User talk:WaitingForConnection/Archive 6

TFL
Hi WFC,

I'm glad my work with TFL is appreciated! It's also good to know that other editors are interested in developing this area of Wikipedia as well. The reason that I'm contributing as many summaries as possible is because of the statement on the submissions page that "our longer-term aim is to build up a large pool of blurbs, so that we will eventually be in a position to sustain a daily slot on the main page." I would really like to see that happen. Any idea how many summaries will be considered a sufficient number for a daily slot to be allotted?

Neelix (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi WFC,


 * If that's what we need for confidence to go daily, let's make it our goal to have a hundred summaries written by mid-August. As for the disproportionate number of sports-related lists, I don't think that we will encounter a problem. I've done the math and, even if we didn't feature any of the sports-related lists on the main page and no more lists ever attained featured status, we'd be able to feature a new list on the main page every day for more than three years. Considering the facts that 1) plenty more lists will get featured between now and then and 2) we won't be excluding sports-related lists from the main page, it would appear that we will be able to indefinitely feature a new list on the main page every day while including a frequency of sports-related articles that is proportionate to the number of other topical fields represented. Considering that ten major fields have been identified and "sports" is one of three subfields within "everyday life," I would recommend that approximately every 15th TFL be sports-related.


 * Neelix (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the anthems list should get TWO stars. It is so much more core!  ;)  TCO (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Watford
What is going on there? Having seen some of your best players sold and your manager holding talks with a league rival, it reminded me of the infamous fallout, exodus and loss of top talent that we experienced three years ago. That was the year we could've gone up had everyone stuck together, but it all fell apart and look where we are now. I've always liked Watford, despite the fact you've robbed us in two huge FA Cup ties ;) and I wouldn't want what we've experienced to happen to you. Argyle 4 Life  talk  23:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm gutted to lose our top scorer and most promising youngster, but the player sales made a lot of sense (just a shame that we didn't get more for them). The thread that could cause everything to unravel was the departure of much-loved chief executive Julian Winter. He was the person that convinced Malky to sign a new contract, and I'm absolutely certain that both were keen to remain here for two to three years, moving on to pastures new if we didn't go up during that time. Once Winter resigned, it seemed likely that Malky would go. —WFC— 00:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ("most promising" was harsh on the other lads: closest to fulfilling his potential is a fairer comment on Will Buckley). —WFC— 00:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand Graham because he would've only left for a top flight club and you're getting a big fee for him, but the sale of Buckley doesn't make sense to me, as an outsider. I know Brighton are on the up, they've got a new stadium and the best winger in the Football League, but I doubt they'll be any higher than you next season. Unless the good things I've heard about him are false and you're glad to be shot of him for such a large fee! Argyle 4 Life  talk  19:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Buckley reminds me in a lot of ways of a young Tommy Smith. Unquestionably good enough to rip teams to pieces at this level (just ask Cardiff!). But for one reason or another he's taking quite a long time to get there on a weekly basis. A million was decent money for where he's at now, and to be fair we have two workhorses in Don Cowie and Troy Deeney, two talented youngsters in Michael Bryan (injuries notwithstanding) and Matty Whichelow, and are heavily rumoured to be bringing another left-sided player in. The 15% of profit clause was the real disappointment, because if he succeeds Brighton will make millions, and we should have negotiated a bigger slice of that. —WFC— 19:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC) (significantly changed —WFC— 19:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

Testing tfln
Hi, WFCforLife. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Watford F.C. seasons – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been submitted as a candidate to be featured on the Main Page as Today's featured list. The proposed content can be seen here. You are more than welcome to post your thoughts on the nomination. Regards, —WFC— 22:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Task force WP:RFA2011 update
Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 08:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

