User talk:Iridescent/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Iridescent. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Thanks

For the sanity check. I appreciate it. --John (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"Glasshouse, stone, sauce, gander"

Not sure if you or I have misunderstood something, but I honestly meant that I think NE Ent would make a good admin - see here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That was directed at Bish, not you—an attempt at a gentle nudge at the pot–kettle-ism of taking issue with Ent for having made 1588 ANI posts while she herself had made over 1200. I take her point that hers are over a much longer time so her per-year average is less than half of Ent's, but it still doesn't change the fact that she has as many ANI posts as myself, Hersfold and Jclemens combined. (The really surprising thing about that list is the people who aren't near the top.) – iridescent 2 16:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks - the misunderstanding was mine. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom reform RFC

I am drafting an Arbcom reform RFC. WormTT mentioned you might be interested. See User:TParis/Arbcom_RFC_2013.--v/r - T P 23:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel it would be appropriate to participate in it as it currently stands. I appreciate it's a draft (this is the version on which I'm commenting) and may change considerably before it goes live, but as currently framed, the questions and setup are so loaded, I don't see how anything constructive can come of it. As it stands, this is just "list of reasons I think Arbcom is bad", and is just going to become the same half-dozen malcontents bitching about how Arbcom blocked/failed to block their friend/enemy—and will just end up replicating a thread on Wikipedia Review (or whatever it's calling itself these days), minus the input from blocked and former editors.

While the whole Arbcom setup has serious problems—as you may know, I argued very noisily for it to be dissolved and replaced by smaller committees with responsibility for differing areas to avoid a drift into becoming a governing council—I don't feel most of the "issues" you're raising are genuine problems; you both assume a lot of bad faith on the part of the arbs, and credit them with far more power than they actually have. Even if they were recognized as problems I don't see how any of your solutions would be workable; all of them would generate considerable extra work, and I'm not sure if you appreciate just how busy Arbcom is (a thousand incoming emails per day isn't unusual, quite aside from all the on-wiki stuff). Given that you're not going to find many volunteers to do all this extra work—the Wikipedia community is down to about 3,000 active editors, and not many people want to volunteer for an unpaid job that guarantees a constant stream of incoherent abuse, well-intentioned but time-consuming questions and raving death threats—any reform that involves grafting yet more layers of bureaucracy onto existing systems isn't going to be practical.

I think you've also missed the point that arbitration is one of the few parts of the Wikipedia setup (the user interface is the other major one) that's ultimately not subject to community control in the last resort; it was and is explicitly imposed by the WMF, even though the community got to vote on the exact wording of the arbitration policy. En-wiki is too valuable a property for the WMF to risk, and if unworkable reforms were enacted and the current system collapsed with nothing to replace it, you wouldn't get a syndicalist paradise; you'd get direct rule by a group of people at WMF, all deeply pissed-off that you'd put them in a position which compromised their "medium not the message" position and by extension their charitable status. Someone still needs to make the final call on intractable disputes, even if it's just a coin flip, and if you're going to destroy the Arbcom setup (which these reforms would, as they'd make it unworkable), you need something in place to replace it. Bear in mind that whatever new setup you propose, you have between 3,000 and 3,300 active editors, of which perhaps half will have the necessary experience and perhaps 1% of those will be willing to devote 2-3 hours a day to such a thankless task, giving you a pool of 15–20 people tops.

(TL;DR version: I'm willing to offer comments and suggestions on a genuine reform proposal, but I'm not going to take part in an attempted coup unless you can convince me that what you're proposing would be better than what you hope to replace. Plus, I've not been active on Wikipedia for two years now and have no great desire for that to change.) – iridescent 01:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Unfortunately, I think it's a logical fallacy to continue Arbcom in it's current state because of fear of WMF stepping in. Arbcom was not in it's current state at the moment of it's inception. It had progressed, as time ages all things, into it's current state and the distance between what WMF needed and what it has become is the area which is up for change. As this is only a draft for which I'm getting thoughts on paper, so to speak, and will rewrite and support the positions later, I hope you'll take a greater interest in it in the future.--v/r - T P 01:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Quacking ducks

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 16, 2013 will be the Aylesbury duck. The bot that should have left the proper message for you doesn't seem to like posting on all the talk pages that it should, hence this cheapskate alternative from me. You know the drill about TFA blurbs, and where to find me if you need me... Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 23:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Very slightly rewritten the blurb. Could I ask any remaining TPS'ers to watchlist this one, as it will have problems with good-faith errors; Commons and Flickr both have a number of photographs of other white poultry breeds misidentified as Aylesbury ducks, and a lot of people will undoubtedly notice that the article lacks a photo and add one of these photos in good faith. (An actual Aylesbury is the size of a small swan and looks like no other duck—if it doesn't have all the features listed under "Origins and description", it's not an Aylesbury; they're also unable to breed without artificial incubation and only exist on commercial farms, so be wary of any photo claiming to be free-use.) – iridescent 19:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If any new editors add inappropriate images to this article, I will apply the duck test. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And they'll end up doing bird. – iridescent 19:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC) yes, I know that joke only works in BrEng, but this is about Aylesbury…

(edit conflict)x2 I'll watchlist and try to keep an eye open for incoming incorrect photo inclusions. Also, I'm seeing a "Harv error" on ref. # 39 and the Dohner, Janet Vorwald item in the biblio. I don't have time at the moment to get it fixed right now, but will look tonight. (I'm not very quick at fixing those types of things and it often takes me some efforts with trial and error to get it looking the way it should). Congrats on the TFA, and always good to see you stop by. — Ched : ? 19:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing either of the errors above—could any others have a look at how the refs appear to them and see if there's a glitch in Ched's browser or in the article? (This one should be a relatively painless TFA; if you want to see fireworks, wait until Tarrare or Pig-faced women lands on the main page.) – iridescent 20:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have some scripts installed in *.css and *.js which are the likely items that cause me to see it. I'll email you a screen-shot. — Ched : ? 20:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's this script which is causing me to see it:

importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');

— Ched : ? 20:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved—the {{sfn}} system doesn't like books with an editor but no named author. – iridescent 16:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for your participation at WP:TFAR for 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?).

Regardless of the outcome, I think it's a good thing to have a discussion about these sorts of issues.

I hope you're doing well, — Cirt (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. As I said there, while I don't have a problem with the title I think it would at the very least be a courtesy to run this by Jimmy and Philippe, since they're the ones who would have to field the calls from the press when Wikipedia gets blacklisted. (Complaints in the US would blow over quite quickly, in the same way that British Telecom's brief banning of the wikipedia.org domain is now forgotten, but having "fuck" in large blue letters on the main page will get Wikipedia shut down in places like Pakistan and Russia, which are exactly the places the WMF is keenest to expand.) Given that there are a lot of excellent music articles waiting their turn, it seems wilfully perverse to highlight an article on an obscure 1980s indie piece, which would probably fail a FAR. – iridescent 21:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I'm actually working on several other unrelated quality improvement projects related to freedom of speech, that grapple with legal and cultural analysis of the word fuck. The sociolinguistic history is fascinating. — Cirt (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You may want to look at Cunt in that case, which (AFAIK) is the only time anyone's made a serious effort to get an obscenity article up to a decent quality, unless you count Finger (gesture). It was much harder work than anyone going into it expected. The person you really want to get on board with that one is Malleus, as it's just the kind of topic he shines at, if you can handle the comet-trail of creepy obsessives, whiny malcontents, and clueless admin wannabees hoping to be noticed, all of whom who will follow in his wake like seagulls behind a trawler. – iridescent 23:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, most interesting, thank you. I've invited the two of you to WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech, I hope you'll join us! I'd love to collaborate with you on a quality improvement project in the future, — Cirt (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll decline; I'm to all extents and purposes retired, other than very occasional talkpage comments (eight mainspace edits in the last year, and four of those were a test of an AWB regex), and will almost certainly be one of the many who leaves completely once WP:FLOW goes live, since I've no desire to spend hours getting to grips with something which resembles Myspace circa 2005 just so Brandon and Oliver can play at being Mark Zuckerberg. – iridescent 17:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood, no worries, of course I'm dissapointed but I respect your choice. — Cirt (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't take this as a dismissal of the project, just as an indicator of the fact that I'm not joining anything. – iridescent 18:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Replied

Hello, Iridescent. You have new messages at WP:ERRORS.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—howcheng {chat} 19:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating as the concept of people who demand a source for the statement that 16 June 1967 was later than 10 June 1967 is, I really can't be fagged. This being Wikipedia, I imagine that same obviously false statement will be repeated as 'fact' on the sixth most viewed page on the internet every 16 June from now until the heat death of the universe. – iridescent 18:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Not what I meant, but to each his own. —howcheng {chat} 07:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal issues with London Necropolis Company. Thank you. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The WMF are aware of my concerns regarding the very unusual circumstances here. As Ironholds has said at the AN thread, this is a sensitive topic which may need to be resolved by WP:OFFICE action. I am not going to discuss this publicly any further unless and until the WMF state that they're happy for such a discussion to take place. – iridescent 16:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I have commented on the ANI thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Precious

quality standards
Thank you for quality articles such as today's Aylesbury duck, for patiently trying to reach the best possible quality, for understanding the difference between "ownership" of an article and responsibility for it ("People familiar with the topic are more likely to know of problems regarding it" isn't a blasphemy against the spirit ...), for presenting yourself not in userboxes but in dialogue, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (7 February 2009, 29 January 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully, this one won't have too many issues at TFA, as the social history of poultry farming in 19th century Buckinghamshire isn't a topic likely to attract the lunatic fringe. (I do stand by my quote you link above, though—people are far to quick to scream WP:OWN when the authors of an article complain about undiscussed changes, unrequested TFA nominations, drive-by reformattings and so on. The people who've done the most work on an article are the ones most likely to know of reasons it won't be suitable on the main page; they're also, by and large, the ones who will continue to work on it and thus be inconvenienced by drive-by alterations of the citation style, image layout and so on.) – iridescent 16:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I learned and have started to inform the principal author when I thought an article was good for TFA. I know what it means to be on the receiving end of undiscussed changes. - Did you know that your "name" appeared on the Main page? 'opens in a "mood of iridescent transparency"', not my idea ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggested Postman's Park now, did I remember right that the anniversary of the 1900 opening would be a good day? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, commented there. – iridescent 09:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:London Necropolis bombing.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:London Necropolis bombing.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less, although I'll say in passing that a company which ceased to exist in the 1940s is hardly going to come chasing Wikipedia for royalties, even in the (unlikely) event that this was actually the work of the company and not the War Office. FWIW, since that was uploaded it's passed the 70-year mark so AFAIK it would now be PD under {{anonymous-EU}} in any case. – iridescent 20:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Iridescent that there is no concern with the status of this photograph. Iridescent, I know you probably don't want to be bothered, but if you'd make these points in the file discussion it might help resolve the matter. If you don't, I will probably wind up doing so, but you know the material infinitely better than I do.

Since I am here, I will add that the comments about you (Iridescent) in the discussion of this article on another website are uninformed and defamatory. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever it is, I'm sure I've been called worse. – iridescent 09:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mail as a source

Didn't you once provide a very trenchant diff of our co-founder Jimmy Wales's low opinion of the Daily Mail? If you could repost it I'd be very grateful, as it has come up again. If it wasn't you or it was you and you can't be bothered, then I apologise for wasting your time. --John (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Did you mean any of these quotes? :

Iridescent is right, but so is Hans. The Daily Mail is of frightfully low quality most of the time, but - as Hans acknowledges - they do (rarely) get a scoop of some importance. I'm not comfortable with us using them as a source for anything, other than in some very very specific circumstances.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be a blocking offense to use the Daily Mail - and similar sources - to add negative information to BLPs. It's really really really bad...The Daily Mail is not a valid encyclopedic source in most cases. (There are a few rare exceptions, but even those should be subjected to the strictest possible scrutiny.) In particular, relying on a single tabloid source of known low quality to post outrageous accusations of salacious personal details of people's lives is wrong, wrong for Wikipedia, a violation of BLP policy, and not something that anyone should accept cavalierly. It is easy to solve this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

-- TABLOID TERMINATOR

That will be what I was thinking about. Thank you for your diligence, HBH. --John (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, John. To say I disliked the Daily Mail would be something of an understatement! I just typed "Daily Mail" into 'search' on Jimmy's talkpage archive and it was the top result. I'm really still a n00b with computers, the search tools here seem bewildering! I'm thinking it wouldn't be too hard to make a bot programmed to look out for links to certain websites (esp. in 'personal life' sections of BLPs) and have asked MZMcBride for some help.

Typing "Daily Mail" and various obscenities drags up some choice quotes, the best of which I'm putting here: Should I use the Daily Fail as a source on Wikipedia?

Might be a good place to send unsure users for the time being! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

fyi

you have email — Ched : ? 07:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

RFAR

I am going to mention you by name at a RFAR that I've tried to file. Not as a "party", but as someone who has experience in the situation. I would welcome your input. — Ched : ? 18:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Already commented there. – iridescent 18:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I just now read that .. thank you. — Ched : ? 18:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Per your question at the RFAR page, I've no objections to your using my list of proposed parties. Bear in mind that most of my knowledge is two years out of date, and new faces may need to be added to that list. You probably ought to invite Giano to this—although he's not a party to the current incident, he's one of the few veterans of the original Infobox War who's still around, and may well have something to say. – iridescent 18:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably you should invite me, but there have been so many Infobox Wars, can you link me to the "original Infobox War" to which you refer. Thanks. I'm sure I was in the thick of it, but I cannot remember which one it was. Giano 21:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of the squabble with Andy Mabbett back in 2007 when he was trying to shove an infobox onto every building. Your memory goes back further than mine, but that was the first time I'm aware of where there was an outright infobox war, rather than "I think this should have an infobox", "I don't think it's appropriate", "Lets discuss the pros and cons and come to an agreement". (As an example, this is what an infobox discussion ought to look like. Note which names are conspicuous by their absence.) Ched, if you haven't yet read the refreshingly brief and to-the-point Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2 (clerked by a fresh-faced new admin called "Newyorkbrad", if I recall correctly), which I believe was the first time this was hauled before Arbcom, you may want to draw your own conclusions regarding how little things have changed since then. – iridescent 21:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that page is exactly how a debate on the subject should be. I had forgotten the 2007 infobox run-in with Andy Mabbett (I can't find any links to it); there's been a far more recent altercation with him on the subject. In my view, he is the cause of most of the bitterness on this subject and should be banned from participating in any debate relating to it. A total inability to compromise never serves anyone well. I fail to understood this quest for uniformity in any walk of life - it can never happen on Wikipedia because there are too many diverse people writing the project - so why waste time trying to create uniformity? Giano 11:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you've been so helpful finding holes...

