'm really chuffed that Ice dancing is now Ice dance, it makes so much more sense doesn't it. I'm glad you made the move request, I was going to go via a different route that would have taken longer and probably provoked some opposition, so thanks for doing that for me. Please go ahead and put in the new Competition segments section that we were working on the other day, if you like the way it looks now. I will have a look at the Compulsory dance (ice dance) article next when I have a minute. Let me know what else you are planning and I will try to help you with it... I'm feeling particularly happy today because my young son passed his levels 3 and 4 pattern dance tests today in Nottingham, and will be partnered up over the summer break, looking forward to his first dance competition in the autumn :) Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thanks so much for the kind words. I don't know how long I can keep this kind of editing up, since it's my hope that my new job kicks in with lots more work for me.  My next step is to tackle more sections of the ice dance article, and I'll keep you posted, of course.  Congrats about your son!  Ah, another young skater to follow.  I was at the 2010 Nationals in Spokane and saw Nathan Chen win Novice and witness his declaration that he'd at PyeongChang, although we all know how that turned out for him.  But now I feel like the proud mom when it comes to him.  The motivation for turning to FS articles is another young skater, Alysa Liu; her friend who's also a WP editor asked to create her article, and it was so much fun, so I decided to see what I could do for other FS articles.  If your son needs an article, once he becomes more notable, let me know.  I'm so excited for you and your family! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

World Heritage Site/site
A duplicate post you placed at the Teahouse today was not unreasonably removed by, per WP:FORUMSHOP. But having spent some time in considering the issue you raised, and then in drafting a reply to you, for a post that I found suddenly wasn't there, I thought I wouldn't waste the effort, and that you  might like a copy of what I would have posted. Hello,, welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for your question today. (I should declare an interest in that I've been employed by two separate organisations that own/run historic properties in a World Heritage Site, and that personally I disagree with you regarding non-capitalisation of "site" in the article title. I think it should be written as "Site" in the title.) That said, it can be easy to cherry-pick examples to back up one side of an argument or another, and Wikipedia doesn't choose article names based upon what an organisation calls itself or its products, but by what the majority of reliable sources generally refer to it as. (I know there's a guidance article on this somewhere, but I can't quite remember the link offhand. I'm sure another editor will assist). Apart from the fact that you've posted the identical concerns in two separate fora, (here and at WP:AN), I think you've gone about addressing your concerns in generally the right way. The advice you've received here from a very experienced administrator is to raise the issue at Move review of whether the non-admin closure was justified (with that closure being overseen by an administrator involved in the discussion). I don't think we can offer any better advice than that here. Regards from Derby, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The link you were looking for may have been WP:COMMONNAME. I have taken the liberty of correcting the WP:AN section link which you presumably attempted to pipe but in doing so broke the section link. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I wasn't forum shopping, in fact I didn't even know there was such a thing until I looked it up just now! I posted at the teahouse first and then realised maybe the admin noticeboard was a better place. To be honest, I wasn't sure what to do for the best. Anyway, I can see the way forward now and am prepared to admit defeat if it comes to that, but I still think there needs to be a bit more discussion on the matter first. Thanks again. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC) P.S. (Nick Moyes) I seem to recognise your name. Did you used to work for BR Research in Derby in the 80s/90s?
 * Hi Rodney (and thanks to for fixing my bad link). No - that wasn't me. I was in the museums/environmental sector all my life. You can find out more (if  you're really interested) on my User Page. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)  No, I've just realised it's the Derby Peregrine Project where I've heard your name, sorry. I've spent quite a lot of time watching the webcams over the years... Great stuff! I'm an RSPB volunteer and the peregrine projects around the country are just fascinating. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

SilkAir Flight 185 infobox summary
I don't actually see what was wrong with Special:Permalink/838446595's infobox summary, before your edit Special:Diff/839046089 changed it. Either way, I changed it to use Bulleted list because of accessibility: Special:Diff/860754564. I've also tried explaining what could've been wrong, since you typed < !-- Bullets inserted manually because * was not converting to a bullet for some reason--> in your summary. Hope it fixes the problem you were trying to solve in first place, cheers. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Gosh I'd forgotten all about that, it seems such a long time ago! I originally wanted to change it simply because the word "Disputed:" was not lining up horizontally with the Summary heading on the left and it just didn't look right to me. So I tried to implement the bulleted list in a different way, using  tags instead of hard line breaks, but the asterisks weren't showing up as bullets so unfortunately I ended up botching it. I did the same thing to Flash Airlines Flight 604. I had meant to go back and sort it out properly but got distracted and then forgot about it. Anyway, it's great that you've fixed it now, so thank you! I will go and sort out the Flash 604 botch shortly. Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:SNOOKER
Hi Rodney!