List of historical national anthems
Fancy a co-operative effort to get List of historical national anthems to FL? – Cliftonian the orangey bit 18:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the idea in principle, although I'm a complete amateur on the topic. —WFC— 18:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too, that was the whole point of the idea, I thought it seemed rather fun. – Cliftonian the orangey bit 20:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You pair of weirdos. I like the idea.  Get going, the pair of you!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You heard the man, WFC... by the way, I do believe the term for this kind of thing is "unholy alliance". – Cliftonian the orangey bit 20:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Common consensus is that a supporter of your club currently owns our club. Can't get more unholy than that! —WFC— 20:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a love-in if ever I read one. Get to it.  And no-one mention Tamas Priskin. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll mention whatever I bloody well like, stalker. – Cliftonian the orangey bit 20:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course you will. But you owe me at least a shilling after such a beautifully balanced review of your Good Friday work...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll Passover that suggestion without a second thought, just as Man Friday himself would have done. – Cliftonian the orangey bit 20:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We probably owe you several shillings for Hungary's greatest current 24-year-old English-speaking striker with Hertfordshire connections. You'll probably end up with our all-time record signing. —WFC— 20:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I heard that. I think I'd prefer the original Duke, more entertaining at least! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we going to write this in English or Americanese? – Cliftonian the orangey bit 21:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Computer seems to be playing up today: English all the way I'd say. Great call on the English translation column—WFC— 22:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. I'll let you get on with it for a while, now, to avoid conflicts. – Cliftonian the orangey bit 22:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll do some digging and try to do a decent-sized edit in about an hour's time. —WFC— 22:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good man. – Cliftonian the orangey bit 22:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * May need a little of your Russian expertise once I'm done. —WFC— 22:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm calling it a night now but I'll have a little look in the morning. – Cliftonian the orangey bit 22:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What does a column scope actually do? I can't see that they've made any difference. I'm not complaining, I'm just curious what they're for. – Cliftonian the orangey bit 15:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They're for the benefit of screen readers. Without a column scope, the column headers will only be read once. For sighted people that's not a problem, you can always scroll up to see what the columns are. For the blind, if you forget what the titles were, and there are no scopes at all, the only option is to start again. —WFC— 15:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining! Sometimes we forget how fortunate we are... (cough, being in Football League, cough) – Cliftonian the orangey bit 17:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We've been through the early stages of what you went through twice in the past decade, on the latter occasion being hours away from finding out how the rollercoaster continues. I don't claim to understand what it's like to be a Conference fan (although I have been to Stevenage, St Albans and Hayes and Yeading games in the past). But aside from believing that only 8,000 out of 40,000 have any right to play the victim card, most Watford fans do accept that we are lucky not to have followed you. Sorry I've taken a back seat on the list btw. Always have internet and watchlist access, but workload has gotten in the way of edits that take more time than simply typing. Should be back on track from this time tomorrow. —WFC— 23:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I do remmeber when we got relegated out of the League back in 2009 and how most Watford fans I met were actually sad about it. "We hate Barnet just ain't the same," one of them said. And believe me, for us "We hate Stevenage" or "We hate York" just isn't the same. Still, just a matter of time, I suppose.


 * I'm going to Israel early on Friday morning for a week or so, so I'll be away from Wiki; just so you know. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 06:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. A week should give me enough time to turn it into somewhat more of a joint effort! Football wise, some of the sympathy went with the JPT final. Not because you had won something (if only we had qualified...) but because there are Championship clubs that probably couldn't bring 40,000 to Wembley. Nowadays there's a three-way split, between "you were no worse than any other club, the Football League were a disgrace", "the Football League were a disgrace, but you've no excuse for still being non-league", and "if more had turned up pre-2007, you'd have been too big for the Football League to have the guts to (effectively) throw you out of League Two." I pretty much float between the three. —WFC— 13:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What everybody forgets is that it wasn't really the League that threw Luton out. There were two separate deductions, the 20 from the League and the 10 from the FA for some matter over how the previous owners had been using agents. I have it on good authority that the former owners were trousering large amounts of money, too – the club was most certainly not being run for its own benefit around 2007. But anyway, back to my main point – imagine that it had been just 20 points. Luton would have started just three points behind Rotherham and Chester, not thirteen. It's a big psychological hurdle. I can remember that first game against Port Vale like it was yesterday; they'd just come out of administration two days before, the programme listed the squad as "TBC, TBC, TBC..."... they'd had no pre-season and yet they were chasing from the first minute of day one. It was like those win-or-bust relegation matches at the end of the season where the team just don't play properly; you know, they all try to win it themselves, they try to walk it into the net rather than risk missing with a shot. But it was that from the very start. It really was an huge psychological barrier and it did make a huge difference to the team's performance. I think that they did mightily well, all things considered... but people only remember the 30-point deduction; not the psychology surrounding it and how it affected the team. I think it speaks volumes that in the JPT, where they played on a level playing field, they won.
 * As for "why are Luton still non-League"? Well, to answer that question I need only point to the fact that only two teams go between the Fourth Division and the Conference each year, one of which is a play-off spot. The result is that you have some very good teams in the Conference who do not go up and some really dreadful teams in the Fourth Division who repeatedly and comfortably avoid going down. I would actually say that the standard of the Conference is at least near to the standard of the Fourth Division, and in support of that I would point out just how many of the newly-promoted sides from non-League go up a second successive time into the third tier. Like Stevenage just have, for example, or Exeter a couple years back. Add the fact that play-offs are always a gamble and you have to win it to be sure of going up, and you have a very difficult division to get out of, even if your team is very strong. Luton are lucky in that they have a comparatively large (some would say stupid) fanbase that has not wavered; our crowds are just as high now as they were in the Second Division and are not actually far below the crowds we were pulling in during the First Division days of the 1980s (though of course there was the ID card scheme and the away-fan ban at that time). But remember that Barrow, for example, will bring far fewer away fans than Leeds or Manchester United; it could be argued that despite the ban on away fans the figures are directly comparable.
 * Anyway, we'll just see what happens next year. It will only get harder. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 14:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The loyalty of 5 or 6,000 is a very fair point. And in spite of standing by the 40,000 jibe, I agree that the JPT was symbolic: proof that relegation was a blow, but not necessarily fatal. I also agree about the bottleneck. Although I do think this season is different. In 2009–10, there was overconfidence on your part, coupled with the need to completely rebuild the club. In 2010–11 Crawley bought the league (albeit there's nothing intrinsically wrong with putting money in, provided you make sure the club can stand on its feet when you pull the plug), and if there is a single club in England that has been more hardly done by than Luton, it's Wimbledon. This time around it's hard to see beyond you finishing as the 93rd 91st best team in the country (the Welsh don't count!). Have a good trip mate. —WFC— 15:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