Can you look over Battle of Hastings and let me know if anything important is missing? It needs a copyedit before FAC, but it should be mostly ready. Now to decide if I go with working on Harold Godwinson or Battle of Stamford Bridge or something else Conquest-related.. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Will do when I get the chance. If you want to do another conquest page, I'd suggest Edgar Aetheling—people can find out about Harold or the battles easily enough, but Edgar is in a bit of a ropey state and isn't quite so easy for people to dig up info on off-wiki. – iridescent 18:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is what I see on a skim:

"…landed at Pevensey"—I was under the impression that the landing site was still disputed. Certainly, pretty much every town on the Sussex coast claims to be the actual landing site. If this is still disputed, there ought at least to be a footnote;
Nitpicky assholery I know, but "Edward died at the beginning of 1066" isn't obvious; New Year's Day hadn't yet been standardized and the Anglo-Saxon year began on 25 March or 25 December, depending on where you were. It would probably be better to put the date;
Either standardize on "Harald III" or "Harald Hardrada", or make it clear that they're the same person. Remember, this is an article that will be read by grade-school kids with no prior knowledge, so you probably ought to knock a couple of years off the age of the hypothetical 14 year old target reader;
"William spent almost months on his preparations"?;
You won't like it, but try to find a way to work the comet into it. It's one of the few things everyone knows about the Conquest, and it's slightly jarring not to see it mentioned;
Even though it offends your historical sensibilities, I'd suggest a full paragraph on Taillefer into the body text (with an appropriate disclaimer). While it's probably bullshit, he's certainly an accepted part of the mythos, and it would break up the "then the Saxons… then the Normans…" back-and-forth with a bit of color;
Why the "Malfosse" paragraph? "Something might have happened somewhere, but we don't know what it was or where it happened" doesn't seem a great deal of use;
You can't use a word like "dorter" on a general-interest article like this without at least explaining what it means (I freely admit to having no idea);
Do we have any idea why William trekked out to Wallingford to cross the Thames, when he couldn't get across London Bridge? Wallingford is a long way from London, and there are many fordable places between the two; the traditional crossing points for armies attacking London from the south have always been Battersea and Brentford;
This is going to end up with an "in popular culture" section at some point. Would it make sense to add it now, so it's on your terms, rather than come back one day to find a list of ropey Victorian novels pasted in at the end?

Good luck with it. I don't envy you writing this one—piecing a narrative together when so few of the facts are reliable can't be pleasant. – iridescent 20:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Couple of quick replies - I whacked a great lot of "in popular culture" out a long while back and it hasn't returned, so I won't add anything in (I consider the Tapestry stuff to be "culture" enough) lest it return in force. Surprisingly little stories have been based on Hastings that have had any great cultural significance. The bard didn't deal with it, and I honestly can't think of anything that really is that great - no great artistic works (beyond the Tapestry) or works of literature or dramas. I mention Taillefer - he's getting about what amount of coverage the various guidebooks give him (I've used several guidebooks, including English Heritage's excellent one for help with the "common man" angle here). Same with the comet .. I don't think it's mentioned in either guidebook but if it is, I'll throw it in. The malfosse is because it DOES get coverage in the various guidebooks and battle books. There was a heck of a lot more about it and where it supposedly located (down to the current road that crosses the supposed ditch) before I trimmed ... the current amount is considered entirely too little by at least one person on my talk page currently. Everything else looks very helpful. As for it being unpleasant, it was actually not that bad, and there is at least a lot of speculation to cover. Compared to the usual 9th century bishop, this is lots of source material to work with! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Have dealt with all of the above (well, most of them) now. Pevensey is quite honestly utterly accepted. I need to put in a quickie footnote that a few ships may have gone astray and landed at Romney, but Pevensey is generally accepted as the location. I could not find a single modern historian on my shelves who disagreed. And this includes Lawson who goes into exhaustive detail about every single disputed fact about the battle.... English Heritage and the British Monarchy and the Beeb all agree too, if folks want websites. You'll be glad to learn I've acquired a few Edgar the Feckless (otherwise known as Edgar the Aetheling) sources and will probably work on him after Harold. Now I'm off to beg User:John to copyedit... (after those last picky footnotes). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with what has been written above. With particular reference to "Malfosse" there is general agreement with modern historians as to the location and what happened there. The research and location should be re-inserted. This is not a "guidebook", but serious research of a event at the end of the battle, but not on the battlefield itself. Perhaps a passing reference to the "comet" should also be inserted. Best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Albert Bridge

I know this is a bit late but I have nominated Albert Bridge for TFA. See WP:TFAR. Simply south...... fighting ovens for just 7 years 13:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Joy. If it runs, someone else can take responsibility for cleaning the TFA crud away, as I long ago lost interest in playing this particular game. Have you ever made a comment at TFAR that wasn't in relation to an article I'd written? (Rhetorical question, as I can see that the answer is no.) – iridescent 15:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Even so, the articles have all been coincidental. But anyway, it was just a note. Simply south...... fighting ovens for just 7 years 21:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm… Even giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're only choosing from the very small subset of around 50 articles that are in the intersection of Category:FA-Class London-related articles (or its London Transport subpage) and WP:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page, I calculate the probability of picking three and only three articles, all of which were written by myself, as roughly 1 in 95 (0.01056 in new money); if you're actually casting the net wider and choosing from the whole of WP:FANMP, the odds of choosing three of mine are 1 in 693,891. But AGF and all that. Incidentally, it's not "just a note", it's a requirement of the TFAR process, which you've up to now failed to comply with during your drive-by nominations. – iridescent 17:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Roman de Rou

Just saw your edit summary here. You do indeed win a point, thank you for connecting me to that article. I couldn't finish the Churchill book although it is brilliantly written (even I could see that the history is out-of-date) but I did think it mentioned something more helpful than it did about weather and seasons. Never mind. Thanks again. --John (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're interested in such things, the Conquest section of the Roman de Rou (available as a free download from Google) is well worth a read. It's unreliable propaganda, obviously, but is close enough to the time that it shows the mindset of the tapestry-embroiderers. – iridescent 21:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm reading it now. --John (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Postman's Park

What a delight to see the park on today's front page! A first rate article (natch) but more than that - a treat! Warmest thanks from an old Barbican dweller. Tim riley (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you—coming from you, that's high praise. It occurs to me after the event that I should really have pressed Raul to hold it back until Wikimania next year, which will be held a matter of feet from PP and coincide with the anniversary of the Memorial's unveiling, but c'est la vie… – iridescent 16:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, you'll just have to write another one, won't you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There are three in this series (Postman's Park, List of tablets on the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice and Alice Ayres), and all of them have now run. The Watts Gallery were planning at one point to publish a book with biographies of everyone on the Memorial, but that seems to have vanished, and in the meantime the only sources are old newspaper cuttings. I always tended to steer clear of City of London articles—the new buildings are generally uninteresting office blocks, the old buildings have too much history to easily do them justice in a 50kb Wikipedia article, and the Barbican itself doubles as a major classical music centre, and as you both may be aware classical music articles have a tendency to attract more than their fair share of obsessive fruit-loops. I can knock off Barbican tube station or Aldersgate Street on autopilot if you want a Barbican-related FA, but there's nothing very interesting to say on either topic. – iridescent 18:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I know this is easy for me to say, but how about taking London itself to FA? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No chance that London will ever pass FAC. The first thing I'd do would be to delete the infobox, as it refers to the Greater London administrative area, not London (London is a state of mind, not a place—there is no place actually called "London" other than the tiny City of London; Greater London extends for miles beyond the urban area most people think of as London and includes places like Kingston-on-Thames and North Ockendon which would never consider themselves part of London and don't have London addresses, London phone numbers, London TV etc.) Since there's no formal definition of "London", an infobox is meaningless in this context and as long as it's included I'd oppose this at FAC as misleading, and I imagine everyone else would as well. Given that I've no desire to come back to Wikipedia just to spend every day between now and next July playing revert-tag with Mabbett, I think I'll pass. City of London would be feasible, but needs a hell of a lot of work, and at a minimum you'd need to persuade Eric and Nev1 to come on board. (Grub Street—the street which originally occupied the site of the Barbican Centre where Wikimania is to be held—was well on the way and would have been ideal, but the guy who wrote it is for some reason not currently able to finish it.) – iridescent 19:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No comment about infoboxes because of the pending arbitration. No comment about Ottava Rima because I have no comment about Ottava Rima. I'll give all of this some thought. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Slight retraction of part of the above; Grub Street was actually written by Parrot of Doom, not Ottava. To my embarrassment, I suspect the actual reason the article's development stalled is the long list of nitpicky complaints I made about it. The rest of my comments stand, though; London is notoriously difficult to write about, as no two people have the same idea of what constitutes "London". (This isn't some weird quaint European thing, either; Los Angeles has the same issue of the official city boundary not including many of the buildings and landmarks most closely associated with the city nor the bulk of the population, coupled with a "Greater" area that has no strict definition, and includes huge swathes of people who would be horribly offended at being described as Angelinos. If you do want a quaint European thing taking "disputed borders" to its logical extreme, I'd recommend trying to explain the Belgian–Dutch border at Baarle without the aid of a diagram.) – iridescent 15:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think PoD's just busy making money at his proper job. Agree with you about the London article, virtually impossible to get through FAC. Grub Street looks interesting though. By a strange coincidence I worked in the Siemens Nixdorf offices in Goswell Road just opposite the Barbican for several years, completely unaware of the history of the area. Eric Corbett 16:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If London's anything like Paris just even editing it will bring out a legion of disgruntled lice from the woodwork...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I once made myself quite unpopular by saying that under the post-2008 criteria, it's literally impossible for an article on a significant topic to satisfy Wikipedia's quality standards. I stand by this; within the size constraints of a Wikipedia article, it's impossible to "neglect no major facts or details" and provide "a thorough survey of the relevant literature". (It would take your entire life just to read every relevant significant work on most of these core topics. To put this in some kind of perspective, the Bibliography of British Railway History currently lists 28,000 significant works on the history of British railways alone, and as Ottava was fond of pointing out, every day a significant work on Shakespeare is published somewhere in the world.) In practice, all these "core topic" articles are a case of choosing what to leave out, and the FACs are purely a lottery as to whether the writers have included the pet topics of whichever reviewers happen to turn up. – iridescent 19:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Break: The Mystery Tower and high-importance pages

Coming a bit late to this discussion... That last sentence of yours is something I would agree with, though it can be harsh on those who do know an area and have taken great pains to either find and work with those who know a lot about a topic area and/or have carefully read a range of encyclopedia articles on the topic to guide their approach. One article at FAC currently that caught my attention is sea - I actually saw it at the recent run of The Core Contest. I'm hesitant to comment there, but it does seem difficult to write a truly FA-level article on a topic that broad. I'm almost 100% sure that others could attempt to pull together an FA-level article on 'sea' and come up with a different article (in tone and content, though some of the core content would be the same) that would still pass FAC. Anyway, that's not really why I'm here. The comments above about London caught my attention, and I have a question about buildings in London along the banks of the Thames in the 1840s (specifically on the south bank just east of London Bridge), and thought you would be the ideal person to ask. Would you be willing to try and help identify a mystery building I can't identify in an old artwork? Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's about 50 feet east of Old London Bridge on the south bank and looks somewhat shabby, it will be part of the Hay's Wharf/Cotton's Wharf complex—a 17th-century brewery which had been converted into a wharf in the early 18th century, but whose building and granaries were still in use for warehousing goods being shipped through the wharf, and as a makeshift hotel for passengers using the wharf. Most of it was pulled down in the 1850s by Sir William Cubitt to build a modern enclosed dock; the rest was destroyed in the Great Fire of Southwark in 1861. The Hays Galleria shopping/office complex is now on the site.

North Southwark and Bridge Without, 1746

North Southwark and Bridge Without, 1830

There are a couple of maps of the vicinity which I uploaded back when SlimVirgin was writing Marshalsea (see right). Both were intentionally uploaded at an bandwidth-crunchingly high level of detail (the idea was that she'd be able to crop it down to show individual streets and buildings if needed), so are useless for article use, but allow you to zoom in on individual details. The 1830 one was published during the construction of the sixth London Bridge so shows two bridges; the yellow one labelled "New London Bridge" is the Rennie bridge (the one now in Arizona), and the white one labelled "London Bridge" is the mediaeval bridge. Annoyingly, the buildings themselves aren't labelled on either. Bear in mind that the railway would already have been under construction in 1840, so (depending on what it looks like) it may be a temporary warehouse associated with the building of London Bridge Station.

Bridge Without still existed in the 1840s as a real local government entity, rather than the weird disputed neutral zone between the LCC and the City it became later on*, so whatever was there will be documented in the City archives. (The Corporation may be an unacceptable remnant of feudalism, Europe's last rotten borough, a secretive unelected dictatorship in the heart of the cradle of democracy and liberty yadda yadda, but they're undeniably ruthlessly efficient and obsessive record-keepers.) If you point me at the picture, I might be able to work out what it is; Slim may well also know.

*114 years after the event, the Corporation still have never officially accepted Southwark's annexation of Bridge Without, and treats it like a territory that's temporarily been occupied by a hostile power. To this day they've not agreed on the border—look closely at the road signs where London Bridge goes over Tooley Street and you'll see the Corporation pointedly putting up City road signs all the way down to the Duke Street Hill turn-off (complete with a full-size Dragon boundary mark statue well south of the river into territory claimed by Southwark, just north of Pizza Express), and they continued to appoint titular Aldermen to ""represent" it well into the 1970s. I'm sure no other major city has a local government quite as eccentric as London.

On the other issue, I've always believed that the focus on "core topics" and high-traffic topics is misguided. Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum, and ought to focus on the gaps—its strength is its broadness of coverage, not its sharpness of focus. For most of the popular topics, a better quality source will always exist somewhere else, but Wikipedia excels at covering topics which are still important but which don't get well-documented elsewhere. To me, Wakefield, The Box Tops and Battle of Havrincourt are a higher priority in Wikipedia terms than London, The Rolling Stones and Battle of Britain, since a reader would have no trouble finding equal or better quality information about the latter should Wikipedia vanish tomorrow. This is also why I believe In The News should be expunged with fire—since the stories there are invariably cobbled together from Google News, then by definition there will always be easily available better quality sources than the Wikipedia article for every topic there. (It's worth out noting in passing that what's an obscure unpopular topic now may not be in future, and it's not always possible to predict. Broadwater Farm, for which I received very noisy sneering from WR for its obscurity, lit up like a Christmas tree two years ago when every newspaper in the world suddenly needed to write a profile of Mark Duggan and discovered that there was nothing else available online that gave a non-sensationalist description of where he grew up.)

I don't think that my "the highest priority is to cover things Wikipedia can do better than what's already out there" attitude is particularly unusual—I'm fairly certain Dr. Blofeld, Eric Corbett, Giano, Johnbod and Parrot of Doom would sign up to it at a minimum—but the vital articles boosters are so noisy they tend to shout everyone else down. I wonder if, like infoboxes, this is one of those transatlantic cultural difference things, as all those names are in Europe and all the "page view stats are the main measure of importance" crew are in North America. Gross oversimplification, but I don't think anyone would reasonably deny that the village green preservation society mentality is much stronger in Europe and Asia, and that the fastest-highest-strongest-biggest-loudest mentality is stronger in the US and Canada. – iridescent 10:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in theory if often not in practice, I'm on the "high traffic" side of the argument. While broadness is certainly one of WP's key strengths, since we have articles on everything (except Italian Renaissance sculpture of course) we should have at least adequate articles on the "vital", "core" or high-traffic topics, and for reasons we all understand at the moment there is often an inverse relationship between "importance" or readership and quality. Hence I spend lots of my time doing things like Style (visual arts) (version in Jan 2010) which gets about 50k views a year, rather than say Brescia Casket which gets about 4,500 (actually that's more than I expected). I tend to avoid the really high-traffic stuff, though Sculpture (c 700K pa) was another one too bad to be allowed to continue. My talks linked on my talk page expand on my thinking here. Blofeld like me rather veers between broadness & high-traffic I think, and but I think you right about the others named. Johnbod (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew you were the right person to ask! Briefly on the broadness vs focus issue (which I'll try to return to), I'm going to ping Casliber, as I know he will be interested in this discussion as well. I tend to think that bringing core and vital topics up to a reasonable level is good, but pushing all the way to FA-level may be a mistake. Mainly because someone who knows the topic better may come along later and effectively rewrite the article, which is a real pain if someone has put in large amounts of work (and an FA tag may be misleading). Subject matter experts that may arrive later may, of course, just endorse what is already there, or only tweak it slightly, but they may take issue with the approach taken previously. I do think people should know their limitations and only push an article so far, and then look around for those better able to take it to the next stage. The question is what to do if those people aren't available or don't edit Wikipedia? Anyway, back to 19th-century London (and William Cubitt and Hays Wharf and Hay's Galleria and what buildings were on that site in the 1840s)...