I saw you were editing the 2018 World Snooker Championship article. Thank you for that. Is Snooker, or WP:Cue Sports an interest of you? We have a wikiproject that needs help in both of those areas.

If not, don't worry, and simply ignore me.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lee, and thank you for your friendly greeting. I was actually having a bad day and you cheered me up no end! Yes, I am keen on snooker and would be delighted to get involved with the snooker project, although I don't have a huge amount of time and have a wide range of interests so I do tend to get a bit stretched. However, if there's anything in particular you'd like me to take a look at, please point me in the right direction and I'd be happy to help. I'm mostly interested in copyediting text, improving layout where necessary, and what I like to call "ref. maintenance", i.e. checking citations are correctly defined and in working order. I could maybe start by looking at some of the player BLPs, unless you have any better plans/ideas! Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear I cheered you up! In terms of the wikiproject, I always wish for more comments on how situations should be handled on Snooker articles. Snooker bios are a great place to start; with someone like Mark Williams (snooker player) being a good example of needing exactly that sort of editing. I am planning to put some work in to get the triple crown events up to GA standard, starting with the 2018 World Snooker Championship, so once the 2018 UK Championship is completed, I'll be working on that article.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, cool, I'll start by checking out Mark Williams' bio over the weekend. He's always been one of my favourite players, shame he didn't make it through the last 16 this week. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Devastating loss that one.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for your help at 2018 World Snooker Championship. My abilities with seeing my own mistakes is that I'm a blind mouse! Copyediting isn't my thing at all! I'm hoping with a little more work it'll pass. If you are up for it, next up is the 2018 UK Championship, which I'll nominate once it's passed WP:GOCE inspection. You've been a great help.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda
 Martinevans123 (Santa's Hard Brexit Grotto) ... sends you ... ... warmest seasonal wishes for ...... Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

Merry Christmas Baby... and hoping that you have a good New Year !!

Snooker articles
Hi Rodney,

I see you've been doing some work on the 2019 UK Championship article. Great work as always!