think you'd make a great admin
Sure that Wiki would get the better of the deal if you were to add the admin role. Seems like would have synergy with things you are doing relating to TFL. You do a lot of wiki-work, are sharp, and are even-tempered. Just a thought (nothing sneaky).

TCO (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although my answer is "never, unless the unthinkable happens." If I became an admin and got involved in XfD closures, I would become the epitomy of everything I know is wrong with the "mop" in its current form. The sole difference between me, and several dozen admins who are very much in that general mould? I admit it. Adminship – and the back-end of Wikipedia in general – is a necessary thing, but a cancerous mess. The community might tinker with the roughest edges, but substantive change will only come with the broad approval of admins, who in general are quite happy with the big picture. Jimbo has the de facto ability to impose meaningful change, but he won't. —WFC— 23:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
This was a very good idea, and so simple too - don't know why I didn't think of it. It provides more useful information in that one change than all the complicated stuff I'm currently working on. Thank you! Alzarian16 (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any time. The complicated stuff you're doing is certainly worthwhile too though. Regards, —WFC— 16:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Access
Hi WFC,

Thanks for taking on List of International Mathematical Olympiads. You're right; we do need a good mathematics-related list for TFL. I'm finding that WP:ACCESS is a common objection to the TFL submissions. I've looked over the guideline, but I'm not really sure what needs to be changed about the implicated articles. Specifically, I'm hoping to fix up List of Harry Potter cast members before making any more submissions. If you'd be willing to give me some pointers, it would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For most articles, ACCESS consists of:


 * Alt text.
 * Column scopes: I gave a brief explanation of why scopes are important to Cliftonian here.
 * Where colour is used in tables, it should be possible for someone who is colourblind to understand the table. This usually means that colours should be accompanied by symbols (see List of Watford F.C. players for an example).


 * The Harry Potter table is quite complex; I'm not sure that simply putting scopes in would make it accessible. Beyond that, I have to concede that a solution is probably beyond my abilities. The best approach would be to seek out a relative expert on the topic, such as User:RexxS.


 * I've been exceptionally busy this week, but I've got some time tomorrow and Sunday, so I'll make sure that I finish the Olympiads list off. I'll also try to make sure that everything on the submissions page as of this post has at least one review by the end of the weekend (either from me or someone else).