Let me pull up my notes. OK, in this artwork, there is a tapering tower at far right (with another tower behind it). In this artwork, the tapering tower at far right has gone! What was it? Both artworks are dated 1842 (drawn from life by William Henry Bartlett) and are supposedly from the same source, but it looks like the tower has been removed in the latter. The view is of the Pool of London, presumably from London Bridge, and you can see Custom House at left (at one of its various rebuilding stages) and the Tower of London in the distance (Tower Bridge of course hasn't been built yet). But the tapering tower at right I was unable to identify. The tower behind it would presumably be easy to identify as well, but I'm not as interested in that. It is this tower that appears in some versions of this artwork and not others that caught my attention. Maybe the lithographers (knowing it had been knocked down?) removed it from some versions of the artworks they were printing? Carcharoth (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I can see both sides - I myself prefer esoteric things - most of the mushroom articles you won't see better amalgams of info on anywhere...and the bird species as well, by straddling broad and peer-reviewed material...actually all the astronomy articles I put in that category as well. But I do think the FA process favours that which is why I resurrected the Core Contest. In reality, much of it is on a whim - I edit to relax so I really have to be enthused to write about it. I do love a good story and have seen some really engaging articles over the past new months. Sometimes keeping an eye out for a bio on FAC will bring something nice to read. Having been sleep deprived and just sat through five of List of Danganronpa: The Animation episodes and The Call of Cthulhu (film) am feeling a little..relaxed - the second was my recommendation to my kids, which they enjoyed, and the first was their recommendation for me, which I enjoyed. In summary, what ever is enjoyable... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

@Carcharoth:: The white tower (the one that appears in both pictures) is definitely the tower of St Olave's Church, Southwark. The "vanishing" tower is "a tower used in the manufacture of gun shot which in 1842 was adapted as a semaphore telegraph and in the following year was burnt down". (Jackson, Peter (1971). London Bridge: A Visual History (2002 ed.). London: Historical Publications. p. 89. ISBN 0948667826.) As you say, the lithographers presumably scrubbed it from the plate after it burned down.

If you want a piece of low-hanging fruit, Hay's Wharf is still a redlink and AFAIK there's only ever been one book published specifically about it, which can be picked up for around a tenner (although obviously it's mentioned in passing in various histories of Southwark, Bridge Without and London Bridge as well).

I think you're overly optimistic about subject matter experts coming along and improving what's there. What actually tends to happen is either the subject matter expert is a proponent of a particular view and pisses everyone else off when they're not allowed to push their particular pet theory (you were there for Talk:Donner Party, I don't need to explain this to you), or the subject matter expert gets tangled up with one of the self-appointed Experts In Everything who seem to gravitate to FAs like children to ice cream vans, gets frustrated trying to operate in an environment where the opinion of some crank with a theory they made up two minutes after finding out about the topic for the first time is treated as of equal value as someone who's been studying the topic all their adult life, storms off in disgust, and tells all their academic friends how much Wikipedia sucks. You know this is true, and you also know that the WMF are doing nothing about it because they've allowed a culture to develop of never admitting to problems. (Ironically, the much-maligned-and-often-for-good-reasons WMUK and in particular the even-more-maligned-and-often-for-even-better-reasons Andy Mabbett seem to be among the few within the power structure who recognise this problem and try to do something about it, although some would say their cures are proving to be worse than the disease.)

@Johnbod: I'm cheating slightly in claiming Blofeld for my side, as by coincidence I was talking with him about this a couple of months ago. While I can't speak for him, I strongly suspect the Paris fiasco has put him off the whole "high traffic, high change rate" thing as thoroughly as Michael Jackson did for me. As a general point, the high-traffic articles are often not what you expect; if something goes viral on Reddit pageview rates for the most unlikely articles can swing wildly. Daniel Lambert had 2746 pageviews in November 2010, and 254,473 pageviews the following month, and thanks to periodic spikes each time a prominent Reddit user or tweeting celebrity discovers him, Tarrare is currently Wikipedia's 190th most "important" military biography.

I missed Paris - that's too prominent for me. But there are thousands of medium-high trafic articles like Cufflink (160K pa) that are often very simply improved so they don't look like a 15 yr old's homework. Google doodles can catch us out - the crap Thomas Chippendale, normally 60k pa, suddenly got 222K on June 2nd, I presume for that reason. Rembrandt got 1.1m on its Doodle-day. I rarely do FAs now, & don't know what the GA standards are supposed to be, so I just like to improve lots of articles without worrying about those. I enjoy writing things that get a few hundred views a month, but "duty" or efficiency suggests I should be doing medium or high traffic stuff. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

@Casliber: Ideally yes, but… One of the main things preventing my coming back is the growth of "professionals"—not professionals in the paid-editing sense, but what seems to be a steep rise in the number of obsessive types who appear not to be on Wikipedia because they enjoy it, but because they've developed some warped sense of duty or loyalty, appear to see hanging round on Wikipedia picking fights as some kind of surrogate career, and have developed a sense of entitlement that means anyone who calls them out on their erratic behaviour is a troll who must be stopped. Sure, back in my day we had the occasional obsessive Defender of the Wiki trigger-happy patroller and the odd Mattisse or Poetlister who couldn't see a fight without wanting to join in, but they were the exception. Looking on Wikipedia now from the outside, the lunatic fringe seems to be becoming dominant, and there seem to be a hell of a lot of arguments taking place for no better reason than that those involved like arguing and the mechanisms for breaking the fights up are no longer functioning properly. – iridescent 17:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Iridescent! The semaphore bit makes perfect sense now (given the flag-like things on the top of the tower) and it being missing from one of the prints makes perfect sense given that it burnt down. Johnbod (if he is still watching the page) will know the technical term for that (impression or state? Ah: state (printmaking)). It is fascinating how little details like that can give an insight into what was going on at the time. I'm now wondering what the semaphore signals were for - was that common to have such towers in London? I also found Charles Cox (brewer), which is from an earlier period. I may try and look at Hay's Wharf at some point. As for Wikipedia's lunatic fringe, was it not always like that? BTW, he reply template you are using (substituting?) is adding some strange stuff to the raw wikitext. Carcharoth (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

See Semaphore line#U.K.; these things were quite extensive before the combination of the railways and the electric telegraph killed them off, hence the number of places called "Telegraph Hill". Remember that in this period the Royal Navy's main admin buildings were at Deptford and Greenwich, so a high-speed means of transmitting information between Greenwich and Whitehall would probably have been quite useful.

The template is just the standard {{ping}}. I generally try to subst as much as possible on talkpages to avoid pushing the archives over the template limit. Of course, this will be moot in a couple of months. – iridescent 19:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a surviving semaphore tower at Chatley Heath (actually Wisley), and some more here. I've read about optical telegraphy in France (Claude Chappe), but not so much in other countries. Can't find anything specific about a semaphore tower in Southwark (apart from your reference above), though the semaphore line article you pointed me to does mention 'West Square Southwark' as the location for one of the station of an early London-Deal line. The tower in the artwork, as you said, was used for making shot and only 'adapted as a semaphore telegraph' for a year before meeting its unfortunate end. So probably not much more about it around. Thanks again for the help. I missed the 'Visual Editor' debate (was mostly away for two months). Maybe I should do the same for the 'Flow' debate... Carcharoth (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Break: On interpersonal crap, core topics and FLOW

@Iridescent - I disagree - there has always been the interpersonal crap and kerfuffles. Look at the histories of some previous long-term offenders (no names). Thing is, you just know where to look for it now. I can edit for months with little fuss and much enjoyment. Alot of the other disputed stuff does settle to an uneasy equilibrium (bit like politics really :)). Note that WR used to find it a lot easier to find items to ridicule and complain about - WO still does now but there were alot more targets in the old days. I think if you wanted to edit, you would and if the enthusiasm's not there, then it isn't - there's no drama really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I sometimes get the impression that I'm supposed to feel guilty for not working on the so-called vital articles such as house, but I don't in the slightest. I've done my bit by trying to keep information technology, an article that gets about 2 million views a year, in some kind of sensible order in the face of continual stupidity. And I can tell you it's no fun at all. Eric Corbett 23:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting - how about three months of semiprotection - see if that makes it a tiny bit better to maintain/improve. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been following the infobox case at Ched's request but haven't been following much else, so may just be seeing a more foul-tempered side of Wikipedia than I remember, but I'm not sure. Certainly, a dip-sample of user and project talk-pages seems to show a noticeable decline is collaborative discussion, and an equally noticeable rise in bad-tempered arguments. "Uneasy equilibrium" is about right, but in an increasing number of cases it seems to be an equilibrium reached through mutual exhaustion or one side bludgeoning the other into submission, rather than through rational discussion and compromise. (Cas, you may recall that a couple of years ago I suggested finding pretexts to site-ban a lot of the self-appointed "power users" who think their tenure on the site gives them carte blanche to act obnoxiously and bludgeon other people into submission, and I was less than half joking.) In this climate, I have a strong suspicion that when WP:FLOW goes live and it becomes impossible to remove unproductive comments from discussions, a lot of current waverers will be pushed over the side into retirement.

FLOW, the WMF's planned replacement for talkpages, coming "some time in 2013". The site-wide announcements and the RFC on whether anyone actually wants this both appear to be noticeable by their absence.

Maybe I'm just missing it, but given how fundamental a change FLOW is going to be and how soon it's coming in, the WMF seem to be going out of their way to keep it hushed up until it's a fait accompli. Simultaneously converting every talkpage into a Facebook Wall style forum, forcing anyone commenting on said talkpages to use only the buggy and slow Visual Editor, forcing all users to "use avatars to provide empathy and identity context" and banning non-admins from amending or removing comments, is a huge cultural change and will make the us-and-them mentality even more pronounced than it is now. (This isn't hyperbole, see this slideshow to see all these objectives spelled out in black and white.) Seeing how the WMF swatted away PumpkinSky when he tried to raise questions about it—and whatever your opinion of PS, nobody would deny that he knows the history and social dynamics of Wikipedia—doesn't raise much confidence either that they're willing to listen to criticism, or that they have any answers ready for the inevitable shitstorm when people log on to find that their talkpages have vanished and been replaced with Facebook for ugly people.

@Eric Corbett, you're preaching to the choir here. I don't think I've ever substantively written anything (e.g., more than 50% of the text came from me) that gets more than 10,000 views a month, and I don't feel in the least guilty about it. To my mind articles like House and Information technology are the lowest priority, since no matter how poor the quality of the Wikipedia article no reader will ever have any difficulty finding a decent-quality explanation of the topic somewhere else. (Somewhat appropriately, Prose is arguably the poorest-quality article on Wikipedia, but I'm not seeing a queue of people complaining about that even though a reasonable claim could be made that this is this single highest-priority article on the entire site.) Ironically Waddesdon Road railway station, which the "core topic" clique use as the poster child for obscure fringe topics, is one I fought tooth and nail not to write; in my mind it made far more sense as a subsection of Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway where it could be understood in context, but buried in the policy soup somewhere is a diktat that "every railway station which has ever had a scheduled passenger service needs to have a separate article". – iridescent 10:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Dorchester

This was a bit unfair Iridescent. If you actually check the history of the article I did not find that as a source. I was simply cleaning up the existing sources and filled out the lead a bit until I come around to editing it myself. I'd likely remove that and greenwich meantime as a source. I added that the other evening with all sorts of things on my mind and it didn't even occur to me at the time that it was a corporate website, all I know is that the Dorchester is certainly one of the world's most prestigious hotels and to me, an outsider, it is one of the best known landmarks (institutions rather than architecturally) in London although I can think of many more which are better known so perhaps that is a controversial statement. If somebody says to you hotel in London I think Savoy, Ritz, Dorchester, Claridges, but I'd agree with you that if somebody says "famous landmark in London" Dorchester is unlikely to be near the top of most people's lists. Have some patience though please.. I and the others intend to expand it significantly, so being an expert on London you might see some problematic sentences and errors which I'd appreciate you helping out with of course, but not if it means unnecessary edit summaries like that which degrade the contributor.. I'm increasingly feeling fed up enough with this place as it is... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It might have been snappy in which case I apologise, but I stand by both the edit and the summary. If this were a newcomer I wouldn't bite them like that and would instead give them an explanation as to how reliable sourcing works, but I know you know better than to allow that kind of obvious corporate puffery. Personally, I wouldn't consider the Dorchester even in the same league as the Ritz, Savoy, Claridges, Lanesborough and Hilton when it comes to name-recognition even among hotels, but that's a value judgement. There's no possible way it's up there with Tower Bridge, Parliament, the London Eye, the Tower of London, Wembley etc in more general terms of notability or public interest. (The Dorchester gets considerably fewer pageviews than Acton Town tube station, London Buses route 9 or Pig-faced women.[1] You know of it because you work on hotels and I know of it because I worked on Westminster, but I doubt more than one Londoner in a hundred has even heard of it and one in a thousand could tell you where it was.)

I assure you, my summary was a lot politer than you could have expected had I left it in place until Eric Corbett or Pyrotec spotted it once you took it to GAN/FAC :). I don't dispute for a moment that the Dorchester is a notable hotel (albeit nowadays a shadow of its former self), but "notable" is not a synonym for "landmark", and there's no way on earth that anyone would ever consider the Dorchester "one of London's most famous landmarks"—the building is a generic 1930s Neues Bauen concrete block of a type found in any part of northern Europe where there were building works going on in the inter-war period. There's no way it could be considered a landmark ("a conspicuous object which characterizes a neighbourhood or district"); nobody would either use it in the BrEng sense to give directions ("turn left at the Dorchester") or in the AmEng sense as representative of the area ("My house is near the Dorchester"). Remember, within a five minute walk of the Dorchester you have the genuine landmarks of Buckingham Palace, the US Embassy, the Memorial Gates, Apsley House, Marble Arch,* the Australian War Memorial and New Zealand War Memorial, Jagger's Royal Artillery Memorial, the Wellington Arch, Westmacott's Achilles and the Animals in War Memorial—all but the first three on Park Lane itself—not to mention the far more architecturally distinctive London Hilton on Park Lane hotel three doors away which (by virtue of its intrusive ugliness and grossly out-of-place oversized tower) has far more of a claim to be a landmark. – iridescent 13:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

*@Bishonen, Nev1, Giano, DavidCane, and MRSC: Marble Arch, just up the road from the Dorchester, is currently Wikipedia's most-viewed London-related article other than One Direction,[2] and got over half a million hits last month, if anyone wants the holy grail of an ultra-high-traffic article on a completely non-controversial and very well-documented topic which is currently in a terrible state but could probably be taken through FAC in a couple of weeks.

