User talk:SGGH/Archive 2014/June

Ta-Nehisi Coates RfC
Hi,

As you suggested, I started a broad RfC trying to get new editors to weigh in to break the 3-3 stalemate. Unfortunately, it was immediately closed. That makes 2 RfCs that were immediately shut down. This is an excellent example of the nature of this debate: people just tell me to drop it, instead of actually having a discussion. In the resulting mess, it's easy to assume I'm being "tendentious". I am wondering what your opinion of the appropriate next move is. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say that unfortunately it looks like this isn't going anywhere now. I guess you'll just have to leave it, unfortunately. There aren't anymore avenues to pursue. Sorry! S.G.(GH) ping! 10:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Tom Rees (pilot)
Please see my comment on this page. It is a neat article but I'm not sure if the topic is notable enough for its own article. Perhaps you may be able to address this. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I take your point about people needing to be notable for more than one event. There is a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_victories_of_Manfred_von_Richthofen

How about if I moved the text about Lieut Rees to this page of his victories - under the list - and added to it with information about the other men in the list?

There are several books (secondary sources) about Manfred von Richthofen, with varying accuracy (as explained in the more recent publications) that I can use (Examples include Kilduff, Peter (1999) The Red Baron: Beyond the Legend (Print). London: Cassell Military Paperbacks. pp. 51–52. ISBN 0304352071 that I've cited about Lieut Rees; Franks, Giblin, McCrery; "Under the Guns Of the Red Baron"; Grub Street,(2007), cited in the page listing all von Richthofen's victories - and several more!) Seven of the men already have an individual page (6 from their military exploits, but the 7th has a documented life as an actor and theatre manager prior and after WW1 (injured not killed by the Red Baron)). Amongst the other 72 (!) others may have had interesting pre-war lives that are recorded in books. von Richthofen is famous because he killed (or tried to kill) them, and they were, of course, trying their best to kill him. Records of who exactly killed whom are comparatively rare in modern warfare and the books about him record that he tried to contact their families and behaved in a way that most modern airmen cannot. Thus, including more than the name, date and location of death of these men is rather appropriate.

What so you think? MerielGJones (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that if sources could provide content to suggest that Mr. Rees was notable in his own right as well as in respects to his death at the hands of the Red Baron, then he would warrant an article. As you say, those Red Baron victims who have their own articles currently have their own notability: one actor, six people with notable military careers other than just their deaths. If you can't find notable info on Mr. Rees then a merge to the article List of victories of Manfred von Richthofen or perhaps better would be info in Manfred von Richthofen (as List of victories of Manfred von Richthofen is a list/table rather than an article of prose).
 * Obviously it goes without saying that this is just my thoughts on the matter. I consider myself reasonably experienced here, but you may well find others disagreeing with me, and of course should consensus prove him notable, perhaps you could bring it up on this page, the talk page of the military history Wikiproject, which is where I first spotted your draft. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. I notice that another person has now made a comment on the draft page Draft:Tom Rees (pilot) so I've copied the discussion there and replied to the second commentator as well as yourself. MerielGJones (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=612481915 your edit] to Rodrigo D. Perez may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * He was elected by a majority of 935 votes over fellow nationalista members. He was an
 * In his honor, one of Dagupan City's main commercial road was named after him, Perez Boulevard.

A barnstar for you!

 * Wow thank you! S.G.(GH) ping! 12:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

WR227
He's still at it, I've pinged you at his talk page with diffs but thought I'd let you know directly as well. I feel a block is the only option at this stage... GiantSnowman 12:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've done one more softly-softly final warning, but that's because I'm quite a softy in the end. I can't see how WP:AGF would apply if the editor has continued despite saying on his talk that he fully understands it's wrong and won't do it again. Certainly I'd block if he did it again now after my message, but feel free to take action yourself. WP:CIR is a good essay to adhere to, I believe. --S.G.(GH) ping! 12:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arthur du Boulay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chatham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the proposed Dune task force
The subject seems to have grown a little stale, but I wanted to let you know that if you do generate enough interest to form said task force, I am quite happy to contribute. As to your request for thoughts on improvement of articles within this topic, I've had only a limited amount today, upon reading your posting, to review the current state of our articles in that vein, but a couple of things have jumped out at me.