 * Thanks once again for all the work you're doing on TFL Neelix. Bringing diverse, often high-importance, and in many cases seldom worked-on lists to the attention of a wider audience is precisely what being on the main page is all about, and you're playing a vital part in that process. —WFC— 16:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hoban
Hi there - nope, no issues with the move whatsoever, be bold and go for it! Sources I found when creating the article used both 'Tommy' and 'Tommie', as well as 'Tom', but you've convicned me that '-ie' is the correct spelling. Cheers, GiantSnowman 17:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

List of colonial governors of Massachusetts FLC
Per your request, your hornetness, here's a nudge to remind you get back to FLC and review this FLC. Cheers dude. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I'm miles behind on the wiki-work I intended to do weekend, but I'll make that my top priority. TFL reviews are pretty high up too. Guess my plans for world domination improving this list will have to take a back seat. —WFC— 14:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hep C list
I've done a bad thing and moved it onto the "ready-to-go" list, but only because of the pressing nature of the anniversary. Can you (and I) ensure it's up to snuff? I see a few issues in the blurb but I don't want it to scupper the chances of said list hitting the main page. It's an important one, as you noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Greetings!

As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.

Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!

Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by, claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by , who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by, who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank and  for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias
A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on   major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel  that other important language  Wikipedias should be added, please let  us know. This may however depend on  our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 4 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Good split
Hey, I thought you made a good split with the list of national anthems page, I was just wondering if you had ever seen Copied. Ryan Vesey contribs  14:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words about the split. As for Copied I have seen it and indeed used it before. But there is zero chance of List of national anthems ever being deleted, so I felt it was unnecessary. My edit summary when I created the new list was sufficient for our licencing purposes. —WFC— 14:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Historical national anthem languages
I originally liked the idea of having the foreign scripts and transliterations in the "local languages" column, but now I'm not so sure. It just looks untidy within the table. Perhaps in the table we could use English script, but with reference links to a separate "transliterations" section below? What do you think? —<i style="text-shadow:#bbbbbb 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em;"><b style="color:#ff3300">Cliftonian</b><b style="color:#ff3300">the orangey bit</b></i> 19:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like the best of both worlds (barring the pain of the one-time conversion). —WFC— 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, I'll do it later on. —<i style="text-shadow:#bbbbbb 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em;"><b style="color:#ff3300">Cliftonian</b><b style="color:#ff3300">the orangey bit</b></i> 19:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice one. I'm on a late shift today, so let me know when you're done for the night and I'll carry on digging for new entries. —WFC— 19:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm done with the anthems for now. —<i style="text-shadow:#bbbbbb 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em;"><b style="color:#ff3300">Cliftonian</b><b style="color:#ff3300">the orangey bit</b></i> 22:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

TFL submissions
Hello dude. We're low on the prep area now, and the submissions area is heavy on submissions but light on reviews. I've made a request for help at WT:FLC but wondered if you could add/do/suggest anything? Hope all is well and you're looking forward to the forthcoming glorious ITFC season? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Given how light we are on reviews, I think adopting a couple of lists is the best approach. I'm focussing on List of national anthems, but also have a firm interest in improving List of London underground stations and List of International Mathematical Olympiads. I added a few suggestions to WT:TFL the other day (haven't checked back yet, as this is the first page I've looked at today). If there's anything specific you ever want me to review, don't hesitate to ask. I won't lie, Hornets fans generally are sceptical of how Ipswich will do with the dream team up front. I think both are seriously underrated: Ellington actually looked pretty good under the now Cardiff manager, we just couldn't afford to play him. —WFC— 15:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, okay, thanks. We're pretty much stacked up until mid-September, but I'd like us to demonstrate to the community that, even with our simple approach, we're good to go for some time to come, hence the requests.  If you're "adopting" those lists for main page submission, brilliant, let me know (of course) when you're ready.
 * As for the dream team, I'm mildly optimistic for a change this off-season. The Duke hasn't set the world on fire in pre-season, but the monster has, and with a bit of bite in midfield from Lee Bowyer, we're looking like a very different team.  Even Scotland's playing okay in pre-season so perhaps flogging the wunderkind won't be such a problem as many Town fans thought it may be....  Two more signings next week, they're talking about David Stockdale and Jay-Emmanuel Thomas.  Mustn't grumble...!  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprisingly upbeat about the season ahead. On one side we've got physicality in Chris Iwelumo, Martin Taylor and John Eustace, and on the other we've got some young strikers, attacking midfielders and wingers who can really play football. If Scott Loach can get back to the form he showed in 2009–10, we have an outside chance to really do something. —WFC— 15:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