OK, but I consider it a very notable hotel, even if architecturally it is unremarkable. I was under the impression it was as famous an institution as Harrods and home to Ducasse's 3 star restaurant, one of the world's top restaurants. If it isn't among London's well-known landmarks it most certainly is one of the world's most notable hotels and I could find many sources which support that at least. When I say landmarks I don't mean architecturally prominent, I mean one of the famous place names in London, I associate the Dorchester with high end London like Harrods. I thought it was in the same league as the Ritz and Claridge's, I'll take your word for it that it isn't. I think I would have spotted it before taking to GA anyway because I would have cottoned on to the fact it was written by the hotel creators and when I couldn't find a credible third-party source I'd have removed it. As I say, I'd be happy to work with you on either Dorchester or Marble Arch and greatly value your knowledge of London, but it seems you don't value the Dorchester so maybe the Ritz or Savoy would be a better choice?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The Dorchester is certainly a very good hotel; as a hotel, whether it ranks with the Ritz and Claridge's is a matter of opinion; I would say not, but then I think that the Savoy has lost its panache these days. Likewise the architecture of the Dorchester is a matter of opinion; I prefer the Belle Epoque of the Ritz and current fashion, even with Art Deco in vogue, is certainly not to admire the uninspired facade of the Dorchester; however, it's pretty nice (if 'hotely') inside. I've taken a look at Marble Arch, you can have a go at that too if you like Dr B. Giano 16:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I'll keep it in mind. Still need to finish off the sourcing of your baroque article first though. I think the Dorchester is worth working on for GA at some point, the interior design is notable at least but it will take some time before it is up to scratch and comprehensive though but interesting if I can glean together as much as possible from various sources on it. I got the Hotel Ritz Paris up to GA and might do the same with the London Ritz. Marble Arch given the page views is a must in my opinion for at least GA. Giano, any idea what the official name is for the yellow and white striped covers on the facade of here You see them in Italian architecture and can't quite remember what they're called! Veranda doesn't seem quite the right term? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

In English, I just call them awnings, I don't think many people would get tendalino a scomparsa. Giano 20:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hollar's 1647 panorama of London

Not sure if you have seen it before, but today I came across a fascinating 1647 panorama of London by Wenceslaus Hollar. I will likely get told that Commons is the place to do a page making sense of the places labelled there (mainly to see which ones we have articles on), but I did find the panorama among those listed at Panorama of London. Do you think that article has potential (in terms of art history at least), or should it be moved as suggested there? There is also Visscher panorama, which has many of the same places. If I get stuck with any of the places labelled on the Hollar panorama (many of the buildings are no longer there, as some fire happened about 19 years later), I will ask. There is a comprehensive description of the panorama here. There is also a partial description here. Anyway, one of the figure flying above London there is the wing-footed Mercury, which allows me to segue many thousands of kilometres closer to the Sun and bemoan the lack of response here. I did ask at WikiProject Solar System, but I'm guessing I need to look around a bit more to find someone to ask about that. Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As regards Hollar, you want The Man Who Drew London by Gillian Tindall, a comprehensive bio of the man which by happy coincidence came out about six weeks ago. Hollar aside, I'm not sure there's enough to warrant an article on Panoramas of London; the traditional "long view" for London was and still is the "scrolling view along the river", rather than the true panorama. (The geography of pre-industrial London, with its very flat landscape with no hills and few high towers, doesn't really suit the panorama as an art form—aside from the top of St Paul's, all the vantage points—Parliament Hill, Highgate, the Islington Spur—were outside the city so there wouldn't have been a reason for a 360° view. I Am Not An Expert, but the only significant true panorama of London I can think of that survives is Barker's Panorama.) I'm not convinced the Panorama of London page ought to exist, since aside from Hollar all of the drawings there are prospects (traditional drawings or paintings in a wider than usual form) rather than panoramas (all-encompassing 180° or 360° views from a single vantage point, displayed on the inside of a cylinder—if the canvas doesn't curve, it's a diorama not a panorama). The "Visscher panorama" isn't a panorama by any definition of the word, and the name seems to have been made up by the Wikipedia article's author; the BM's catalogue description doesn't use the word "panorama" once, and Visscher and his contemporaries certainly wouldn't have used the term, as it was coined by Robert Barker more than a century later.

What might be do-able is Panoramas in London; there was a great market at fairs and exhibitions for panoramas of other places, allowing people to see what all these places they read about in the newspapers looked like. The V&A has a superb panorama of Rome, and the former panorama rotunda at Leicester Square is very well documented; there was a major exhibit of surviving panoramas at the Barbican in the late 1980s, and its catalogue is probably your best bet. I suspect it would be hard to make the case that London needs a stand-alone article, though, since the things were just as common in Paris, Berlin, New York etc and it would inevitably duplicate a large swathe of Panoramic painting; it would also be quite difficult, as very few of the panoramas survive. If you ping these people (I can't believe that article actually exists) they can probably point you in the right direction to whatever sources exist. – iridescent 11:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, for the news of the biography in particular. 'Scrolling' is a good term for those not-panoramas. Dioramas, cycloramas, panoramas, even cosmorama (that last one is new to me). I'm not surprised there is an International Panorama Council, though less sure why you are surprised the article exists (clicking on random article, or browsing, throws up a wide range of articles of varying types, and that looks no worse or better than others out there). The Great Fire of London article calls the Visscher depiction a panorama, and I've left a comment on the article talk page pointing out the later Hollar depiction. I've also realised that what I really want to do with that Hollar panorama is make a list of the places labelled there. I hope you won't mind if I put that here later on, and ask about what gaps could be filled in (similar to that Hays Wharf you pointed out earlier). 13:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding to what I wrote above, most of the places named in the panorama have articles (or are covered in other articles). One that appears not to have an article is 'New Exchange', apparently a building on The Strand, mentioned in the articles Simon Basil and Strand, London. That artwork is here (only used in Jacobean debate on the Union). Also possibly of interest: Watermen's Stairs. One gap in coverage seems to be 'Scotland Yard' - the history of this area in the 17th century and earlier appears to be partially recounted at Great Scotland Yard rather than the article Scotland Yard, but is still patchy. Probably a Jacobean-era article waiting to be written there. Also, the Clock House that was built in 1365 as part of the Palace of Westminster is labelled on the map, but not mentioned in the Wikipedia article as far as I can tell. Most of the churches, pubs, wharves/quays and theatres are easy enough to find in articles (despite the archaic spellings), but 'Gray Church' is proving a bit difficult - I'm wondering if it is Christ Church Greyfriars? The other label that stumped me was 'stiliard' - there is a reference to that in Pepys' diaries, but not much else around on that. Ah, it seems it is an archaic spelling for 'steelyard', and a useful resource will be Wenceslaus Hollar and his views of London and Windsor in the seventeenth century (1922), which has another detailed description of what is shown in Hollar's panorama. Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to ping me about anything. If you're going to be doing this a lot, I'd recommend investing in a copy of The History of London in Maps, which makes it much easier to identify streets and buildings, as well as to make sense of what changes were made at which time. If you want, I do have bandwidth-crunching ultra-high-res scans of the 1746 Roque map and the 1830 Greenwood map (the two maps excerpted in the "vanishing tower" discussion), which I can email you if you want. I haven't uploaded them and don't intend to, as the Museum of London claims copyright on them. While I've no doubt any attempt to enforce copyright on something published in the 18th century would be laughed out of any court, I don't see the sense in antagonising an institution with as much clout as the MoL—Wikipedia has never fully recovered the goodwill lost during the National Portrait Gallery fiasco.

Regarding the New Exchange, this should be more than you ever wanted to know:

As with most street articles, I'm doubtful Great Scotland Yard ought to exist as a standalone article, since it's a minor side street known only for one thing, and that one thing is covered elsewhere. I'm not going to be the one to AFD it, though. Given the time and effort it took fighting the "keep, it exists" brigade at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Roundway, on a totally insignificant road with no landmarks of any kind and no notable event ever having taken place there ("The eastern half is residential with a newsagent, a Chinese takeaway and a Snack Bar in a small parade at the junction with New Road. The western half is also residential with an off licence and an Indian Takeaway."), I've no doubt any AFD discussion on Great Scotland Yard would attract a swarm of ARS-holes parroting "keep, I've heard of it". If it stays it needs a major rewrite. In fact, the whole Palace of Whitehall suite needs major rewriting, since the parent article in particular really doesn't do justice to what was in its time one of the most important places in the world (the Tudor/Jacobean equivalent of the Kremlin or Vatican today). Giano is probably the person best placed to point you to people able competently to write about demolished palaces.

Funnily enough I used to live a stone's throw from Great Scotland Yard in a grotty flat that's now part of one of the city's most salubrious hotels. How times change. I wonder is my shag pile carpet was retained. Giano 10:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I doubt there's much to say about the Clock House at the old Palace of Westminster. The entry in John Strype's 1720 updating of Stow's Survey of London reads, in full:

The said Palace, before the Entry thereunto, hath a large Court, and in the same a Tower of Stone, containing a Clock, which striketh every Hour on a great Bell, to be heard into the Hall in Sitting Time of the Courts, or otherwise. For the same Clock, in a Calm, will be heard into the City of London. King Henry the Sixth gave the Keeping of this Clock, with the Tower, called the The Clock House, and the Appurtenances, unto William Walsby, Dean of St. Stephens, with the Wages of six Pence the Day., out of his Exchequer.
It was first built and furnished with a Clock, out of a Fine which one Justice Ingham was fain to pay, being 800 Mark, for erazing a Roll. For that a poor Man being fined in an Act of Debt at 13s. 4d. the said Justice, moved with Pity, caused the Roll to be erazed, and made it 6s. 8d. This Case Justice Southcote remembered, when Catlyn Chief Justice of the King's Bench in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, would have ordered a Razure of a Roll; Southcote being one of the Judges of that Court, utterly denyed to assent to it, and said openly, That he meant not to build a Clock House.

By this Tower standeth a Fountain, which, at Coronations and great Triumphs, is made to run with Wine out of divers Spouts.

I suspect that's as much as you'll find about it anywhere. If you're doing a lot on history, it's probably worth paying a visit to the shop at the Museum of London—tucked away in the far corner is a separate section of "serious history" books, with a lot of obscure archaeological books which don't make it onto Amazon, let alone into shops. The local museums of the 32 boroughs can often be very useful as well, as they quite often stock books which have been out of print for decades. For the City itself, nothing comes close to the collection of Guildhall Library. – iridescent 09:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Goodness. That is a lot of information to file away somewhere safe. If I do end up at that bookshop, I suspect I may stagger out a few hours later heavily laden under a pile of books. The library looks great as well, and I often end up at those www.british-history.ac.uk reports. I'll not ask any more questions (for now), though I was half-expecting something on how the 'stiliard' was replaced by Cannon Road Tube Station... (I may be mis-remembering this slightly). Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello - "the Wikipedia article's author" here. While I had to pick a title for the article, I didn't entirely make it up. As is probably apparent from my amateurish stumblings around, I am not a subject matter expert, and I am very happy to defer to someone who knows better (Tüchlein or glue-size?). I like to hope that the rubbish I write is better than nothing at all, but maybe we would all be better off if I did not bother.

Anyway, I agree, the print is not, strictly speaking, a panorama, although you could loosely say it is panoramic, but there were plenty of other people using the terms "Visscher" and "panorama" to describe the print before I wrote the article last December - from the Museum of London through various books and blogs to Wikipedia itself. Feel free to move it if another title would be better - perhaps Visscher's panorama of London or London (Visscher) or something else.

Hollar's Long View of London from Bankside has been on my long list for some time. -- Theramin (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why am I on this mailing list? I'm not signed up to any of the things mentioned in it, and have never had any kind of free account through Wikipedia in my life. – iridescent 10:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Unwarranted speculations

Iridescent, what you said here ("I very much doubt Worm made a decision this contentious on his own, and suspect that today's page in the next set of arbcom-l leaks will make interesting reading.") is not at all helpful. It is completely unfounded speculation, and I would have expected better of you. I can personally vouch that none of this was mentioned on the arbitration mailing list until over an hour after WTT carried out that block at 15:32, 29 October 2013. The first I and probably several other arbitrators knew of WTT's block was when a different arbitrator e-mailed an FYI e-mail pointing us to the AN discussion that was then in progress. The following four e-mails were procedural and all discussion has been kept on-wiki. Other matters have been occupying/vying for our attention, which isn't an uncommon occurrence on that mailing list, as you will recall. Could you please consider striking what you said on Ched's talk page? Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

personally I think you are out of line here Carcharoth. I'm very surprised to see this from you. — ChedZILLA 02:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Ched, I left the note at your talk page because I was responding here to something said there, and I wanted you and the others there to be aware of it. The note here was left for iridescent to reply to, not for you. Anyway, the other person that really needs to be aware of this is WTT. General discussion about the current drama of the day, fine, but making some ridiculous, veiled accusation that WTT was colluding with others is beyond the pale. If iridescent really believes that, they should have had the courtesy to go to WTT's talk page and raise it with them, not shoot their mouth off on your talk page. It is the very definition of casting unfounded aspersions. Carcharoth (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Iri emailed me the same suspicions, and I hope I laid them to rest. The only comment I made to the arbitrators was the following text On the Eric issue, I'm afraid I'm to blame. I, of course recuse, should it come to a case and apologise in advance for any problems you all have to deal with, in response to a warning that a case would likely be raised. I spoke to no arbitrators prior to the event, and none after more than that text. I can see why Carcharoth is upset, I understand such accusations being flung at me, but on wiki and without a chance to address such concerns is problematic. Worm^TT(talk) 07:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've spoken to both Carcharoth and WTT privately already, but some thoughts on this issue included here near the bottom of the wall-of-text. – iridescent 10:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Tangent

You wrote at Keifer's page "the disturbing number of people who think that the higher their ranking on WBFAN the more right they have to ignore even fundamental core policies" - I sincerely hope I'm not one of those... and if I am, would someone please hit me with a clue-bat? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ealdgyth I know of a handful who fit that definition (just ask 'em, they'll be glad to tell you how important they are, how many FAs they have, how many GAs they have, how many DYKs they have, and to question who you think you are if you don't have as many as they have, and they believe the rules don't apply to them), but you ain't it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

What she said, although the people who have a laundry-list of GAs and FAs on their userpage, or the admin icon at the top of their talkpage, aren't necessarily a problem; it's the ones who think that having an FA credit, an admin bit or whatever somehow magically makes them an Old Testament Judge. – iridescent 16:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Metropolitan police salaries

http://www.metpolicecareers.co.uk/newconstable/pay_and_benefits.html, "All new police constables in the MPS will receive a basic starting salary of £22,221 per annum rising to £36,885. All new constables will commence service at the start of the scale and will progress according to relevant Home Office guidelines and police regulations. In addition to basic salary all Metropolitan Police officers receive London weighting and allowances currently amounting to approximately £6,615 per annum." Without going into details - but WMUK offered salaries were in the recruitment ads - and excluding the CE, very few bobbies in London indeed will be on less than WMUK people, many of whom are part-time also. I can't be bothered to work out London teachers' salaries. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Salaries vary between forces but the typical starting salary for police constables in England and Wales is £22,680 on commencing service and £25,317 on completion of the initial training period; The main pay range for a qualified teacher is from £21,804 to £31,868. Every WMUK post other than the CEO and the Office Support post (21-23k) appears to pay £25,000 – £29,000 per annum.[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] (btw you may want to reword "He also organises payments to volunteers", since if the Charity Commission spot that they'll shoot first and ask questions later); the only way you're getting the teachers and rozzers to come out higher is by looking at the top of the pay-scales where the ten-years-service people sit, and by cherry-picking the Met Police which gives its officers a package of London weighting and subsidised train travel which artifically inflates their nominal income. For reference, the median salary in the UK as of 2011 was £21,326 (owing to the pay freeze, it won't have shifted substantially), lower than even the lowest-paid person at WMUK (who appears to be this guy). They may well earn every penny of it—along with virtually everyone else within Wikipedia and despite having met most of them at one time or another, I have very little idea what WMUK actually does and your website sheds very little light—but pleading poverty isn't going to cut it, especially in an environment where the overwhelming majority of those involved are working for free. – iridescent 16:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

With one exception, and maybe one other partial one, the WMUK jobs are located in Central London; there is nothing "artificial" about London weighting, or using it for comparisons with other London jobs, indeed not doing so is "artificial" at best. What is the London weighting for teachers? It seems from what you say that starting Met bobbies get almost £2,000 more than the WMUK mid-range figures at starting, and less than £200 under the WMUK maximum figure given, and then get significantly more than that (£3,000 odd?) immediately after completing training. It's not "my" website. "Payments to volunteers" are essentially travel expenses, plus the odd microgrant etc. This page from the ONS is an easy place to start considering how the WMUK figures really relate to average. Other factors are of course by type of industry, where there are huge variations, and by region. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

London weighting is intended for those jobs (teachers, doctors, shop-workers etc) which have to be based in Central London, and to compensate for the expense of travelling in. This doesn't apply to WMUK, which is only in Central London out of vanity; even if one were to accept the (dubious) argument that it needs to be located in the south-east to be near the London museums and the seat of government, it could operate just as well from a unit in the suburbs for less than a third of what WMUK is currently paying for the privilege of being up the road from Google.

