User talk:Tim O'Doherty/Archive 2

Charles
I congratulate you for working to bring Charles to GA level. It really ought to be there for such a prominent topic. From a brief look at it, I wonder if the rather unwholesome goings on in the palace before, during and after his marriage to Diana have been a bit whitewashed, or at least de-emphasized, in the article. At the very least, it should be clearer not only that he and Diana were not happy in their marriage, but that he was jealous of her popularity and treated her badly, for example, calling her "chubby" before their wedding. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your words there; I can't take all the credit though, as it really was a group effort. Regarding the Diana marriage, maybe that should be looked at. I think the article does a decent job there, but could be improved upon. It does explicitly say "Within five years, the marriage was in trouble due to the couple's incompatibility and near 13-year age difference". I can't think of a way to integrate the more unpleasant things about the marriage in (and I don't want to appease viewers of "The Crown"), but maybe it could be spun off to a different article: "Marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana"? In any case, Diana's article uses almost the exact same language; whilst I liked Diana, she wasn't an angel either, and towards the end was probably just as bad as Charles. Regards, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, she had affairs, etc. But instead of both articles not giving the facts, both should give the facts, in Charles's case, that he was known to be envious of Diana's popularity and said and did things (other than his relationship with Camilla) to Diana that are WP:noteworthy, so that readers can understand that part of his life and character more clearly. Anyway, I'm just suggesting that if/when you come across sources that are authoritative in this respect, it would be nice to be alert to, and clarify, these points if possible. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, will do. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charles III
The article Charles III you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Charles III and Talk:Charles III/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about John Major-Ball
Hello, Tim O&#39;Doherty

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Mattdaviesfsic and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect John Major-Ball, created by you. Your comments are welcome at.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charles III
The article Charles III you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Charles III for comments about the article, and Talk:Charles III/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Reversions
Your reversions on Charles III appear to be based more on personal taste instead of WP policy. It's ok not to agree, but I don't think that merits a flat-out reversion. WP articles need to grow and evolve. —GoldRingChip 17:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @GoldRingChip Right. I've hit the revert limit, so I assure you there won't be any more reverts (for today). I'd discuss it on the BLP's talkpage, rather than here. As for adding the full names, I don't think that'd be wise. Elizabeth II, an FA-class article, doesn't have them. We should aspire to that level. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, aspirations are fine. Wisdom is good.  But it just seems like you're over-patrolling a page and not allowing it to mature. —GoldRingChip 17:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @GoldRingChip Believe that if you wish. I was advised at the GA review to stop the article from slipping below the standards of the criteria: "think carefully before you want to put continual effort in over many years". I've tried not to be overly heavy-handed, but this article is an extremely high-profile BLP. I know that your actions were made in good faith, but I'd take this to talk if I was in your position. I hope that this matter can be settled amicably. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Amicability is my goal, to be sure, and I really do appreciate your assuming that I'm acting in good faith, hence this discussion here without a revert war. I am concerned about the hasty reversion, for two reasons: First... just because it's not the same in a similar article doesn't mean it should be deleted. Consistency is nice but not required and perhaps the other article should be changed. Second... there were other parts of that my edit that were reverted such as the table formatting and the fixing of the inconsistent unbulleted list (which I noted in the edit summary as "Better spacing; consistency"), see Baby and bathwater. The reversion of the entire edit is what drew my concern that it was just a knee-jerk reversion. So, my larger question is this: how does one draw the line between good-faith patrolling and overzealous gate-keeping? Cheers. —GoldRingChip 18:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to overzealous-ly gatekeep; like I said, "I've tried not to be overly heavy-handed". Like many policies, essays, guidelines etc. that people send my way, I'm aware of "Baby and bathwater", but I apologise for removing the other aspects of the edit, as I wasn't feeling in the mood to disentangle the names from the rest of the table without breaking the markup. I think that the article titles are adequate on their own and don't need to be changed, and the box looks a little ungainly with the additional names. If you do want to go for it, it would have to be done for each monarch's article which has a similar box, and should probably be italicised, like in List of British monarchs. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just realised I forgot to ping: @GoldRingChip. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Charles III
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2856 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Gerda, you're very kind. Thank you very, very much :) Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