I've recently put 2019 Masters (snooker) on for copy edit, before I nominate for GA status. Anything you think could be added?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Lee, yes I've just taken a quick look at the 2019 Masters article and there are certainly quite a few corrections/changes I can make there for you. One thing I've noticed is that it includes one citation from the Daily Express (ref.35) and another from The Sun (ref.36) which I'm pretty sure we should not be using! I can deal with that if you like as I've got a couple of alternatives in mind. Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello! I didn't think the daily express was all that bad, but if there are alternatives to tabloids, that's pretty good. I just read through the RFC on The Sun, which is pretty new on me, and if it's depreciated, it should be removed. Thanks for your help.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I notice you removed the Sun citation from the Masters article, which is good because there's already a BBC Sport one in there that will suffice for the Stephan El Shaarawy sentence. I don't think the Daily Express is quite as bad as The Sun but as it's classed as a Tabloid it's probably best to use something else, so I'll change it to a report I found on Eurosport's website. This will be classed as a primary source as Eurosport was one of the official broadcasters.
 * One other thing, in the 2018 UK Championship article, there's a section near the bottom called "Aftermath" which talks about the draw for the Masters and what happened at the Scottish Open shortly afterwards. I want to change the heading from Aftermath, because that word normally means "the consequences or after-effects of a significant unpleasant event", like a natural disaster or train crash for instance, so not really appropriate here! Any suggestions? I'm struggling a bit. Maybe "Follow-up" or "Subsequent events" or "After the Masters" or something else? Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to say this, but seems questionable that you're asking why people are updating scores of the World Championship when this happens for every snooker event on Wikipedia. Would like some clarification as to why this is the wrong thing do to and why you haven't been criticising people during all the tournaments.
 * The answer, is that it's completely against Wikipedia's guidelines. WP:LIVEUPDATES and WP:LIVESCORES have put that live updates for matches in progress are against policy. This should have not been happening in the first place, and definitely not moving forward. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response but this isn't the right place to discuss this. Please take part in the ongoing discussion so your views can be seen by everyone there. Yes this problem happens for every snooker event on Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it right. I only really picked up on this a few days ago when I realised that other editors were objecting to the practice but their reverts were being over-ruled. E.g. Anaxagoras13 objected here and you reverted here. Then last night it got personal when some "serious work" that I had done was deleted as a direct result of live scoring edits. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Timeline of Welsh history has no sources at all
I'm sorry, but this really isn't acceptable. You know sources are required and committed yourself to using them. It doesn't matter if you're taking material from History of Wales, this still needs sources, and if you copy them from the main article please check to see if the material matches the source and the information is up to date. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'm sorry if this comes over as harsh. I can see it's on your todo list now, but you need to stop adding and start sourcing. I spend a lot of time not just sourcing but discovering that sources are out of date, that the text they are used to source isn't in the source but is an interpretation by an editor, or that the source has actually been moved from the text it used to source to text it doesn't even come close to sourcing. Or yesterday to watch an editor changing numbers so they didn't match the source - that happens a lot. Doug Weller  talk 11:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes that does come over as very harsh! I spent 5 days building this new article in my sandbox and invited other editors on the Welsh wikiproject to help me. I had plenty of support along the lines of "good idea", "looking good", etc. but up until now, no-one has stepped in to help. I know I was the originator of the article, so I am sort of responsible for it, but it was glaringly missing as a red link in the Timeline of British history article, so I was surprised no-one else had ever thought of creating it, and I assumed that other editors would be more than willing to chip in, but I was wrong.
 * My next objective is to work on sources, but if I am expected to provide a source for every single entry, and check the viability of each one as I go along, it is likely to take me another 5 months, let alone 5 days. Again, help from other editors is required here, but as yet no offers... Please can you point me to the wiki guideline on sourcing list articles such as timelines, as I notice that other similar articles are very minimalistic in their approach to sourcing, a prime example being List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft which I've been working on recently. It seems logical that as the list is just regurgitating information from linked articles, the latter should bear the responsibility for providing the sources.
 * If my hard work really isn't acceptable then please feel free to remove the article from the live wiki, which might at least prompt others to actually give me some help on the draft version in the meantime (or not). I sometimes find this hobby of mine an extremely thankless task and I should really be getting out more... Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * My apologies for not helping out yet, Rodney. I had not realised you had been forging ahead quite so impressively. Even if you don't manage to get out much, I can recommend some of my other hobbies that are only slightly more rewarding than Wikipedia - watching paint dry, knitting fog, herding cats and, of course, pushing very large boulders uphill. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Nothing personal of course Martin! I just felt a bit stung by receiving a personal attack from an admin after I'd spent several days getting the article ready for publication (when I should have been spending more time with my loved ones). Incidentally, here's another one to add to your boredom list: staying home with young kids and watching childrens TV for hours on end. That's definitely been one of the most mind-numbing experiences in my life! Although that particular episode is now several years in the past, thankfully.