I also note that I appear to have given too much benefit of the doubt in assuming that in a climate of austerity WMUK wouldn't be awarding themselves pay rises, and assuming that the 2011 figures for WMUK's salaries wouldn't have changed substantially; in fact, WMUK's budget shows the salaries rising steadily with the lowest-paid staff member now on £26,356 and the highest on £63,205(!).

I'm perfectly willing to be persuaded that WMUK are valuable and necessary—and as I said previously, every WMUK person I've met has appeared decent and dedicated—but I can certainly understand where the critics are coming from. Judging by the material on the website—which is all that non-insiders have on which to judge it—WMUK gives a definite impression of having become a group of perhaps 200 or so people at most, who spend their time awarding grants to each other out of donor funds, and who rarely if ever have any interaction with or impact on the regular editors or readers of Wikipedia. – iridescent 13:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The WMUK office holds plenty of meetings and is supposed to act as a hub for the community, with people dropping in. That simply wouldn't happen if it was in Elmbridge. If you really can't tell the difference between salary and staff costs ("the cost of these employees as described below includes the salary, employer National Insurance (X% of base salary) and employer pension payments (6% of base salary). We have increased the salaries of our existing staff this year to incorporate both the increased costs of living due to inflation (currently estimated as 2%) and to take into account the increased experience that ...") you really should avoid attempting to comment on these matters at all, as everything you say will be as misleading as the comments above. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I was quite happy to get three rounds of this up and running out of [11]....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"Hub for the community with people just dropping in"? So, if I "drop in" they're not going to set security on me? Sure. (How does "hub for the community with people dropping in" tally with "Visitors to the office are to be accompanied at all times by a member of staff or otherwise authorised personnel (i.e. Trustees)"? Even if the whole "hub" thing is true and unlike every other WMF site* they really welcome visitors, it's still no argument for being in the centre of the most expensive city in the world. If WMUF are really snobby enough to think they have to be in a city centre, I could make a far better case for Birmingham or Manchester, where Wikipedia's UK editors actually are. (Given that I was 1/3 of the active membership of WP:LONDON and the other 2/3 were Kbthompson who is now dead and User:MRSC who seems to have lost interest, I know better than most how sparse Wikipedians are in London; the spark has always burned far brighter in the North West and the West Midlands.)

*IIRC, the WMF itself doesn't even allow people to enter the lobby without an appointment, and does their best not to even allow the public to find out their address.

On the more general issue of funds, Fae probably knows more than anyone else about the internal workings of WMUK, and I'm more than willing to believe his statement that "less than 48% of donated funds go to projects with outcomes in line with the charity's mission, the rest of the funds going on administration such lawyers, employment costs, rent, and local fund-raising". If true, that's atrocious wastage unless there's something really exceptional going on; 60% to programs is generally regarded as the acceptable minimum. Even the much-maligned WMF manages 68.2%. – iridescent 18:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrators

You wrote, "as a more general musing on Arbcom, I think it would be healthy for all concerned were NYB, Roger Davies and Risker to take at least a year off."

FYI, Risker has already stated (including on her talkpage) that she is not running again. My term has another year to go, but I'm done after that (I briefly considered stepping down at the end of this year, but it is already guaranteed that next year's Committee will have a majority of newcomers, so I can't justify creating another vacancy). I can't speak for Roger. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I know I've shared my thoughts on this with you before. It's not that I feel anything particularly negative about the three of you, but I don't think it's healthy in general for Wikipedia to have "elder statesmen" (look at how much hassle it is to persuade people that some piece of badly-informed nonsense spouted off-the-cuff by Jimbo shouldn't be treated as Holy Writ). As you presumably know, if I were in charge I'd start desysopping admins like it was going out of style, and if that caused a shortage just reduce the RFA pass-mark to 50% and recruit a load of new blood. Churn is good. – iridescent 16:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't hear me arguing. It's always importance to strike the right balance between continuity and turnover, and I accept that the time will come soon enough for me to be turned over and/or overturned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happily looking forward to January 1, when my term will be over. I'm hoping that there will be a renewal of the committee like the one we saw in 2009, when there were lots of new, fresh faces; the following 18 months (despite the occasional misstep) was the most productive and community-oriented period that Arbcom ever saw, and I am unusually proud of the accomplishments of that time. Creation of the AUSC, community involvement in selection of checkusers and oversighters, standardization of a lot of Arbcom processes, development of the BASC (although its next logical step, turning non-Arbcom/AE ban/block reviews over to the community, has yet to happen), community participation and authorization of a new Arbcom policy....and that's just the structure. We have a few things left to do in the next few weeks, and I hope that one of the tasks taken on by the new team will include reviewing some of the changes that have been made in the last few years to verify their effectiveness and take them to the next level. But I am am more than ready to step back from this particular responsibility. "To you from failing hands we throw the torch; be yours to hold it high". John McCrae, 1915 Risker (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- You know my thoughts; in some ways I think the "hasten the day" crowd have a valid point. A disastrously incompetent committee leading to either systemic failure or a total disregard for Arbcom rulings might jolt the WMF into taking some responsibility for their baby, rather than constantly dumping anything that looks difficuly onto a committee that's often horribly ill-equipped to handle it. – iridescent 13:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  - I have no idea why you'd think the WMF will do anything to step in and save English Wikipedia. The events of this summer, with the VisualEditor and the very deliberate decision to sabotage any chance of successful implementation of that software should tell you that the WMF is in no way capable of understanding this project. A few people there get it, but they're very much in the minority. They're certainly not in the executive suite. Risker (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    - Even at that, I get complaints at least once a week that the WMF only focuses on the English Wikipedia. :/ --Rs chen 7754 18:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  - It should also be noted that there's really nothing on Arbcom's plate that wasn't there already a very long time ago, before the WMF really existed as anything other than some fundraising and a few servers and half a dozen staff; there's pretty much nothing that has been "dumped" on Arbcom by the WMF. What is now called "child protection" started back in very early 2006 (with Fred Bauder taking the lead), and it is the enwiki community that created the policy that put it firmly in Arbcom's pocket more formally in 2010. Checkuser and Oversight have been in Arbcom's pocket literally since the day they were implemented, with Board policy written to support it pretty much contemporaneously; again, only a handful of WMF to speak of at the time, most of them dedicated to the technical side. Cases were the whole point of the committee; many of the cases the committee saw pre-2008 are things the community regularly manages by itself now. The one thing that seems to have been added in was final review of blocks and bans, and that seems to have appeared somewhere around 2007. AUSC and BASC are creatures of arbcom's own making. And that's pretty much the summary of what Arbcom does. Risker (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    - I disagree. I understand why "To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons" was added to WP:AP (you and I were both there), but that doesn't mean I have to like it—Arbcom shouldn't be simultaneously acting as an open dispute resolution body and a secret Star Chamber. The skill sets for the two roles are very different (one requires tact, diplomacy and a willingness to bend; one requires ruthlessness, cynicism and a willingness to assume bad faith where necessary). Quite aside from the corrosive effects on the Arbs themselves (you and I both signed up to try to resolve internal disputes between good-faith users, not to act as Sue Gardner's bouncers against a rabble of psychopaths and kiddy-fiddlers), it confuses the hell out of normal users. I still remember how strange it was watching the 2007 Arbs flip back and forth between genial and helpful enthusiasts and a creepy secretive cabal, but I'll be the first to admit that I became exactly the same and so IMO has everyone else who's ever served on it. – iridescent 18:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Gillian Tindall

I just saw your mention of The Man Who Drew London above. If you have any sources about her and can spare a few minutes, would you like to tidy up the Gillian Tindall article? I haven't anything to offer in return, except that I've got an 1833 Schmollinger map of London and a macro lens. So if you ever need unencumbered close-ups like Royal Mint or St John's Lodge let me know. I can do bigger areas like Hyde Park and Regent's Park too. - Pointillist (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I only really know her as the author of The House by the Thames and The Man who Drew London, and nothing at all about her life or wider work, so I'm a bit reluctant to touch her bio as I'm not sure what weight to give the various works. Pinging SlimVirgin who is probably better place than me either to help, or suggest someone currently active who's likely to have an interest. – iridescent 18:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Bias at Cause of Yasser Arafat's death

You can probably guess who I am. "Man katal" is Arabic for "Who killed?" Some years ago, my Arabic teacher in college produced an Arabic newspaper headline titled "Man katal Yasser Arafat?" as in "Who killed Yasser Arafat" implying that someone killed him and he didn't just drop dead of heart failure. But reading the Wikipedia article you wouldn't know it. I have tried to start a discussion of this problem at Talk:Cause of Yasser Arafat's death. I know that there are many editors who read this talk page, and I would invite all of you to improve the article and make it more neutral. I don't mind what happens to my account, but I want to make sure that the site I formerly cared so much about is not a vehicle for anti-Semitic crap. Man katal (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that all these "Death of…" pages shouldn't exist except in a very few cases like JFK, Joseph Smith, Osama Bin Laden etc where the death itself is so major a topic that it would be perverse not to cover it in detail, and including it in the main biography would overwhelm the bio. (If you have a long memory you may recall me once salting Death of Michael Jackson.) In the case of Arafat I think it's particularly inappropriate, IMO it's arrogant in the extreme for a bunch of Wikipedia editors to second-guess the coroners who are working from the forensic evidence rather than a bunch of newspaper clippings. If I had my way, I'd delete the "Death of" article and just end the Yasser Arafat with a "The manner of his death is disputed as there is some evidence to suggest he was unlawfully killed". I do recognize that mine is a minority view, and the general attitude on Wikipedia is "if it appeared somewhere in print, it goes in".

In this particular case, I suspect Cause of Yasser Arafat's death is in practice a heatsink page, intentionally set up to provide a low-Google-visibility playpen for the POV-warriors to duke it out over their conspiracy theories while those with a genuine interest in providing a neutral biography of the man can work on the biography without constant interruptions from cranks. Malleus and I set up something similar at Guy Fawkes in popular culture to act as flypaper for all the fanboys who wanted to ramble at great length about V for Vendetta and Anonymous; there are also similar crackpot-honeytraps at, for instance, Michael Jackson's health and appearance, Criticism of Microsoft, Israel and the apartheid analogy, Controversy and criticism of The X Factor and many other places. In cases like this it's easier for all concerned to funnel the Righters Of Great Wrongs into shadow pages where they can expend their time chasing each other's tails, than to try to throw blocks and protections around which rarely work for long in practice. – iridescent 18:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday greetings

Happy Holidays!

Victoria

Happy holiday season....

	Cheers, pina coladas all round!
	Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Undeletion of "Lingwa de planeta" page

My request is about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lingwa_de_Planeta. Tha conlang has progressed a lot since 2007, and now there are not less than 50 real speakers (that is, writers) of the language, the (relatively) huge amount of texts and songs and a few good references. I've prepared the new article here: Draft:Lingwa_de_planeta. That is the translation of Russian article, and there still are some things I can't get (like template for citing an artice as a source). English is not my native language, so the text may not be perfect, but I hope to get some help.

In 2007 the article wasn't deleted by you personally, but all the other administrators participating in discussion are either retired or not active more. Waiting for your answer, Sunnynai (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The new draft is certainly a much better article than the version that was deleted, but I'm afraid that because it's a topic on which I know little, I'm not well placed to judge its validity. The best place to ask for advice would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics as they'll know which sources are reliable in this context. – iridescent 08:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer! The fact is that User:Evertype put the artice into the mainspace and added the template in the talk page. So I hope it's OK now just to wait for any discussion to arise. --Sunnynai (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I did that in part because Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is about to be published (this week) in Lidepla, and that puts it firmly in the field of "notable" in terms of conlangs. -- Evertype·✆ 11:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Tunnel Railway

Hi Iridescent,

I found a better image for the lead and main page blurb for the Tunnel Railway article. I hope you like it. Congratulations on getting the article featured and up on the main page! I am concerned about the statement that the railway was opened "to connect tourist attractions and shops near Ramsgate harbour with the new railway main line at Dumpton Park." This statement appears in the lead and on the main page, but not in the body of the article, and there is no source for this statement. Tourist attractions and shops near Ramsgate harbour are not mentioned in the article beyond the lead, at least not in connection with the opening of the railway. Do you know of a source that can be added for this statement?

Neelix (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's all in the body text and cited: By 1933 Merrie England, now under the ownership of Ramsgate Olympia, had become extremely popular, and Ramsgate Olympia began to lobby the Southern Railway to reopen the line through the tunnel, with a new junction station between Dumpton Park and Broadstairs. However, the Southern Railway rejected the proposal as too costly and impractical. Ramsgate Olympia and the Southern Railway were keen to make the attractions near the harbour accessible from the railway main line and to provide a service from the seafront to the greyhound stadium at Dumpton Park. The two companies eventually agreed on a scheme by which a new line would use the 780 yards (710 m) of the tunnel nearest the beach, before branching off into a new 364-yard (333 m) tunnel to emerge at a new station at Hereson Road, a 250-yard (230 m) walk from Dumpton Park station. I'd need to dig out a copy of Harding if you need the exact source wording (I do have it around somewhere, but I'd have to hunt for it.) None of this is contentious (I hope)—a passenger railway isn't built for any reason other than that the builder assumes there will be passengers. This passed FAC back in the days of "cite at the end of the chunk of information being referenced", rather than "cite every sentence"—you can safely assume that every fact in the version which passed FAC is cited to the first reference to follow it. (You can also very safely assume that given the number of vultures circling me, if I had made an untrue claim anywhere someone would gleefully have jumped on it long ago.)

Thanks for digging out the image of the opening. (I'm not sure who thought the plastic horse was a good idea, it has to be said.) – incredibly toxic personality 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Neelix: OK, found it: exact wording of the original:

By 1933, "Merrie England" was becoming very popular and Ramsgate Olympia, Ltd., was founded as a private company to take over the running of the enterprise from Thanet Amusements Ltd. The new company decided that the disused tunnel which had been sealed up after the track was removed should now be put to good use. […] The company finally decided that some form of 'light' rail connection via the tunnel would provide a good link with the Dumpton Park area where the greyhound track was proving prey popular plus also providing a service with Dumpton Park Station. (Harding, Peter A. (2005). The Ramsgate Tunnel Railway. Woking: Peter A. Harding. pp. 7–8. ISBN 0952345897.) "Merrie England" has already been defined (and sourced) as a collection of tourist attractions earlier in the article. – iridescent 18:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification

This is to inform you that Quainton Road railway station, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 14 December 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Brill Tramway followed by Fuck - I take it Bencherlite has decided to go out in a fireball rather than a fizzle. – iridescent 15:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. 54321, I see what you did there. .. – iridescent 20:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Who, sir? Me, sir? <innocent face> Bencherlite ^Talk 20:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year !!!
		Michael Q. Schmidt ^talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Thanks to both – iridescent 17:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Pig-faced women

I changed to "Oppose" at WP:TFAR, respectfully deferring to your judgment as FA nominator.

Did you have a more ideal date in mind for the article's future Main Page appearance?