New message from Serial Number 54129
🍻  SN54129  19:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sybil (cat)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sybil (cat) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Voorts -- Voorts (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I've completed my initial assessment. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sybil (cat)
The article Sybil (cat) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sybil (cat) and Talk:Sybil (cat)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Voorts -- Voorts (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sybil (cat)
The article Sybil (cat) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sybil (cat) for comments about the article, and Talk:Sybil (cat)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Voorts -- Voorts (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

FA
Thanks for offering your input at the FAC for Pope Sisinnius. Your thorough and useful comments were the kind I try to leave when I review an article. I suggest that you spend some more time at FAC; it is a wonderful (but occasionally domineering) place, and we'd be glad to have you. In anticipation of your first ever FAC (how exciting!), reviewing others' articles is a great way to establish links to FAC regulars and get you a feel of the process; that would give you an easier time when you nominate an article as large as Henry VI. The newbies are often subject to more scrutiny, so take that as you will. ;) Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Unlimitedlead Thanks for your kind words; they do mean a lot. I will try to look at FACs I'd be able to form an opinion on, as I do enjoy reviewing articles. I've not been doing much editing on Henry VI lately, which I will rectify; right now, I'm reading up on sources and trying to get the full picture of his reign in first, as I'm rusty on my Wars of the Roses knowledge; I've not studied it properly for years. Happily, my second GA, Sybil, has passed, albeit with a bit of a sourcing issue (the Daily Mail turned out to be the source with the most information, but you just can't use it, unfortunately). In the meantime, have a look at this; 31 of the "monarchs in Britain" articles are FA, with 12 (discounting disputed monarchs and lord protectors) of miscellaneous status, which isn't all that bad; "Monarchs in Britain" may become a featured topic sooner than we think. By the way, after you're back from your travels, I'll add more comments on the Ermengard of Italy GAR, which I've not forgotten about. I'll be in France for a few weeks soon (visiting family and such), so apologies if your return overlaps with that, but I won't have my computer with me and mobile editing is nigh on impossible. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wilberforce (cat)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wilberforce (cat) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wilberforce (cat)
The article Wilberforce (cat) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wilberforce (cat) for comments about the article, and Talk:Wilberforce (cat)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Congrats to another good GA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Gerda :) Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I heard lovely music recently, check out my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peta (cat)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Peta (cat) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Llewee -- Llewee (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Sybil (cat)
RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peta (cat)
The article Peta (cat) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Peta (cat) for comments about the article, and Talk:Peta (cat)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Llewee -- Llewee (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter III (cat)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Peter III (cat) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Voorts -- Voorts (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter III (cat)
The article Peter III (cat) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Peter III (cat) and Talk:Peter III (cat)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Voorts -- Voorts (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter III (cat)
The article Peter III (cat) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Peter III (cat) for comments about the article, and Talk:Peter III (cat)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Voorts -- Voorts (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Chief Mouser barnstar

 * Thank you, . Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Re: reverting my question on Elizabeth II
Where should I repost this exact question conforming to wikipedia guidelines:

Why did the queen die so young? 96 seems so short for a woman head of state. Theheezy (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You mind want to peruse WP:NOTFORUM; talk pages aren't a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. They're there to discuss improvements to the article itself. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * According to your best knowledge of wikipedia guidelines and policies, where is the best place to ask this question. I am waiting for an answer. Theheezy (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Best place to ask the question? Google. Or, alternately, read the "Death" section in the article. That would clear up any doubt, I should think. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You should see my talk page and recent contributions as well. Theheezy (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance. The two situations are clearly not analagous. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Analogy is a challenging word to define, mathematically. Let me get back to you on this. Theheezy (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My French-Vietnamese sources tell me that it should be *okay*, ecumenically. Theheezy (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Am I having blackouts between these messages? I apologise, but I don't understand what you're trying to tell me. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you perhaps Professor Tim O'Doherty on linkedin? Do you have a profile on linkedin. Theheezy (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter II (cat)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Peter II (cat) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Voorts -- Voorts (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter II (cat)
The article Peter II (cat) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Peter II (cat) for comments about the article, and Talk:Peter II (cat)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Voorts -- Voorts (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you
I'm still new to editing and while I would like to streamline the pages in question I'm glad you've made aware the processes involved. Thank you, much appreciated Little67 (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Little67 - Apologies if I came off as a bit harsh in the edit summary. Your edit was made in good faith; just read this before making any further edits. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks again Little67 (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you
Hey Tim, thanks for your changes on England. Could I may request your expert help is trying to remove the too large warning box at United Kingdom? Thank you again! Bwflag2 (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Bwflag2 - I'll see what I can do. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tim. I really liked your changes before someone has reverted them all, making the page even bigger and larger. The  too big  warning will be returned later. :( Bwflag2 (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bwflag2 - I wouldn't worry. I'd like to get England to FA-level before 12 July 2027, so it can appear as TFA on its 1,100th birthday. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Best of luck! Yeah, I think England is better than United Kingdom. Nicer to read and looks better presented. I'm glad the too big warning is gone. Bwflag2 (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim, thanks for your help again. I'm trying my best to trim the page a little down. Do you like my changes? I'm just asking you as you are an expert. Thank you! Bwflag2 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bwflag2 I've had a look. Yes, I think the changes you made were good, particulary on the economy; that detail really should be kept in Economy of England. By the way, you don't need to ask for my blessing: I trust your judgement. WP:BEBOLD. Best, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nelson (cat)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nelson (cat) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Voorts -- Voorts (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nelson (cat)
The article Nelson (cat) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nelson (cat) and Talk:Nelson (cat)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Voorts -- Voorts (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nelson (cat)
The article Nelson (cat) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nelson (cat) for comments about the article, and Talk:Nelson (cat)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Voorts -- Voorts (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you
You wrapped up the GAN of the Brillat-Savarin article so promptly that I hadn't time to say thank you for your review. Well, I do so now. Your review was a breath of fresh air and I look forward to further encounters at GAN/PR/FAC.  Tim riley  talk   16:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tim. I appreciate that. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Peter III (cat)
RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nelson (cat)
Hello! Your submission of Nelson (cat) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! gobonobo + c 17:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Peter II (cat)
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Wilberforce (cat)
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Links to newspapers.com
Hi, I noticed your recent work on articles about cats of 10 Downing Street and I see that they have a number of links to newspapers.com via the Wikipedia library. The issue is that to view the articles from links require a Wikipedia account and that account has to meet certain requirements. The workaround is to create an account on newspapers.com and then clip the articles. Also, the URL has to be updated "www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org" needs to be changed to "www.newspapers.com". Creating an account on newspapers.com might require tossing some of the cookies in your browser, probably cookies associated with newspaper.com and with www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/. See Wikipedia Talk:Newspapers.com for more info. I'm working my way through fixing these and I'm hoping to enlist active editors in helping. BTW - I've enjoyed the articles quite a bit, many thanks for your efforts. Cxbrx (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Cxbrx - Thanks. I thought about going through and changing them myself, but thought it would be too much of a faff, so I'd used the "via" parameter to declare that it was accessed via TWL instead. I know that the WP account needs to be active, have no blocks and 500 edits, which is why I put the "limited" lock on the refs (I know that's not perfect, but it's the closest I could get). Just additionally: I noticed that you changed "cat" to "Cat" in one of the titles; I believe that on Wikipedia, even if a source title is capitalised, we edit it in the ref to fit our MoS. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would consider clipping the articles on future edits? The advantages of the clipped articles include that non-logged in users can follow them and I believe that https://archive.org will archive the www.newspapers.com pages, see .  I agree that fixing these is a low-priority task.  Recently I've been fixing a couple of these per day as a warm up before writing other work, so perhaps I'll get around to fixing them sometime.  BTW - I was not familiar with "faff", I had to look it up. I'm always happy to learn a new word.  I've not run across faff in Canada and I did not run into it in my travels in New Zealand and Australia.  I'll have to try it on some relatives here in Canada.  Thanks!  I replied to the cat/Cat issue on the talk page of the article, I had not seen your mention of it here.  Cxbrx (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll try to use clippings on further edits, if I can figure it out. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Peta (cat)
BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Not better
It would seem that you are misunderstanding syntax and math. It is not better.Inthefirstplace (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not misunderstanding syntax or maths. It's a question of prose. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Knight's accion de secours on: Rishni
O-whahooo - this was fast ;-)   !!!!! MistaPPPP (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @MistaPPPP - No problem. I thought it was funny. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Nelson (cat)
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Munich Mouser
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Munich Mouser
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Munich Mouser you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Munich Mouser
The article Munich Mouser you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Munich Mouser for comments about the article, and Talk:Munich Mouser/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Bringing royalty articles to GA status
Hi. Hope you are doing well. I am going to nominate the articles on Diana, Camilla, and Catherine for GA reviews. Do you still intend to bring the ones on William and his son to GA status as well? I am asking because I want the work on these pages to be completed as quickly as possible (I'm on a tight schedule to be honest) and I want to know if there is another editor who's willing to help or wants to share the workload. Let me know what you think. Cheers. Keivan.f Talk 23:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Keivan.f - Go ahead. I'm busy with Liz Truss at the moment, but when I'm done I could help you out (if you want help, of course). The Prince George project fell by the wayside a bit. Don't let me be an impediment to making more good content, although I appreciate you letting me know. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. Any form of help is appreciated. So feel free to chime in and assist with the process if you like. I'm going to start with Diana's page and then move on to Camilla's, and hopefully we can finish William and Catherine's pages together. Keivan.f  Talk 14:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Keivan.f - Cool. Thanks for telling me. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Charles III
I am working on adding coronets for members of the British royal family in their infoboxes for all monarchs & their families. Please refrain from interfering. Thanks, BillClinternet (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @BillClinternet - OK. Do you have consensus for this change? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's barely a change. Simply a coronet.
 * Moreover, usually consensus is only needed for infobox images and article name changing.
 * A coronet, you can agree, should not take, most likely, a week to be agreed upon to add to an infobox in 45px. Thanks for the input, though, BillClinternet (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Go ahead. Be prepared for others to disagree, though. You're adding it into a heavily-debated parameter. The addition of "Head of the Commonwealth" was bitterly controversial. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I though this as well; however, many members of the royal family have held titles that weren't prince or princess when they were princes or princesses of the blood or suo jure (including monarchs). Moreover, when you look at the title Head of the Commonwealth followed by Saint Edward's Crown, it's really almost natural that you know it's to signify his kingship in the United Kingdom. Another thing I'd like to add is that most people know he's a king... Thanks for your input, though, once more, Veni, Vidi, Vici! BillClinternet (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I won't interfere further. But I do think you should be prepared for what others will say. Think about what you'll have to say in response, how to justify it, etc., etc. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * - I see you're reverting some of these. Anything to add? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's unnecessary cruft, in my opinion. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Gather consensus in opposition, then. BillClinternet (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not how it works. See WP:BRD. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:ICON, do not add coronets. DrKay (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Source review exchange?
Liz Truss looks like a nightmare to do a source review for. I can have it done within a few days if you're interested in doing one for Featured article candidates/Barbara Bush/archive1 around the same time frame. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 13:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure. I've done GA source reviews, but never at FA. Please tell me if I'm doing something wrong. Bit busy today, but will see if I can make time tomorrow. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Great! As is often the case, there's an essay for that: WP:FASOURCE. And don't worry, this isn't my first FAC, so there's no strict spot check requirement for the source review. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Getting horribly close to quid pro quo here guys. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the club