I think a good place to start first would be the Dune (franchise) article which, aside from being a bit cluttered and disorganized in general, has some more significant weight issues. First and foremost, there's significant problems with weight; much of the article is concerned with minutia concerning the Brain Herbert and Kevin Anderson's works and, as these are more significantly more numerous now, this content has overtaken the page. However these newer novels do not compare even remotely to the cultural and historical influence of the elder Herbert's Dune novels, as reflected by valid sourcing. One of the reviewers for the recent attempt at GA status hit the nail on the head -- discussion on the influence of the (original) novels on the field of science fiction, science topics, general literature, and culture broadly are sorely missing despite the fact that they can be deeply informed upon by a voluminous amount of sourcing from those who have commented on the subject. Indeed, we do not even have an adequate reception section that should exist to discuss the influence of the novels in general and to delineate the differences between the works of the separate authors and the level of critical acclaim each has received. Instead, we have a huge (and frankly fanboyishly preoccupied) summary of the story of the "extended universe" novels which leans heavily on primary sources and other citations which are not really consistent with WP:RS. I think this glaring imbalance is arguably the most important issue that needs to be addressed first, to make sure that the aspects of the series which have had the greatest influence are appropriately reflected in how we weight our own content, to make it more policy-consistent and capable of imparting to the reader an accurate representation of the history of the series and its impact. Second, and I hate to have to be the guy to say it, but there are several non-free images from the David Lynch film adaptation that do not even begin to meet non-free criteria and, unfortunately, they have to go.

So, those are my initial thoughts; let me know if you still think the task force is viable and I'm an eager participant!  S n o w  talk 21:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll have to try and drum up some more support, I wonder what other areas would warrant a post inviting participants. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you seem to have hit up all of the relevant article talk pages already, as well as WP:WikiProject Novels. WP:WikiProject Science Fiction is mostly defunct, which is a shame given the broad significance it has (and the great benefit it could be) to countless articles, but the state of affairs is frankly unsurprising given how poorly it is organized.  That leaves WP:WikiProject Literature.  WP:WikiProject Media franchises as the only obvious stops in terms of projects; if those venues fail to generate interest, I don't know what I'd suggest next.  Honestly though, the main issue is not a lack of editors for the articles themselves.  I would gladly edit the entirety of the franchise article myself into something more encyclopedic, better-balanced and more thoroughly referenced and indicative of the unique place of the books (the first book in particular), in world literature.  The real problem I see is that there may be significant resistance to removing some of the considerable amount of fancruft in that and related articles.  Mind you, I'm just prognosticating based on the current state of that content; it may in fact end up being no problem at all.


 * Regardless, the task force's best use, if composed of experienced editors, would be to help assure the process of consensus-building for these changes went smoothly by offering voices which place Wikipedia policy before an excessive fixation with shoehorning every little detail possibly into said articles.  Again, it comes down to WP:WEIGHT; the first novel (and to a lesser extent the others penned by Frank Herbert), have massive influence -- the first book has been read and taught in universities across the world for decades, helped popularize terms and concepts like "ecology", introduced many new elements into the body of global science fiction literature, and is generally considered a masterpiece of the medium -- all of that could and should be discussed in relevant articles, rather than giving a blow-by-blow plot summary of the entire series, when such information should be mostly relegated to the articles of the individual books, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.  But I'm really not looking forward to the (probably) exhausting effort of explaining to the contributors who added some of that content why it is that, for encyclopedic reasons, the numerically superior newer books should receive less treatment than the fewer older ones (and why the first book in particular needs to be emphasized above the others).  I can easily see it becoming the case that attempts to make the article more consistent with WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT and WP:V will be misconstrued, amongst less experienced editors devoted to the series as a whole, as favourtism for the older Herbert's style rather than just an attempt to make our content consistent with notability and sourcing.  Let's hope I'm wrong, but in any event, I'd prefer as many level and seasoned heads involved as possible to reduce the acrimony and suggestion of bias.  So let me know if there is anything I can do to help you in the effort of putting together a good team of editors for this task and, if at any point you wish to, feel encouraged to ping me in any discussion on the matter and I'll come along to add my voice urging involvement.  S n o w  talk 22:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I also wonder if perhaps I might not be able to lend to this project the time that it deserves, since my initial proposal I've got a new job starting soon and also moving house. I'd enjoy working on it, but unsure what I could commit to setting up an actual task force, which is a bit of a let down I know... --S.G.(GH) ping! 18:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mind putting the messages out though. Is there a central place to hold the discussion? Or would it be WP:WikiProject Novels? S.G.(GH) ping! 18:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)