Thank you for your numerous high quality WP:FA contributions to Wikipedia,

— Cirt (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I know you know, but for the benefit of anyone else reading this, replied at WP:TFAR. If you're looking for peculiar FAs which haven't run yet, Charles Domery is still floating about (although it doesn't have the eye-catching images PFW has). To some extent, Domery has the same problem, that some people will consider showcasing it an attack on a particular group (in this case, the Poles and to a lesser extent people with eating disorders), but it doesn't have the same element of simultaneously being offensive to the Irish, French, Dutch, women, animal-lovers and the disabled which PFW brings with it. (Domery is part of a trio on 18th-century eating disorders, all of which have a high WTF-factor; I'd prefer Tarrare not run for the moment, and Daniel Lambert has already run.) Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway could be dressed up for the occasion also—from the title it sounds dull as ditchwater, but it's actually an extraordinary story of a showpiece event that went so disastrously wrong, the government and courts seriously considered banning locomotives. George Stephenson had a standing offer from the Tsar to take his newfangled steam engine to Russia and if he'd been banned from making or using them in the UK would presumably have done so, which would in turn have kept the United States a thin coastal strip (the locomotives which opened up the interior were imported from Newcastle) and made Imperial Russia an unstoppable force, able to use their new industrial power to swat aside any hapless Turks and Prussians trying to stop them. The OOTLMR is a turning-point that (outside of Liverpool and Manchester themselves) doesn't get the credit it deserves.

If the "never repeat a TFA" rule is ever relaxed*, Biddenden Maids, Halkett boat and the aforementioned Daniel Lambert would all be workable as April Fools TFAs. I have a soft spot for Halkett boat in particular, which really is a case of the truth being stranger than fiction.

Per my outburst at TFAR, in my opinion the April Fools/Halloween tradition is an embarrassing relic of Raul's tendency on occasion to presume that whichever idea he'd happened to have embodied The Will Of The Community, and should be shown the door. With the possible exception of that film last year, to the best of my knowledge every April Fools TFA (Pigeon photography, Cock Lane ghost, Wife selling, Museum of Bad Art, Ima Hogg, George Washington (inventor), Spoo) has led to a wave of lunatics hijacking the article, generally followed by the author of the article being blocked for edit-warring when they try to restore it to something approaching stability; ask Eric Corbett or Parrot of Doom just how well the system works. – iridescent 22:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

*I'd personally support a change to "never repeat a TFA within five years". The argument that it gives undue prominence to the topic is hooey, since nobody except die-hard wiki-obsessives will even realise the article has run before. The argument that "it prevents other TFAs having their day in the sun" is also baloney—many if not most of Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page are either old FAs of embarrassingly poor quality, articles which their authors would prefer not run, or arcane articles like Quainton Road railway station which would be pointless to run since the only people who would find them interesting are people with enough of an interest in the topic that they've already read them.

Yes I think alot of mine are in the last category....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I will concur that Banksias did flit through my mind as I wrote that (along with extinct bat species), but it seemed a little churlish to pick somebody else's as an example, especially given that I have Wandsworth Bridge (which may hold the record for the highest significance/interesting-things-to-say-about-it ratio of anything ever built*) to my name—it even had DYK that there's nothing interesting to say about it on the main page. At some point I ought to ask Bencherlite to run it as TFA (it is eligible…) and see if it makes the usual suspects who whinge about boring content on the main page** self-destruct with indignation. – iridescent 11:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

*As HJ Mitchell and Julia W had the pleasure of hearing me drunkenly trying to explain at great length recently, Wandsworth Bridge's single interesting feature is also a damn nuisance; it retains its remarkably effective wartime camouflage. This is a major piece of ironmongery—as of about five years ago the second busiest road bridge in the UK—but it's astonishingly difficult to take a photograph in which the bridge doesn't either blend into the background or appear to be much smaller than it is.

**Special mention to the guy who nominated Norwich Market for deletion on the grounds of "non-notability".

Just imagine it is Stephen Fry chatting about it on QI...it'll seem more worthwhile then - just been watching a couple of episodes of this with my kids....dunno, must have more intrinsic merit than Miley Cyrus or a Kardashian....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Since QI's research team's methodology appears to be "go through the contribution history of myself, Eric Corbett and Parrot of Doom, share out the results between Fry's scripted questions and the guests' scripted answers, and pad it out with whatever happens to be on TIL that day without ever bothering to check its accuracy or credit the author", my opinion of it is not high. I've caught them previously passing off blocks of Wikipedia text verbatim (and uncredited, natch) as their own content. See this episode, where the chat about Tarrare is literally taken verbatim from Wikipedia, right down to the slightly awkward phrasing about "a toddler" I used to avoid close paraphrasing issues with "a child between one and two" which appears in every source other than Wikipedia. (Not as odd as it sounds that they'd all use the same wording, as they've all drawing from Percy's paper as a primary source.) While I'm on this tirade, if you're ever in Manchester then visit MOSI's new Revolution Manchester Gallery and see if there's something oddly familiar sounding about their showpiece exhibits on the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine and the Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. (I'm amazed QI haven't picked up on Eilley Bowers yet—possibly the single most peculiar biographical article I've ever written, and one which I keep hoping someone will find the sources for to flesh out and take to FAC. Given that she's "one of the most researched, written and talked about women in Nevada history"—and that's the University of Nevada Department of Women's Studies saying that, who presumably ought to know—I find it singularly difficult to find any of said research, writing or talking other than what I already used. @Dr. Blofeld and Rosiestep, did you find anything when you were writing Sandy Bowers?) – iridescent 16:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I was on a game show once where Amanita muscaria was described as the quintessential toadstool and I could say, "haahahaaaaahaaaa" wonder where that came from! (chuckle) ...now I am depressed about QI....oh well....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of what game show could possibly have included the phrase "Amanita muscaria is the quintessential toadstool", and failing miserably. I think every assumption I have about Aussie TV must be seriously wrong.

That particular "Illness" episode of QI had Ben Goldacre, self-appointed arch-scourge of uncited statements and misuse of sources (incidentally his talk archive is the history of Wikipedia in miniature, complete with people demanding to include The Truth I Read On A Website Somewhere, a conspiracy theory about SlimVirgin, sarcastic comments from Andy Mabbett and interminable ramblings about reliable sourcing), as one of the panelists. Cut from the original broadcast, but retained in the extended QI XL version included on Dave's endless loop of repeats, is an impressively uncomfortable scene in which Goldacre says that in his opinion the QI franchise is the single worst offender for giving spurious legitimacy to untrue claims. (Personally I think that's an unfair statement in a world in which the Daily Mail and the laughably-named Independent exist, albeit the BBC is theoretically meant to be held to a higher standard.) The cringe on Stephen Fry's face is worth the licence fee alone. My personal opinion of QI books and programmes as a source is identical to my opinion of the Mail—if what they claim is true, then a genuine reliable source somewhere will have covered it, but they have far too much of a history of reprinting press releases, cut-and-pasting from dubious websites without fact-checking, and cherry-picking data to suit the story they want to tell (yes, I can give examples if someone wants to argue this particular toss—the reporting as undisputed fact of Klar's 2004 Excess of counterclockwise scalp hair-whorl rotation in homosexual men paper, which 'proves' that gay men and straight men are physically different, and whose results AFAIK no other researcher has managed to replicate in the subsequent 10 years, for instance) to be reliable in their own right. – iridescent 17:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since you mention the Mail, it's currently enjoying one of its perennial appearances on WP:RS/N, where it's being defended with the usual combination of "but the BBC makes errors too!" and "you just don't like it 'cos of your liberal bias". In my view, the evolution of these Mail reliability threads is indicative of the steady decline in aggregate cluefulness of our editor corps. Last time around, a prominent editor who's sometimes mistaken for a voice of reason told us that "most medical reporting is actually reasonably good" in the Mail. I was inspired to add #21 to the cynic's guide to Wikipedia as a result. MastCell ^Talk 19:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@iridescent - The Einstein Factor - one had to pick and esoteric subject to be on. I was on three times - first time I chose horned dinosaurs, which is why alot my early edits were on these - I figured actively editing to buff up for a game show was better than passive learning. Second time I went on I chose poisonous mushrooms....(first time was banksias but that was before I edited here)Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mastcell - aaah yes good medical research. I just checked - this article cites this paper (hint - look at the prerandomization bit). Now via the newer article it will end up in Review literature. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Last year, someone else who shall remain nameless (but rhymes with "Bealdgyth") was defending the Mail, and literally within two minutes "Flying saucer sighted in Shipley" popped up as "breaking news". Sometimes, the Mail is beyond parody. (As I write, this fine piece of journalism is one of their "Editor's six of the best" for the day.) President Eisenhower had three secret meetings with aliens, former Pentagon consultant claims is my personal favourite piece of recent Mail nonsense. Well, if "a former consultant" said it on a comedy show, it must be true! – iridescent 21:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I used to struggle to articulate why the Daily Mail is hopeless as a source beyond "well obviously". That was until they plagiarised a Wikipedia article and still managed to introduce errors. Nev1 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the Mail is ever with us, so long as WP:RS/N threads on its reliability are dominated (or at least filibustered) by the same small but vocal set of clueless editors. (It's not that the Mail is the only bad source we use. It's just that if we can't even agree that the Mail is unsuitable, what chance do we have of dealing seriously with more borderline cases?) MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Human-faced pig

In another piece of perfect synchronicity, the bastion of scientific accuracy which is the Daily Mail has today splashed with the story of a human-faced pig. – iridescent 11:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess there are some really horrible looking humans at the Daily Mail. --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I see a striking resemblance to Jaap Stam. – iridescent 13:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

How uncommonly unkind to deformed piglets. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

One spends its life running around a field grunting and covered in mud, while stuffed with illegal chemicals to make it grow faster—the other is a pig. – iridescent 11:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Ba-doom, cha! --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK:The Sirens and Ulysses

Hello! Your submission of The Sirens and Ulysses 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! It is a really interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Replied there. – iridescent 19:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Sirens and Ulysses

On 20 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Sirens and Ulysses, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that The Sirens and Ulysses (detail pictured) by William Etty was described in 1837 as "a disgusting combination of voluptuousness and loathsome putridity"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Sirens and Ulysses. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Sirens and Ulysses

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Sirens and Ulysses 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 Legobot, on behalf of Prhartcom -- Prhartcom (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Long-winded replies there. Johnbod, Victoriaearle, do feel free to comment there also if you have any points to make. – iridescent 21:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Sirens and Ulysses

The article The Sirens and Ulysses you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Sirens and Ulysses for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Prhartcom -- Prhartcom (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Belated responses

Hi Iri, just to let you know, that yes I have seen the pings, and meant to reply earlier. I did take a look at The Sirens and Ulysses, which is nicely done. The real reason I'm finally here is a very late response to the earlier comments about repetition across articles. I've been working on an article about a Hemingway collection of short stories and knew when I saw the initial comment (whenever that was) that I'd be copying quite a bit of text across the suite from article to article. I'm in the process of doing that now (because for some reason the library keeps sending email to return the book!) and I have a clearer sense of how to answer the question. It's useful to copy basic information rather than expecting the reader to click in and out of the parent article. The two articles I've recently created, "Out of Season" and "My Old Man" each share basic background info. Each has separate theme, style, lit crit. sections that might get fully developed at some point. Anyway, long-winded answer to a very old conversation. Not even sure why I'm answering now, except that the copying from article to article reminded me of that conversation. And since I've typed all this out, might as well hit save and force you (and others) to plow through it. Also, totally off-topic, but I've never forgotten your suggestion to work on Struwwelpeter. I just took a look at that page and was like, yikes, what a mess! Victoria (tk) 21:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

As I think I say somewhere in the morass above, my unofficial rule of thumb regarding the minimum amount of basic information is "if a reasonably bright 14-year-old were trying to find out about this topic using only a printout of the Wikipedia article, is there anything they'd need to look up elsewhere for the article to make sense?". Yes, it makes for articles like the much-maligned Wotton (Metropolitan Railway) railway station or yesterdays TFA Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil, where the background dominates the article because it's necessary for the article to make sense, and there's not enough to say about the topic itself to balance it out, but that's IMO an acceptable tradeoff—comprehension is more important than aesthetics.

The odd thing about Struwwelpeter is that even de:Struwwelpeter, which one would expect to be a reasonably high-priority article there, looks in equally sorry condition. Someone, somewhere, must have written an in-depth academic study of the thing. – iridescent 17:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Texas Revolution

Splitting this into subsections as it's getting a bit unwieldy

Comments from Carcharoth and replies

Monuments and memorials

Thanks for the notification about this. I'm probably not going to be able to help with that (digging into archives is something I have ambivalent feelings about), but I will keep an eye on the discussion in case something crops up and I can help after all.

While I am here, I know you are not around much these days, but could I ask for your opinion on a couple of articles I've been editing and/or reviewing recently (or in some cases thinking about editing)? Carcharoth (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, ask away.

As regards Texas Revolution, go with Karanacs rather than myself. I'm looking at this very much as an outsider. (I still feel that it currently presupposes too much background knowledge for a general audience, but it's certainly not something I'll argue over.) – iridescent 06:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Heh. Where do I start? :-)

My interest got caught by Arcul de Triumf, and I left the following queries on the talk page: [12]. I'm kind of wondering where to go from there. I tried WikiProject Romania and MILHIST, but nothing yet. I could ask the article creator (who is still around - I always forget to do that) or work from the Romanian Wikipedia (ro-wiki) article and ask the creator of that article (who speaks English according to their user page). But I'm pondering how much effort that would be...
Another arch that caught my attention was Arch of the Sergii (mainly because I was actually in Croatia in 2014 and visited Pula and saw and photographed it for myself). I did this, but again am not sure where to go from there. It feels like lots more is possible, but quite what I'm not sure.
I then did stuff over on Commons relating to WWI memorial images in France. That is a story going back years, but if you look at this it should give you an idea. I'm going to come back to that later, but it needs a goodly chunk of time to pull links together.
I then added pictures of graves to articles: [13]. It reminded me of the discussion we had about photography in a certain cemetery... I may visit more cemeteries and do more photography, so I'm pondering how useful this sort of thing is.
I then added pics I took at Villers–Bretonneux Australian National Memorial (the annoying thing about that trip is I made a basic error and had the [new] camera on the lowest resolution setting and didn't realise that until the end of the trip). From that, I stumbled across Cross of Sacrifice which has had a really nice upgrade (but see next point).
If you have views on the discussion on the talk page (see Talk:Cross of Sacrifice#Excessive background?), that would be great. It kind of ties into what you said above about background for the Texas Revolution article. I did an edit here (on a different article) that is the sort of 'removing excess background' that I was talking about. It is something I've not seen much of before, where editors new or new-ish to a topic write lots of background and duplicate what is in other articles. Trying to get the balance right there is harder than I realised.
There is a very minor thing at Talk:Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice#Error regarding original location, but that shouldn't be a huge problem. I just need to be more patient for replies (I had forgotten how slow things can be on Wikipedia sometimes).

That was more than I had intended to write... Feel free to ignore the bits that don't catch your interest and/or split out to sections with proper headers. Carcharoth (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. If only Wikipedia had some kind of mailing list where one could go to canvass all the East European editors…

Romania and Croatia

On Arcul de Triumf, you're on your own—I know virtually nothing about Romania. You might want to try asking WikiProject Ottoman Empire as well, given that anything built pre-1878 would have been Ottoman in origin. I know this is heresy against the Wikipedia ideal, but I'd question whether expanding this on en-wiki would be worth the time and effort, since people with an interest in the topic will overwhelmingly be Romanian-speakers, and the ro.wiki article looks in fairly good shape.
Statement of the obvious: Romanians in Britain get a lot of (mainly undeserved) bad press, and if you pop in to The Romanian Cultural Centre in London andThe Romanian Cultural Institute London (they share a building) or write to them I imagine they'd fall over themselves to help once you explained that what you were doing could get something positive about Romanian culture on the front page of English Wikipedia.