 * @Gog the Mild- I don't know if this is a generic message you send out to all successful first-time noms, or if you've thought carefully about this one, but if it's the former, then good timing: it is Saint Crispin's Day, after all ;) Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Be he ne’er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And gentlemen in England now a-bed / shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here / and hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks / that fought with us on St Crispin's Day. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Excellent work on Liz Truss - and good on you for persevering through such a demanding FAC. Here's to many more! UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @UndercoverClassicist - Thanks UC. Congrats on ToAP, by the way. I did the maths: 494 individually answered/actioned queries and comments on the 220k-byte Truss FAC, excluding PR and the talk page. Are FACs always this intense? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It would have been worse if you hadn't picked such a historical and uncontroversial figure. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * True. I'm glad I escaped the carnage of rotating locomotion in living systems and nightmare FAC that was Bath, Somerset. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In terms of curating this hot potato, WP:FAOWN is your friend. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll bear that in mind. I saw recently that the main nom for the Solar System in fiction articles was getting some grief over their maintenance of the articles. I suppose steward- and ownership is a fine line to walk. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As someone that was involved in 'policing' that article at the time of Truss' "stepping down" and the palaver over "50 days", let me add my congratulations, too. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Billsmith. Your work on the article is also appreciated. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

What they said: congratulations! - Today's story is about a couple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gerda. I'll take a look. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Congrats Tim! Excellent work. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks voorts, appreciate it. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)