 * As for the article, I'm still foggy on the rules about sourcing list articles, although this isn't strictly just a list of other articles, it's a timeline of actual events, so I'm fearing the worst. So far Tony Holkham has been helping and I'm hoping others will be inspired to step in now that the article has an unreferenced tag at the top. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * p.s. my baby granddaughter loves Bing, which I find almost as trippy as The Obese Creatures: Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OMG, grandchildren, I hadn't thought of that! Will the pergatory never end? Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha. It's slightly less purgatorial, as at least there are (usually) four of you, not just two! And you get to hand them back. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep comments on this article on the article's talk page; I only saw it because I was mentioned. Looking for support should be on the project page. Things take time on WP - for most people it's a hobby. Editors need to be relaxed about new articles, at least for a few days. I will add what refs I can later today.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  13:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Must admit I was more than a little surprised to find a personal attack on my user page the morning after I published the article, considering how much effort I've put in over the past few days – Good job I have rhino hide! Thank you for your help so far, between us we should be able to get much of it sourced and I suppose any entries that prove to be problematic will just have to be deleted. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't worry at this stage. was right to point out the deficiency in a new article, but with (my guesstimate) more than 50% of WP unsourced, often for years, I think we should have a little leeway to source the article.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  20:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, just work towards sourcing. WP:VERIFY applies to all types of articles, see WP:LISTVERIFY. I explained why above and pointed out that I myself spend quite a bit of time sourcing articles, including updating them. My comments were definitely not made as an Administrator but as an experienced editor. I'm surprised and disappointed that they were taken as a personal attack. I try to assume good faith and certainly never thought you were deliberately avoid sourcing.  Doug Weller  talk 20:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Tintern Abbey
The editor doing much of the work undertakes conversion of ordinary articles to FA, so probably best to leave them to do it as they wish. I expect there will be a burst of edits soon.SovalValtos (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been unsuitably reprimanded (as have you) by the not so sweet pool person, and some interesting fallout has arisen on his talk page regarding the future of the "collaboration", which I've been finding very amusing, but have so far resisted the temptation to intervene! I've been forging ahead with my own good faith edits but received no thanks or recognition, not that I'm bothered about that, but I personally think KJP1 is risking life and limb continuing with this association. Prickly is not the word! By the way, for what it's worth, I think "hazardous" is a far better word for the local roads, as "dangerous" implies there were highwaymen and axe murderers lying in wait, which I don't think is the intended meaning! I might just try changing it again in my copyediting travels... Notice that the prickly person has made a point of making major structural changes to the article all of a sudden in the past couple of days, after the prolonged hiatus – if I were paranoid, I'd say that might be a deliberate move to prove me wrong about the banner! Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly recommend leaving User:KJP1 to get on with editing Tintern Abbey in their own way and find other articles to edit for a month or three. KJP1 has a track record of moving articles to FA status. It is not as easy as one might think and he has the skill. A look at the edit history of the Sissinghurst Castle Garden article is quite illuminating. The work can take months and he must have made hundreds of careful edits there. I think I saw somewhere that he was gathering source books to read before editing Tintern Abbey. I am sure collaboration can work between editors of similar quality. KJP1 is well above our league so leave him to do the major reconstruction his way please. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks SV, but for the record, it was not KJP1 that I was referring to as "prickly", he has been the soul of discretion in all of this, for which I am grateful. And I am quite happy for him to know that. I think Tintern Abbey is beautiful and fascinating, so would very much like to be involved in the FA conversion if I can help. I hope my recent edits have not interfered too much with the other major construction works. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - Rodney, first off, I'm sorry I was remiss in thanking you for your edits on Tintern. They've not interfered in any way, on the contrary they've been most helpful. On the wider issue, I've always found collaboration the most enjoyable and productive approach to FA, with the added benefit of encountering some great editors. So I'd heartily recommend it as an approach. If it hasn't worked out on this occasion, there's no harm done. I'm recently become pleasantly distracted by another collaboration on an American wonder, so the abbey shall go into abeyance for a while. But when I return to it, your involvement, and that of SV who has offered to help with images and whose kind comments are very much appreciated, and that of all other editors with an interest in the place, will be extremely welcome. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know this isn't the right place to bring this up but I don't want to stir the hornets' nest again so: I noticed that you've now removed the Under construction banner altogether, which I think is a shame because it would be fine to leave it at the top of the Architecture section for the duration. The section is currently no more than a skeleton with one-liners for each subsection. Have you considered building it up in your sandbox first and then publishing it on the main page when it's more substantial? I did that recently with the Timeline of Welsh history article which I built from scratch in my sandbox2 and no-one interfered with it there, despite me inviting others to chip in, but I think user sandboxes are probably treated like hallowed ground, so that might be a solution. I won't touch the Architecture section myself unless you ask me to, but I noticed that a couple of the sfn refs are not working which I've noted in my recent edit summary. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Rodney - Edit away, including the Architecture section, there's no ownership. As to the banner, replace it if you think fit, but I won't be editing for a while. As to sandboxes, I used one on the only FAC I've collaborated on which failed to make FA!, so I have a slight aversion. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to keep you updated, I've been working slowly on the sections I'd promised to revise and just uploaded the first results. A former editor also had his eye on the article and immediately made a couple of useful changes. I've yet to finish work on arts and literature. Meanwhile, I see you've shifted your focus elsewhere for a while... Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * And John says chill dude, too!! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hard work indeed ... Well done, Rodney! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Aw shucks guys, am really thoroughly bloody enjoying this project. Wales has just such a fascinating history, far more colourful than bland old England. I'm now desperate to get back over some time in near future and planning a trip later this year. Used to visit Gwynedd every year when I was a kid but haven't been for a quarter century! Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It's amazing how such a project (thanks to you) focuses the mind on the historical thread with it all in one article. And, while searching for citations, I have found (in categories and lists) innumerable other interesting "facts" which don't have a source, so I will be revisiting those anon. Cheers, Rodney (or is that Dave?...)  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  20:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You can take notes if you wish. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Happy Saint David's Day