On balance, you are probably right here. I will likely let this gather dust on the back burner. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't take my words as gospel on this; there's a reasonable argument (indeed, one I've made myself many times) that Wikipedia's key strength is its ability to highlight material which is of limited interest. Besides, one never knows what's going to suddenly become of public interest—Broadwater Farm was a spectacularly low-traffic page (it even had the distinction of being sneered at on Wikipedia Review for its obscurity at one point), until it suddenly came to public notice in 2011 (and those viewing figures don't count all the newspapers and websites which ripped it off verbatim in their "background" sections). – iridescent 16:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who to speak to about Roman ruins in Croatia, but I agree there ought to be a lot out there. It might be worth asking the authors of Diocletian's Palace if they know of anything.

Maybe. I suspect there is less out there than you might expect. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It may be worth asking people with an interest in Italian history and architecture, if you haven't already. At least some of them are presumably going to take an interest in Roman architecture in general. – iridescent 16:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons and images

At the risk of sounding like a Wikipedia Reviewer, I long ago came to the conclusion that Commons and their over-zealous admins cause far more problems than they solve and strongly agree with the statement at the top of Giano's user page. There is zero possibility that the CWGC (or its American, Russian etc equivalents) will object to Wikipedia hosting images of war graves and memorials, unless you're planning to rearrange them into the shape of a giant cock-and-balls or something—the party line of both CWGC and the War Graves Photographic Project is that hosting photographs of war graves online helps preserve the memory of those who served should the cemetery be damaged or fall into disrepair.
You might want to consider asking WMF or WMUK to consider a formal partnership with the WGPP—it would be a popular (and publicity-generating) cause, would hopefully give the money to hire locals to photograph the graves in cemeteries abroad, and would have no obvious downside for either party. (The WGPP would benefit from Wikipedia's ability to rustle up a legion of enthusiastic amateurs and to deal with the technical issues of hosting huge quantities of high-resolution photographs and making them available on a worldwide scale, the WMF would have the chance to get its name associated with something respectable for once, and riding the current poppy-tinged tide of popular sentiment couldn't do Jimmy's angling for an honorary KBE any harm.) If it hasn't been done already, this is probably also an area where that bot that hoovers up free-use images from Flickr on a given topic would be useful.

Interesting. Commons is OK if you know how to approach it. My basic thesis is that they apply the precautionary principle too readily (mostly when they are unsure or don't know what is really going on) and they should in those cases defer to WMF-paid copyright lawyers to say whether the precautionary principle should be applied or not. The way the precautionary principle is currently applied actively works against building encyclopedic content.
As for making contact with/partnering with the CWGC and the WGPP, I've considered contacting both but not done so yet. I met CWGC people twice - once at an editathon at the British Library (I never followed that up properly) and more recently (last year) at a lecture at the London School of Economics given by David Reynolds. I've not contacted anyone at the WGPP yet.
I may, once I've summarised things a bit more, go that route of suggesting some form of partnership. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, which is admittedly four years out of date, Commons tends to be a game of roulette as to whether you get an ultra-cautious admin who deletes anything you can't prove you own the copyright to, or an information-wants-to-be-free True Believer who refuses to delete something even when that would obviously be appropriate. My feeling has been to upload everything on en-wiki, and if Commons want it as well they're free to make a copy.
IIRC Johnbod, who's already reading this thread, is something big at WMUK so might be able to advise at how feasible the idea is. – iridescent 16:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Grave images

Grave of Alice Ayres, Isleworth Cemetery

My personal rule-of-thumb for gravestones is only to include them on Wikipedia articles when they illustrate something more than "this is where the subject of this article is buried". Alice Ayres's grave is a good example—the fact that a housemaid from Southwark gets a headstone four times the size of anyone else in the cemetery says far more clearly than words that the people of the time obviously considered this person A Big Deal. If you're photographing headstones, TWGPP will probably get better use from the photos than Wikipedia, as well as the obvious benefit of not having to deal with Commons admins; in my view, while I'm sure there are plenty of hard-working and dedicated yadda yadda, Commons has taken over from Wikiversity as en-wiki's penal colony.

Did you notice that I was in that cemetery taking photos? :-) I took one of the memorial over the grave of Alice Ayres (I had looked this up before going there and knew you had taken the photo and written the article), but didn't bother to upload it. Still in good condition. The grave picture I did upload was of the grave marker for George Manville Fenn. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I imagine the Watts Gallery probably ensure Ayres's grave is kept tidy. If you've read Postman's Park or List of tablets on the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice, you'll know George Frederic Watts had something of an obsession with Ayres. Isleworth is quite a nice cemetery, although it's position directly under the windows of the local hospital seems somewhat tactless. The East London Cemetery is also a good one, if you're grave-hunting—it doesn't get the visitors the Magnificent Seven cemeteries get, but has just as many of the great and good of Victoriana interred there. The greatest in the world for photogenic graves is undoubtedly Recoleta Cemetery, which includes my personal favourite "what the hell was the undertaker thinking?" monument, the Tomb of Liliana Crociati de Szaszak. – iridescent 16:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Back to the actual point: what is an appropriate level of background information?

As you can probably tell from the Texas Revolution page, my views on background information veer towards the hyper-inclusionist. My personal opinion is that every Wikipedia article, particularly on an individual landmark or building, should be understandable by an average reader without having to click a single hyperlink. A lot of people, particularly when they're abroad and don't want to use mobile data, will either print out the Wikipedia pages for the places they plan to visit or save them onto an iPad for offline viewing. My personal feeling is that people in this situation who've made a special trip to Ypres to visit the cemeteries, should be able to get at least a basic understanding of (for instance) the fact that the IWGC had only just been created so didn't have a standard set of monument designs. (To repeat a point I was trying to make—badly—on Talk:Texas Revolution, readers of Wikipedia pages are international and things which seem completely obvious to the author often need to be explained to readers. To Americans, in a country where the dedication of a 19th-century military cemetery is taught to every child and where United States national cemeteries have existed since 1867, that the concept of "military cemetery" was only introduced to Britain in the 20th century will seem wildly counterintuitive, given that Britain and its predecessors were fighting wars for fifteen centuries before the US existed.)
Yes, including background means repetition between articles, but my view is that every Wikipedia page ought to be able to stand alone, even though it means in some cases like Chiswick Bridge there will actually be more material on the background than on the topic itself. The "it makes the articles too long!" argument doesn't wash with me; people on desktop PCs have no problem scrolling past material they're not interested in or clicking on the TOC, while the mobile app only shows one section at a time so people who don't care about the background can jump straight to the meat-and-two-veg.
Note that my opinions of the appropriate amount of background are decidedly not reflective of policy; you probably remember that guy a few years ago who got most upset at how much repetition there was between Brill Tramway and Quainton Road railway station. You might want to canvass the views of other people with a Wikipedia background in writing articles on landmarks, monuments and tourist attractions to see what the current consensus among them is on how much background information should be included. In fact, given Wikipedia ~~is ripping off Facebook, poorly~~ has the new facility to "ping" editors, I can do it for you—Eric Corbett, SlimVirgin, Bencherlite, Giano, Victoriaearle, Bishonen, Julia W, Ceoil, Wehwalt, Jimfbleak, TonyTheTiger, Johnbod, Dr. Blofeld, and anyone else still watching this talkpage four years on, do you have any opinions?

That is, um, a lot of people you pinged. :-) I'm guessing half of them are glaring at you for doing that... I'm all for including background detail, but you have to get the balance right and also consider how broad a topic is. If you read in full through Cross of Sacrifice and Commonwealth War Graves Commission you will see the extent of repetition. Stone of Remembrance is an article that doesn't have the extensive background. Would you put something that is 6-7 paragraphs long explaining the IWGC in all the CWGC memorial and cemetery articles? There are hundreds of them. My rule of thumb is that you need a good reason to go beyond a paragraph or two of introductory material before starting the article proper. The other thing is that the more you repeat, the more the introductory texts in different articles will slowly diverge over time. It is best to keep it short and factual, giving basic background, and not over-complicating it. I can go into more detail on this, but I do fear that reading all the main CWGC histories (which was one reason I was able to write the review I did here) has made me a bit oblivious to what may or may not be obvious to people coming cold to the topic (see also the recent addition to Talk:Cross of Sacrifice). Anyway, enough of that. It is writing long replies like this that takes away time from other stuff! (which is not to say that I'm not grateful for your thoughts, it's much appreciated). Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A lot, but a carefully selected lot; they all have a history of writing or photographing topics which people with little prior knowledge of the field are likely to want to look up, which is the issue at hand here. Besides, this talkpage was still one of the hundred most-watched user pages as of the shutdown of toolserver last year—most if not all of them would have seen this discussion pop up on their watchlist anyway.
I still think the repetition is necessary, even if pruned back; someone visiting the military cemetery at Kohima will have no reason to have read the article on Ypres, and you can't presuppose that they're familiar with the IWGC, changing attitudes to the use of mass graves, the thinking behind standardisation of designs and so on. How about keeping it, but dumping it down into the footnote section? That way you get to explain the background for those who don't know, without cluttering the article for those who do? The article on The Morticians Who Must Not Be Named is a good example of this; the footnote section is a huge slab of background material on the reasons for the rise in the popularity of cremations, compostable coffins, Saint Edward the Martyr, separate burial traditions for Anglicans and Nonconformist churches and so on—this is all necessary to the narrative, but it's not reasonable to expect every reader either to know or to care. – iridescent 16:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Memorial tablets to the British Empire dead of the First World War

Jumping back up here (as the section below seems to have veered off into art history and iconography). I recently got round to going back to an article I wrote around this time last year. I'm not entirely sure about the way I've handled it (I added a whole load of transcriptions), and sorting out the layout for images and text drove me up the wall several times, but I'd be interested in your views on it. It is still WWI memorials, but a relatively obscure part of that topic: Memorial tablets to the British Empire dead of the First World War. There are still bits to do around the edges, though I may not take it much further than where it is at the moment. There are good examples in there of bits that could be explained a bit more, but I'll let you see what you think. If that is too long to digest at one sitting, and you have an interest in poetry, see what you think of "O Valiant Hearts" - not an article I wrote, but a poem/hymn that I only found out about from writing other articles. WWI poetry (a massive topic) is another area I'd like to get back to/more involved with. Finding the time is difficult, though, for both reading and writing (and photography!). Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: That's a whopper… I can see good reasons to keep it as one long article rather than four or five short ones, but if you go to FAC (or FLC, depending on how prose-y it ends up), then have your defence ready for the inevitable "each section needs to be its own article!" shrieking. On a topic like this, I don't think it's possible to go into too much background detail—sure, most readers will be military history buffs familiar with the background, but you're also going to get readers in France who've stumbled across them and want to know the significance of what they're looking at. This would be a good case, IMO, for shoving a big gobbett of "Dominions were quasi-independent countries which shared a monarch with Britain and fought alongside the British in WW1 suffering a lot of casualties" background down into the footnotes section, in the same way that Daniel Lambert uses the footnotes to explain the difference between a 19th-century English gaol and an modern American jail. (Is this table really complete? I get that the Westminster and Amiens memorials are the memorials for the entire Commonwealth, but it seems odd not to have local versions in Australia, South Africa, India and New Zealand at the very least. It also seems odd for Vancouver to get one, but not Montreal, Ottawa or Toronto.) As a quick aside, you mention that the London and Vancouver ones were amended in 1945 to add WW2—in the case of those that didn't update the existing memorial, did they install a separate monument?
Although it violates the MOS in pretty much every single way, I think List of tablets on the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice might be a good general model to follow—that big sortable table of images looks unwieldy, but means people can sort the images themselves by date, artist, location etc, and thus have an easier time if they want to compare the contrasting styles of the designers, or see how the design principles evolved over time.
The first thing that strikes me on O Valiant Hearts is "if the author only died in 1954 than this is a cut-and-paste copyvio". It's not something I know much about, and the prose section is too sketchy to offer an opinion. WP:POETRY is moribund, but the classical musical project is quite active regarding religious music at the moment, if you can weather the inevitable 60 megabyte argument about how the article should be formatted.
Of all Wikipedia's regulars, the two who are probably best placed to answer questions about English religious poetry are, for reasons with which you will be wearily familiar, not currently in a position to comment here, but you know well enough how to get hold of them should you want their input.
Incidentally, the local council has finally lost patience with the LNC soap opera and nationalised Brookwood Cemetery. – iridescent 12:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Duplication of information & religious symbolism

I don't see anything wrong with relevant repetition. For example, I wrote three kinglet FAs which had sizeable overlaps in terms of taxonomy and behaviour, but each has to stand alone, so the repetition is not only warranted but essential. The amount of background is more difficult, just don't assume that readers share your interests or your nationality. You may need technical stuff later, but if the lead is too difficult, or assumes a national shared consciousness, you will lose your audience. And looking below, I've found several errors in the OED too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't necessarily assume the CWGC is correct and Prioryman is wrong. Even the most reliable of sources can make mistakes (I've spotted some glaring howlers in the ODNB in my time). I take it you're aware that any significant involvement in Gibraltar-related articles is liable to prompt a rabble of weirdos you thought you'd heard the last of when you left Arbcom to start following you around being annoying again. – iridescent 12:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Jim. Anyone who looks at the Pendle witches and the Samlesbury witches will see significant repetition, but without it the articles, especially the Samlesbury one, would make little sense. Eric Corbett 16:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Me too, and the OED is very iffy on art history terms, many recent imports in the 1880s, whose meanings had not settled and whose entries are yet to be revised -my favourite is this (last para). But you have to strike a balance, and lazyness plays a part. One could go nuts on the iconography of standard religious scenes in paintings, but I tend just to cover what is individually distinctive. Johnbod (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Heh, does the laziness extend to not signing your posts, Johnbod? :-) I'm just dropping back over here to say that having those standard designs of the Cross of Sacrifice and Stone of Remembrance for the war graves cemeteries really makes for a constant distinctive look to those CWGC cemeteries, but each one looking different in its surroundings. I pulled together 40 examples at Crosses of Sacrifice (Commons page). The thought briefly flits through my mind as to whether it would be possible to do an (illustrated) list of the several hundred (over 400 after WWII) in the UK, or even of the 1000+ in France and Belgium. Then I realise that doing something like that would take a long, long time. Then I remember that they actually built 1000+ of the things... (not to mention the graves themselves). The way you do anything with large numbers involved is to get lots of people to do it, or to take a long time to do it. Carcharoth (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just forgot. Johnbod (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine the WGPP has photos of all the Crosses of Sacrifice, even if they don't have all the individual graves yet, and might be willing to release them into the public domain if someone asked nicely. This might be one of those occasions where Jimbo Wales is actually useful for once—people who'd have no hesitation telling anonymous internet users to piss off might be more amenable when asked nicely by Saint Jimmy of Wales, star of stage and screen and patron saint of new media.
@Johnbod, I'd say it depends on who's likely to be looking at the painting. Someone looking at the Wikipedia articles on Bartolomé Bermejo altarpieces can reasonably be assumed to know the basics of Christian iconography; someone looking up Beata Beatrix (my, that's a crappy article for such a significant painting) is much more likely to be someone who's attending a PRB exhibition or who thinks the poster would look nice on their wall, and thus more likely to need to be led by the hand through what the significance of each element is. Something like Guernica, where it will be of interest to a world-wide audience who can't be assumed to have even the vaguest knowledge of either the Spanish Civil War or cubism, literally needs to have every single element pointed out and explained. – iridescent 17:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking more of say Fra Angelicos, Filippo Lippis or Giottos, which are very likely to be looked at by people who don't know much of "the basics of Christian iconography" (whatever that means for today's youf). For traditional stuff I prefer to write up the iconography by subject, though one knows few follow the links. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

OR alert! I'd say the minimum a reader needs to know in order to interpret traditional Christian paintings are (a) the stories of the nativity and crucifixion, (b) the significance of the cross, (c) how to tell the infant Jesus from the infant John. It's reasonable to assume any reader will know (a) and (b); yes, there will be some readers who don't know even these basics (how many Brits couldn't describe the most basic tenets of Islam or Buddhism?) but it's not reasonable to include "the cross formed by the two sticks in the Madonna of the Yarnwinder is an allusion to the cross which Jesus was nailed to prior to his death and resurrection, providing the central miracle to the biblical narrative around which all other elements of the narrative of sin and redemption revolve" just to cater for this minority. The symbolism of flowers and animals, I'd leave out even though most people can no longer interpret them without help, as incidental to the main theme, other than in those cases like the early PRB where showing off the artist's understanding of symbolism is the purpose of the work, or something like The Ambassadors where the incidental symbolism is nowadays the part of most interest.