List of London Underground stations
Thanks for addiing the images to the table. I reverted your recent changes to the layout of the List of London Underground stations for the following reasons: Please bear in mind that this is a featured list and has been reviewed and worked on extensively already to get it to its current condition.--DavidCane (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The map is an important example of the look of the Underground map and even if the text is small the look is valuable
 * 2) Article sections have a standard sequence and "See also" goes above references and external links
 * 3) The notes section is a form of reference section and therefore should not be renamed
 * 4) A third party reference is not required. Transport for London is a reliable source.
 * 5) With the map at the top the navbox's natural location is the see also section
 * Thanks for the explanation. I'll take those point by point.
 * 1. I disagree, but can live with the map.
 * 2. + 3. The see also move was intended as a result of the rename of the notes section. The primary reason for the rename was that the current references section has notes and references mixed in. I felt that to create a separate notes section would be a neater solution than to use letters for non-line notes. If the section were renamed my belief is that Line changes, Notes, References, Further reading flows best.
 * 4. TfL is a reliable source for statistics and similar facts, but for an extraordinary claim a third party reference is needed, and would be required for such an incredible fact at a modern FLC.
 * 5. If the map is to stay, I agree that this is its natural home. Although I won't deny that I think it (EDIT: "it" referring to the navbox) looks terrible there.

—WFC— TFL notices 22:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Edited —WFC— TFL notices 22:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday's TFL stats
Do me a favour. How many hits on yesterday's TFL? I looked, looked again, looked once more and decided to pack it in... Hint: not good. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems the stats are missing for all articles yesterday. Judging by this, there's still a chance that they're out there. —WFC— TFL notices 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Dickin pix
Thanks dude, works a treat for me in FF5 and IE. Lovely job. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are (Pool A, 189 points) and  (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from ) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from ). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow's TFL
Hey dude, I asked at Wikiproject video games, but saw you online, so wondered if you could help with broken links on tomorrow's TFL? No worries if not, hopefully someone with expert knowledge would be able to help. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Rollback feature
Is it okay to apply Rollback feature to my account. Does it have good edits? or it is not. Please contact me at the talk page.

The Signpost: 15 August 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

TFL responses
Hi WFCforLife, I have responded to your comment on TFL on the Manchester United players issue. Thank you for your comment and your advice. – HonorTheKing (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Football season start
Hello. I need a little help regarding this template. On the "history page" I saw that you created it and therefore I assume thay you are the author. I would appreciate if you could take a look into the List of NK Maribor seasons (curent FL candidate) and inform me if there is a chance to make the "Result" culumn in the table unsortable (so it wouldnt sort Euro cups results)? I am not sure on how this can be done or if its even possible. Thank you, Ratipok (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It should work in the way that you want now. —WFC— 04:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ratipok (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:


 * , Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
 * , Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
 * , Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
 * , the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
 * , the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,, , , , , and. Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate. The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Haha
thanks for that. 15:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA Reform update
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
 * Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
 * Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
 * Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 12 September 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dyer on WFC lists
Hi, though I'd let you know that I noticed Bruce Dyer was listed on List of Watford F.C. players (fewer than 50 appearances), despite the cumulative total for both his spells at Watford being included at List of Watford F.C. players. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice spot. Cheers! —WFC— 20:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for TFA support
Hello again. I haven't crossed paths with you much lately. I come with a humble request. :^) I've nominated the 2010 USOC final for TFA on October 4th here.  If you get time in the next few days, please add your support.  It'll need it I expect.  Very low points. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 15:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. —WFC— 15:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Given the low traffic on WP:TFAR, I think it's good to go.  Not sure why the interest/activity has dried up there. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 00:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Great news! It's been scheduled to appear on the main page on October 4th. Thank you for your supporting vote. Since there is no archive for WP:TFAR I archive WP:SSFC related articles here. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 16:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