Iago ab Idwal and Llywarch ap Hyfaidd, etc.
As far as I know, it's a simple voiced mutation: /p/ before a consonant becomes /b/ before a vowel. Thus the Welsh wiki Hywel ab Ieuaf is actually more correct than the English wiki Hywel ap Ieuaf. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was finding it a bit confusing, and kept making mistakes in the text and then didn't understand why I was getting red links all over the place! Rodney Baggins (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you! ... ;-)) ...

 * Thanks, that's really kind of you! I just noticed that England, Scotland, Ireland, and even Cornwall had their own timelines but Wales did not, and I was extremely surprised that no-one else had ever thought of creating one. If you'd like to help, the more the merrier – what's this about formatting isbn parameters? And are you any good with harvard refs? Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You're most welcome, Rodney ; it was an inspired idea on your part and I was delighted to discover it yesterday, thanks to 's mention of our recent effort on the Pembrokeshire article. My earlier mention of "isbn hyphens" was related to that effort, during which I volunteered to apply hyphens in the  parameter of all cite book templates, in accordance with the guidelines listed at Pattern for English language ISBN numbers. As for helping here, I'd be delighted; but please look first at Pembrokeshire and Pembrokeshire and decide whether you would like your citations to be displayed that way. As Tony also mentioned to you yesterday, I tend to show page numbers using the rp template, which displays the book page number(s) immediately alongside the reference number generated by the cite book template, per MOS:IBID. It may not be what you prefer, so I'll let you decide; some editors prefer the style used in Ernest Hemingway. Let me know of your intent, bearing in mind that  is also on standby, poised to apply his own magic to current and future citations.  With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Just like that!" Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'll have a ponder about ref. styles and get back to you on the Welsh timeline talk page. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Timeline
Just to let you know I haven't abandoned this project; events have conspired to limit my editing for a little while, but I'll be back on it as soon as I can. You're doing well with the sourcing at your end. Best wishes, Tony.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  12:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I didn't for one minute think that you'd abandoned it, I assumed you must be busy with other things for a while as we all have lives to live in the real world! I've been struggling to find time myself in the last few days, life does have a habit of getting in the way. I'll just take this opportunity to thank you for your valuable help with the article. I can understand why you didn't wish to commit at the start when I was first drafting things in my sandbox, but since publishing you've been a massive help. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers. You wouldn't think fragile lumbar vertebrae could cause so much trouble with sitting and so many other things including, strangely, concentrating. Very frustrating. T.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  10:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear about your health problems. Mine tend to be mental rather than physical. I have this habit of overdoing things and exhausting myself to the point where I can hardly function let alone concentrate on anything. I think my brain just decides to go on strike for a while! So I'm also having to take it easy this week after having an incredibly hectic weekend — Keep smiling :) Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * :o)  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  09:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * My very kindest wishes to both of . The sitting position is probably the worst for the lumbar discs, so much the best option is to, either stand with your pc up at eye level, or take a complete break. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, very much. It's going to be a long haul, but I keep positive, and kind thoughts always help. Congrats on reaching 80k! T.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  11:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Wayback Machine not working
This is a note to self, but I know there are one or two people watching my Talk page (you're welcome!) I use the Wayback Machine quite regularly but it seems to have ground to a halt, or is it just me? Or maybe they're currently in the process of changing the interface. All I'm getting is a bare list of links with a mini search box that doesn't process any input. Frustrating cos I need to use it today. Is anyone else having problems with it, and is there an alternative archiving service that anyone can recommend? Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm watching. I cannot add anything but I know a man who probably can ... visit SMcCandlish (talk). If he can't help, nobody can! Hope this helps. Sincerely Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 *  of Candlish. - There is archive.is, but it's not as good. If you are having issues with archive.org, I use AIBot, which is fantastic bot for auto archiving. Hope that helps.
 * I'll also watch your page too, now there's three! Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's working for me: specific year of search results, and displayed archive page. I'm not sure what problems you're encountering.  I do find that Wayback sometimes kinda crashes (or, rather, some database back end does, with the website working, but not returning proper or any search results). It's usually back within the hour on a business day, and within 12 hours or so otherwise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, it seems no-one else is getting the same error as me, so I think it must be something self-inflicted. Even when I click on the link that SMcCandlish provided above, I'm still not getting through to the main Wayback Machine welcome screen, just the same screwed-up page I got before. So I'll have to consult my system admin who's probably forgotten to tell me about an update to our router settings or something... Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorted. It turns out that Wayback Machine was being blocked by our DNS server because it managed to get on a blacklist somehow and was triggering a local security rule. Apparently. So I'll know next time, as it's bound to happen again. Today I shall mostly be rescuing sources...! Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

A Combustable Barnstar for You!!

 * Thanks! I think I got a bit carried away with myself earlier. I have a pile of other citation edits to do on SHC but should really get back to the Welsh Timeline. There are not enough hours in the day! At least our "highly questionable" friend seems to have gone away for now. Loving the barnstar. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

FA needs comments
Hi Rodney, hope you are well.

I know it's not really your area, but if possible, could you take a look at Featured article candidates/2019 Tour Championship/archive1? It'll likely get closed without additional comments. Thank you Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I'll give it a once-over later today. Thanks for thinking of me, I'm always happy to help. I hope you didn't mind me reverting that edit on Ronnie's page yesterday but there were so many things wrong with it. I'll skim through that article too later on, while I'm at it! Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I always think highly of your prose work! No problem on the Ronnie front, I did see the edits and thought you were right on the money. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Rodney, thank you for your dilligence at looking at this one for me. It looks like the article will likely pass after a source review is done, which is fantastic and your comments helped make that happen!


 * My next nomination would be 2019 World Snooker Championship, which just passed a GA review. Would you rather help me improve the article to meet any FA comments, or comment like we did before (if you are interested?). Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes I am of course very interested in helping with the 2019 World Championship! I did quite a lot of work on this back in May, but haven't looked at it since then. I can go through it again this week and do a general copyedit. I would then be able to help you field the incoming FA comments if that would be useful. Don't forget there are still a few outstanding queries on the 2019 Tour Championship that need ironing out. I suggested a couple of wording changes and I'm going to have another look at the troublesome references. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's on my to do list - I have quite a few GAs in the middle of reviews at the moment, but I'll get to it as soon as I can. Thanks for your help. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Your edits on the 2019 article looks fantastic! Is there much more to look at (or anything I can help with), or is it almost ready for the FA nom? Thanks for your help once again. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Lee, thanks, glad to be of assistance. I'm in the middle of editing the first round (bottom half) and will publish changes tomorrow, still need to look at the Quarter-finals section, again I'll try and get that done tomorrow. Then it's probably safe to go for the FA nom. I haven't looked closely at the Background section (Format / Participant summary), but that shouldn't take too long and I can do that in parallel with the FA review, as I reckon most of the significant comments will revolve around that section anyway. I've requested temporary page protection to deal with the annoying vandalism. Someone's gone to a lot of trouble to create a comical version of the main draw, but I really don't understand why they're being so persistent. So it might get protected for a couple of days but then again it might not. I've got a bunch of questions to ask you. I can put them on the talk page or do you want me to save them for the FA review? Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Ideal! You've done great - seems like regular persistent editors are just kids. 3 days should be plenty. If you have any questions, just let me know. I think you are right, outside of blatetly wrong information, outside of the main draw, the prose is an easy fix. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 06:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Silly me, I already copy-edited the quarter-finals last week (on the 4th), just about done now then. Do you want me to help with the FA review or do you just want me to comment/support it? Not sure what's the best approach. Also, where do you want me to ask my bunch of questions about the article? Here, talk page, or FA review page? Best of luck. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have you on as a co-nominator for two reasons, so just ask the questions here if that's ok (I can't nominate a second FA unless there is a co-nom, and you are now a major contributor, so it's not the best idea to be the person supporting). I'll open the nom in a mo. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello again Lee. Please find my review comments in User:Rodney Baggins/2019 World Snooker Championship. Speak later, Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've added a few more comments on my separate review page, so please be sure to check them out. A question about the FA review process: er, how does it work!? Do you have to invite people to comment/support or just hope that people will stumble across it on the snooker project page? I notice we already have one supporter! Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Lee, do you want me to hassle some people about looking at this or is it too soon? Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * its never too soon! a friendly message on talk pages of people who might comment is always a good idea! Feel free, just be careful of canvassing. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Lee, we have 6 people supporting us now on the 2019 World Snooker Championship FA nom. What happens now? Is it time to contact the co-ordinator and get a source review? In the meantime, I'm busy looking through the 1985 WSC article and have published a few comments already. And last but not least............... CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR UPCOMING NUPTIALS  and honeymoon in Mexico  !! Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

- I've already posted in the usual spot for the source review. Might be worth a ping of a regular reviewer, or find someone who might be interested in doing so. I suspect once we get closer to the bottom of the list, a regular co-ordinator will just do a source review as before. 6 Supports should be plenty, but a ping for a closer is probably the best course of action for now.

I've seen your comments - I just need a few minutes to clear through it. Thanks for the detailed review.

Yeah, grew up close on me! You book a wedding a year in advance, and then the week before it's like: "oh, yeah it's this week". :0 Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanking to Rodney Baggins
Ok sir thank you for this reverted Tenerife Airport Disaster article because when I saw the mayday air disasters show about Tenerife Airport disaster I understand about the show. It was pilot error, ATC confused communications to KLM flight 4805 and Pan am flight 1736 and foggy weather. Thank you. Jaden7667 (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

FA comments
Hi Rodney! Great work on continual updates for the ongoing FAC. I've got a few more people who might take a look at it in the coming days, so it could be enough comments for a pass soon.