List of International Mathematical Olympiads at WP:TFL
Hi WFC, the last comment at the TFL nomination implied that you would be looking into fixing this list up. Mind you, that was three months ago! How do you feel about it? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Similarly, the Harry Potter nom (which is directly after the maths olympiad one) also has an oppose from you which appears to have been addressed. Could you comment on that if you get a chance?  Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the Harry Potter one. As for IMO, in its current state if forced to support or oppose I would have to do the latter. But on the other hand I strongly feel that maths is an area we need to promote, and that the IMO list is as good a platform to work from as we have. I'll try to get on with it over the next week or two, but when you're busy it's far easier to keep on top of reading and responding than to keep pace with research and rewriting. —WFC— 15:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, of course. It wasn't intended as a nag, I just wanted to be a little more ruthless at TFL to stop people being overwhelmed with the number of submissions sitting there.  Hence my attempt at a bit of a purge.  I think I've nearly halved the submissions page in size today alone.  Anything you can do to keep promoting and supporting the cause is gratefully received!  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, and sorry in return if that came across as a bit bitey. I'm just frustrated that while on the one hand I'm advocating a more ruthless approach, I'm struggling to keep pace with my side of the bargain. It's doubly frustrating given how much time I had for Wikipedia a few months ago. Great work with the submissions page! —WFC— 16:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well no stress. Funny thing is that now we've got something like 16 lists ready for the main page, that gives us until, oooooh, next January to worry about what to do next...!  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Bertrand Traoré
Hey, thinking about it, as a rule of thumb, international players who haven't made their club debut yet would probably still be notable. However, I'm having trouble finding sources to confirm an appearance; the source provided isn't great (albeit it through Google translator) and the appearance is not listed at NFT or Soccerway. Any help? GiantSnowman 21:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Les deux frangins ont eu la joie de se retrouver sur le terrain et d'être les artisans de la victoire du Burkina face à la Guinée Equatoriale." roughly translates as "The two brothers enjoyed time on the pitch and were instrumental in Burkina's victory over Equatorial Guinea." Alain then goes into a bit more detail about Bertrand's 20 minutes, stating that it "lit up the stadium". I'm on the fence over whether he is or isn't notable (because it wasn't a clear-cut case I de-prodded with no prejudice to AfD) but that source definitely confirms his appearance. —WFC— 21:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great thanks; I've also just noticed that NFT states that they don't know the line-ups for the EQ game, so don't include their stats, which explains his absence from that site. I'm happy with notability to be honest - I'll add some more sources now - so won't take it to AfD; if you're still unsure after my improvements, then such a discussion would only be beneficial in the long run. Cheers, GiantSnowman 22:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The strange thing is that I can't find a lineup for the senior match anywhere, but the CAF are quite good when it comes to competitive U-17 games. —WFC— 22:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Even stranger is that nobody knows what club he plays for - sources announced he joined Chelsea in August 2010, but in Jauary 2011 the BBC said he was yet to sign, and there's no mention of him on Chelsea's otherwise comprehensive official site. GiantSnowman 22:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think an AfD would be a good exercise. The principle that an international debutant is usually notable is stronger than the principle that a JPT or League Two debutant is notable (in my opinion), but you would expect someone with this guy's background to be far easier to source than he's proving. I won't be !voting, but the more I look, the more I find this guy to be an interesting case study. —WFC— 22:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Go for it - only one source of questionable origin claiming he played 20 minutes of a match which we don't even know was an official A-friendly. Ha, I may actually becoming around to my initial idea of non-notability. GiantSnowman 22:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to  these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising  the project  pages, researching  statistics and keeping  them  up  to  date. You'll also see for example that  we have recently  made tables to  compare how other Wikipedias choose  their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on  specific issues of our  admin  selection  process and to develop  RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that  all Wikipedia policy changes take a long  time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to  be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not  to make it  either  easier or harder to  become an admin -  those criteria are set by  those who  !vote at  each  RfA. By providing  a unique venue for developing ideas for  change independent  of  the general discussion  at  WT:RFA, the project has two  clearly  defined goals: The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project  pages to  suggest  and discuss ideas that are not  strictly  within  the remit  of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they  will  offer maximum exposure to  the broader community, rather than individual  projects in  user space.
 * 1) Improving the environment  that  surrounds RfA in  order to  encourage mature, experienced editors of the right  calibre to  come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their  time to  admin  tasks.
 * 2) Discouraging, in the nicest  way  possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to  guide them towards the advice pages.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in  order to  build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any  editors are always welcome on  the project's various talk  pages. The main reasons  why  WT:RfA was never successful in  getting  anything  done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody  remembers them and where they  are hard to  find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on  the founder's talk  page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 26 September 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Vicarage Road
However much you disagree with the blanking of most of the article, the fact remains that in six years, no references for the page have been provided. As a Watford fan yourself, I expect you are in a great position to improve the article and would encourage you to do so when you find the time. Thanks - Cloudz679 (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Blanking is not the issue – I've already told you that I have no issue with your approach. The issue is that you are calling editors vandals without having engaged with them. My revert was for that reason alone. —WFC— 12:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by, and , all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)