I've been working on the next article to nominate, the 1985 World Snooker Championship, but I wrote it from scratch and it needs a good writers eye! I've asked for a copyedit, but it'll probably need a closer look than that to meet the requirements. Would you be up for it? Even if not, could you take a quick look and see if I've done any silly things?

Thanks for your help. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes I can do that, always happy to help. I'll go take a look at it in the next day or two. The 2019 world championship article is getting better. Still need to fill in the absent Higgins/Bingham match in the second round (although no-one else has noticed it's missing!), and there's a Mirror ref. that probably needs ditching (86). Look forward to further review comments. I can ask a few more people if you like. Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * feel free! Yeah, I have been meaning to get that match in, thanks for reminding me. I'll take a look in a mo! Been a little busy with GAs the last couple of days, so now is a good time.

I think the 1985 article is good - but as I wrote it, it's likely full of repetition and poor phrasing. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have to say, Lee, you've done an absolutely fantastic job on the 1985 article! It's changed such a lot since April when you first picked it up and you've clearly put in a lot of hard work since then. On the whole I think it looks rather good already and I wouldn't want to do too much to it. I've already made a couple of small edits, but I do have more stuff to tell you about so watch this space. As for the 2019 FA, I've got a couple more people onboard so expect more comments in the next few days. Speak later, Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for your help. I'll potentially just do the copyedit and nominate the article in that case. I had quite a bit of help with the sourcing tbf. Did you fancy being a co-nominator on this one too, or just put some comments on the candidate page? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've put my initial comments here for you to go through. Then if you want to nominate it, I'll go through in more detail and put some more comments on the candidate page, but I'll try to keep my copy-edits to a minimum this time so I can support the article for you. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Lee, I think you missed my last few comments, but I've sorted all but one. The last sentence in the Final says "Taylor later signed a five-year contract with promoter Barry Hearn to be Taylor's manager." To avoid repetition, maybe this could be changed to one of the following:
 * (1) Taylor later signed a five-year contract with promoter Barry Hearn to be his manager.
 * (2) Promoter Barry Hearn later signed a five-year contract with Taylor to be his manager.
 * (3) Promoter Barry Hearn later signed a five-year contract to be Taylor's manager.
 * (4) Taylor later signed a five-year contract for promoter Barry Hearn to be his manager.
 * The first couple probably imply that Taylor was to be Hearn's manager, and putting Hearn's name first probably implies that he was the recipient of the deal, hence I came up with the fourth one! Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Rodney, the FAC is now open at Featured article candidates/1985 World Snooker Championship/archive1. I'd welcome any comments you might have! Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK Lee, I'm away this weekend but I'll get onto it on Monday. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I might make a few minor edits via mobile and get my teeth into it properly on Monday! Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 World Snooker Championship
Hello:

I've finished a run-through the article on the 2019 World Snooker Championship and fixed a few minor things here and there. The article looks in great shape to me. Best of luck with the FA process.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you very much for doing that. I've been through your edits and everything looks good, apart from one thing: you changed "The last 16 players" to "The remaining 16 players" at the start of the Second round section. This round is quite often referred to as "the last 16" so that wording was intentional. The Mirror reference will be coming out altogether as it's not considered to be a reliable source and probably wouldn't get through the FA source review as it stands. If you're happy to support the article at this stage, please could you reiterate your above comments on the FA review page. Thanks for your help, very much appreciated. Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Per Nottingham Goose Fair
I've taken a look at the page it overall it seems ready for C-class. I've also gone ahead and placed the classification there.

I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Caker18 !! Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

1984 World Snooker Championship
Hi, I've just had a read through your review comments on 1985 World Snooker Championship. As a fairly new editor, I found your comments there really helpful. If you have time, please could you have a look at 1984 World Snooker Championship and/or 2015 World Ladies Snooker Championship? I could then use your feedback to help improve these and other pages I'm working on. Thanks in anticipation. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Benny, yes I can take a look. I'm still working on the 1985 WSC article for Lee at the moment, but as he's about to get married in a couple of days and maybe out of the picture a bit over next couple of weeks...!? What I'll do is make a few minor copyedits for you first (if that's OK?) and then list my general comments here for you to work through at your convenience. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm always watching about. :P Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've had a look through 1984 World Snooker Championship and made a few minor changes. These are some general points that jumped out at me:
 * Use en dashes (not hyphens) in scores, e.g. in Qualifying section, "10-3", "10-2", "10-0", should be "10–3", "10–2", "10–0", etc.
 * We have a custom of inverting the losing scorelines so that the number of frames applying to the player that's the subject of the sentence come first in the scoreline, e.g. "David Taylor, 5-3 down to Marcel Gauvreau after their first session" should be "David Taylor, 3–5 down to Marcel Gauvreau after their first session" and "Roy Andrewartha ... lost 10-4 to Eddie Charlton." should be "Roy Andrewartha ... lost 4–10 to Eddie Charlton."
 * There's loads of overlinking of players' names. See MOS:REPEATLINK. As a general rule, once a player has been introduced in the Tournament summary (with a wikilink), it's not necessary to link every subsequent occurrence. Sometimes we can get away with this if the names are spread thinly over a large article, but it's particularly important within individual sections, e.g. Alex Higgins is wikilinked twice in the Tournament summary section. There are lots of others and frankly the article does look a bit over-blue!
 * MOS:NUMNOTES says "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure"... I found a couple of sentences that start with a figure:
 * In Lead section: "94 players entered the tournament." could maybe be changed to: "The tournament started with a pool of 94 players." ?
 * In First round section: "233 frames were played in the first round out of a possible 304,..." could just be reordered: "In the first round, 233 frames were played out of a possible 304,..."
 * I've noticed a few other specific things if you're open to suggestions? Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * for reference, there are a few scripts that can help with some of the above  this script can fix the dashes issue for example. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks both! I'm very open to suggestions, will get cracking on the points above soon. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, I've reviewed the 1984 article and I'll put all my comments on the talk page for you to peruse. Probably best to put them on there as (1) there's rather a lot and (2) in theory it gives other interested observers chance to intervene/object, etc. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't mind adding my comments, (and I have more scripts) but it won't be until after I get back sadly. I'm more than willing to help add to the article. Would love to get all of the world championships up to GA (but it's a huge job). When I'm back and through my workload, the 2005 event is my next target. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * HAVE A GREAT TIME Lee ——— see you on the other side............. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Rodney, I'm just waiting to get on the flight back to good old Britain. As far as I'm aware, the 2019 FA nom is just the source review away from being complete. I'm not sure if you've seen anything else whilst I've been away? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Lee, It's all been pretty quiet on the snooker front actually. I think the 2019 FA is pretty much ready to go, I can nudge the coordinator if you like. The 1985 nom has been closed for now and I'm inclined to agree that we perhaps should have done more work on this offline before it was nominated. I know you had a copyeditor go through it but (1) I don't think they did a great job BYM, and (2) the article probably needed a peer review by someone with indepth snooker knowledge (not necessarily me, just someone on the snooker project). Maybe need to reassess what you want to do with this? Trust you've had a mindblowing time in Mexico & huge congrats on becoming a married man...!! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did ping them, but if it stalls further might be worth a second ping. No worries on the 1985 front, I'll start up a peer review, or do a GA soon. Was just trying to get it done by the end of the month, but it was always unlikely. Closure was completely right. I certainly did have a great time! Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably about time for us to give the co-ordinators a nudge on this one. After Mac's support, I can't see any issues with the source review, it's time. :). Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes you're right Lee, we could really do with putting this one to bed. I'll give them a nudge today (I see you already have!) but I do think we should address Mac's comments too. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I was planning on doing them, but I've got a few GANs on the run. Seems pretty changes. The cuegloss stuff is - in my eyes - a longer scale project. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been promoted (happy days!) congrats on (what I assume is) your first FA! (Shame it came two days late for the wikicup). I'm going to spend some time getting a few articles up to snuff for potential nominations, and I'll likely do something with the upcoming 2020 Masters as well, but it'll likely take 6 months to go through the process. I did some changes to the 1984 Championship article too, which could be a potential nom at some point (with some more sourcing). Any articles you fancy working on together? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you mind having a look at Ng On-yee and giving me some pointers? On the talk page there would probably be the best place. Please feel to make any amendments that you see fit … I'm not very good at finding new ways to say "she won all her qualifying matches then beat player A, player B and Player C". If anything I've done with formatting is a no-no then let me know and I'll fix it. The frame scores I've added as endnotes notes are a bit messy, I suppose they should either be incorporated into the text, or omitted. Thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've had a look through Ng On-yee for you. The main problem is the subsection headings, please see Talk page. Presumably Ng is her family name so she should be referred to as Ng in the article? It did say On-yee in a few places so I changed them. There are a few other things that have come up so I'll put some more stuff on the Talk page shortly. Sorry this has taken ages – had a v. busy weekend! Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Really useful feedback, as always! I'll address your points over the next couple of days. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

95 Fantomo.svg Boo! Android Emoji 1f47b.svg


Happy Halloween!

Hello Rodney Baggins: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 14:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.