On a slightly broader note, I think the amount of required background varies according to the context in which people are likely to view the building/artwork/monument etc. Something like Statue of Liberty or Christ of Saint John of the Cross is going to be seen by a lot of people who know it's somehow significant but have no idea why (true confession; to this day I have no understanding of what the significance of the Liberty Bell is, despite having been told dozens of times). In these cases, it's reasonable to include more background information than would normally be expected IMO. – iridescent 14:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd stick in the first bit of the Yarnwinder stuff at least. But even the most basic narrative scenes often have a good deal of complexity. I do a "wiki Christmas card" most years, for DYK on 25/12. This year Adoration of the Magi (Fra Angelico and Filippo Lippi) which has plenty to chew on (and a little OR at the end) & I see now I diod more general explanation than I remembered. The Crucifixion, or the surrounding figures, need quite a lot of explanation. I've done Nativity of Jesus in art but the crucifixion will have to wait until I break both legs, although I've nibbled at the edges with Swoon of the Virgin and Ecclesia and Synagoga. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I may make a brief return to Wikipedia to tidy up some of the 19th century painting articles. I don't particularly like them either as artists or as people, but for something like The Mill (Burne-Jones painting) to be a redlink, or for The Last of England and Ecce Ancilla Domini to be a 500-word stub and a 330-word stub respectively does not reflect well on Wikipedia.

I know why Wikipedia's coverage of the 19th-century arts has such gaping gaps in it, but it doesn't make it any less of an embarrassment, given how thoroughly Wikipedia can cover Big Brother and Pokemon, that The Fighting Temeraire has a shorter article than USS Defiant, or that Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is four times (!) longer than The Pickwick Papers. At the time of writing, the entire "plot" section of East Lynne—a three-volume behemoth which was one of the most popular works of the entire 19th century (and, until J K Rowling, probably the most successful work of fiction written by a woman) and which is notorious for having one of the most convoluted and complex plots of all time—is 54 words long. – iridescent 12:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Well that would be great. As usual on WP, the situation is much worse at the higher "topic" level: Victorian painting, Victorian poetry (2 paras in Victorian literature) - but then again Elizabethan literature. Aaargh! I touched up The Fighting Temeraire & I think it does an adequate job. Mind you, I've spent part of the afternoon at the Ashmolean's Blake exhibition, & Category:William Blake almost takes on the trains, boats & planes brigade. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

PS, of course HMS Temeraire (1798) is also far longer than the painting's article! Possibly it should be. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

My views on the "pages get worse the higher you go" issue are, I think, fairly well known. I don't generally see it as a problem that the high-level pages are fairly uniformly terrible on Wikipedia (Crop, Speech, Prose and Adult, take a bow); where Wikipedia shines is its ability to cover the more obscure topics in detail. If I wanted to know about crops, the fact that the Wikipedia article is 112 words long (!!!) is just an inconvenience, as I can find out about the topic elsewhere without any trouble—but Britannica and co aren't going to tell me about urad beans, marula, tatsoi and other individual crop species other than the usual cabbages and wheat.

That seems reasonable—as a rule of thumb, I would think there to generally be more to say about the subject of a history painting than about the artwork itself, aside from a few biblical or classical themes where very little is actually known about the subjects so the story is how the artist chose to represent the theme.

In defence of the trains, planes and boats brigade (my first ever FA was Hellingly Hospital Railway, so I feel honour-bound to come to their defence), part of the reason for the bloat in the number of articles in these topics is the insistence of the small cliques that own WP:RAIL and WP:MILHIST upon taking an "every grain of sand" approach, insisting that every individual ship, railway station etc has its own article even when there's very little to say about it. As recounted somewhere in the morass of text above, when I wrote Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway, the trains people were shrieking that every tram stop needed to be a separate stand-alone article, even though it's far more use to any reader to see them all listed together for comparison, and it meant ridiculous articles like Wood Siding railway station where the most exciting thing in the history (literally) was the fact that the stationmaster propped a ladder against an oak tree. (And then, when I did concede and do it as six separate articles, someone else accused me of only doing it because I was a "star collector" looking to get the credit for multiple articles.) To be fair, planes, trains and boats are nowhere near the worst offenders for the "every grain of sand" approach—species articles win hands-down on that one (List of non-marine molluscs of El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda, Venezuela, anyone?), with cricketers running them a close second. (The MCC archives caught fire in the 19th century, so nothing is actually known about most early cricketers other than their names on scorecards—but they played at least one match at the highest level, so per WP:Notability (sports) their articles can't be deleted, leading to such informative articles as Smith (Cambridge University cricketer (1831)).)

Much as I dislike Etty and everything he stood for, I am sorely tempted to push The Sirens and Ulysses (redlink, natch) through DYK, FAC and TFAR just to see Eric's current tormentors' discomfort at having a giant slab of Manchester-based muscle-man/naked-teenager/rotting-corpse Victorian proto-pornography on the main page. Although I opposed Cirt's "Fuck" nominations at TFAR for reasons I still stand by—tripping the porn filters and getting Wikipedia blacked out in schools hits the people who need it most the hardest—I am coming to see why he's doing it. While Wikipedia's had its fair share of problematic editors and disputes over how to deal with them in the past, the current situation seems to me to be the first time that Wikipedia has explicitly embraced the language of suppressive persons and potential trouble sources – iridescent 17:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think those Scientology terms describe quite well what's going on here, but it's never seemed any different to me. Eric Corbett 18:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think what's different is the lack of any pretence at fairness. In previous cases of people being declared non-persons by the WMF (Ottawa, Kohs, Peter Damian etc) you might not have agreed with it, but if you asked Jimmy Wales or Sue Gardner their reasoning, they'd talk you through how the decision was made and why. In your case the WMF are explicitly giving "I don't like you" as their reasoning. The fact that on this occasion the charge against your "incivility" is being led by the man who gave us You should however have instead taken your pen, punched a hole in her windpipe and looked on as her attempts to wave for help got increasingly feeble., You're a lifeless, soulless, dickless, witless, spineless individual who makes up for his own lack of social life or integrity by treating the ridicule of others as the first port of call in correspondence, thereby ensuring that you remain a corpulent unwanted cancer on the scrotum of humanity, and We could have a Peter Damian one! as anatomically vacant as a ken doll "punching him in the face feels like punching the real thing!" is not lost on me. – iridescent 18:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

But it's lost on those two, and their boss. Ottava Rima ought to have been allowed back ages ago, as I've said repeatedly. I don't ever recall working with with Peter Damien or Kohs, but from what I've seen of their contributions elsewhere I can't see any justification for the continuation of their bans. Unless of course it's just to stifle free speech, which seems increasingly likely. Eric Corbett 19:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Victorian painting and anal bleaching

I'm not too bothered about very common concepts like adult (which on a quick look seems to do a decent job, and whose hilarious lead pic justifies the price of admission alone) but I very much believe we should be doing things like Victorian painting well - actually Prof Google doesn't have much that is easily digested. One front line of wiki-prudery at the moment is Anal bleaching, where pics are not allowed (see talk). Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Give me a few days, and I'll put the shell of Victorian painting together; I have enough floating about the house to create at least a core. I suspect it will end up being virtually a disambiguation page—Edwin Landseer, George Richmond, Horatio McCulloch, James McNeill Whistler, and Dante Gabriel Rossetti are only linked by geography and time, and lumping them together because they were prominent during the reign of Queen Victoria makes no more sense than lumping Bridget Riley, David Hockney, Malcolm Morley and Tracey Emin together as prominent during the reign of Elizabeth II.* If I limit it to "paintings which viewers think of as typically Victorian", realistically it's going to be a prelude on Frederic Leighton, the PRB's greatest hits as the main body, and a postscript on Watts.

Victoria's birth and death aren't really good cut-offs in a more general art historical sense. Either one takes Turner, Constable and Blake as marking the start of the period, all of whom pre-date the period (and two of whom died before her coronation), or one takes the foundation of the PRB more than a decade into her reign; likewise, typically "Victorian" symbolist/romanticist art remained the predominant theme until vorticism and the War shook things up.

It comes as little surprise that the Shock And Disgust at anal bleaching turns out to be orchestrated by the GGTF. (The mind boggles at how this is covered by the "gender gap", since the article makes it clear the procedure is used on both male and female bumholes.) If it's not possible to source "before" and "after" pictures of the same person, I can kind of see the point that the images are potentially misleading, given that it's not possible for the viewer to know what effect is down to the bleaching and what is down to natural coloration. Given Wikipedia's connection to the International Penis Selfie Database, it would surely be possible to find something suitable. (If you're looking for pictures of unattractive arseholes with an unnatural level of whiteness, this page would be a good place to start.) – iridescent 18:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

*Even the Tate Gallery has belatedly recognised the stupidity of trying to categorise British art by date, and has finally re-curated their permanent collection by theme. By a happy coincidence, this re-hanging has led to the most poster-friendly works (Ophelia, The Painter and his Pug, Beata Beatrix, Carnation, Lily, Lily, Rose, Flatford Mill) all being near the gift shops.

That would be great! I forgot that I (mostly) had done a section in Art of the United Kingdom - I've now redirected Victorian art there, though there's precious little on sculpture. Some of that fits your prospectus above. I'll leave Victorian painting in the hopes you take it. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Sirens and Ulysses is now blue. It would be appreciated if you could look it over—this is my first significant mainspace edit for four years, and I have no great desire to read VAMOS to see how it's changed so it's probably in breach of something. I'll do Victorian painting when I get the chance. – iridescent 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Very nice - nothing much on a quick one-over. I've added a (no doubt ineffectual) Pharoah's Curse against an infobox; please remove if that doesn't convey your views. I notice that Manchester Art Gallery contains NO links to articles on specific works there, nor does it have a category! Pah. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The lack of an infobox is as much to make a point as anything else—as RexxS once pointed out to me, my views on the box-or-no-box debate are actually more strongly in the pro camp than Andy Mabbett's. That said, I think this is a poster child for "article which is more appropriate without an infobox"; there is literally nothing an infobox would include that isn't already in the sentence "The Sirens and Ulysses is a large oil painting on canvas by the English artist William Etty, first exhibited in 1837", and keeping it box-less allows the lead image to be large enough that the viewer can actually see what it's a painting of.

I did notice the lack of a Manchester Art Gallery category when I was trying to find appropriate categories for this. I believe (but don't quote me) this may actually be the first Wikipedia article on a work in the MAG—at least, I can't think of any others. (The only really well-known work I can think of in the MAG collection is Leighton's Captive Andromache For its size and importance, the MAG actually has very few well-known works; back in the 19th century the Walker Gallery and even the deservedly-maligned Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery did a much better job at picking works that in hindsight were of lasting significance, whereas the MAG tends to be full of tat which mill owners thought would look nice on their bedroom wall. Plus, Manchester has never been a hotbed of painting so there's no local boy to fill the space; the one Manchester artist who actually is of major significance, Lowry, had all the important works poached to Salford. (I look forward to the irate post from someone at WP:GM about my slur on their great artistic tradition, to which I reply that the word "artist" only appears twice on List of people from Manchester, for Fee Plumley and Peter Saville respectively. No, me neither.) – iridescent 16:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Alfred Waterhouse was an artist with a drawing board and a set square. And he worked in Manchester. Does that count? Nev1 (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not dissing the creativity of Manchester—Manchester was where George Stephenson, Frederic C Williams, Metrovick and Marx & Engels between them designed and built the entire modern world (and where a provincial coroner in Eccles made the landmark ruling on liability for industrial accidents that made the modern world possible), has a musical heritage ranging from Barbirolli to Bez, and a remarkable architectural history in those places like Ancoats where neither the council nor the IRA managed to get at the buildings—but for whatever reason, virtually no tradition of the fine arts. This is probably not unconnected to the fact that for most of the nineteenth century the entire place was generally invisible under a blanket of smog. – iridescent 11:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(adding) I was also astonished at how little Wikipedia has on the actual story—I was expecting to need to include a "this is about the painting, for the story of Ulysses and the Sirens see XXXXX" hatnote, but aside from two sentences at Siren (mythology) and one sentence in Odyssey it doesn't appear to be covered anywhere on Wikipedia. – iridescent 16:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)At the least there's Work (painting), The Hireling Shepherd, The Scapegoat (painting) (all waaaaaay better known than the Leighton, surely), Cromwell, Protector of the Vaudois, Manfred on the Jungfrau (Madox Brown), Stages of Cruelty. I bet there are a few more - some may not even be Pre-Raphaelite. I think Manchester was almost entirely reliant on gifts - Brum had Thomas Bodkin and a budget for a crucial period, when prices were cheap. According to Wikipedia, the Barber was only founded in 1932, and only had 7 paintings when Bodkin took over on 1935 - it's a collection formed in the Depression. Not that it has a frigging category either - there's at least The Harvest Wagon. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I probably have an exaggerated impression of the significance of the Leighton, as last time I was in the MAG a lunatic attacked it with a knife, which is the kind of thing that leaves an impression. – iridescent 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What, while you were in the building? Wow. I see I've been mixing up the Barber and the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, not having been to either for a long time. The latter also has no category, but a gallery of top works with articles, just what Manchester needs. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I imagine the people who write about Manchester have by and large had the drive kicked out of them by now, given the sustained assault they've been under. WP:WikiProject Greater Manchester#Participants reads like the Wikimedia Foundation's private death list. – iridescent 17:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed I never replied to your original question—yes, while I was in the building, although I was on another floor so all I knew of it was an alarm sounding and some flustered staff. Captive Andromache has form for being damaged; it also got attacked by suffragettes back in 1913. (Suffragette attacks on railway stations is another redlink I have a vague intention of turning blue at some point, as the suffragette anti-railway campaign is something that's completely forgotten nowadays—at least three stations—Saunderton, Blaby and Leuchars—were not just damaged but destroyed.) – iridescent 17:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done – iridescent 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on the form of Sirens

Regarding [14], I think Etty was the first to show them in human form although it's not something I know a great deal about; certainly Robinson seems to think he was. All the sirens I can think of in art prior to Etty either had chicken feet, or fish scales. The fully human women in classical art are nymphs, nereids and sprites rather than true sirens—the Metamorphoses makes it very clear that the sirens were part-bird. Richard Green claims Etty's sirens were a lift from the nymphs in The Disembarkation at Marseilles, which seems eminently plausible—Etty certainly liked the work enough that he made his own copy while in France. – iridescent 18:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I thought so. A look at Commons shows vast numbers of artists following the top-shelf approach after him; I couldn't see any before. I've started Category:Collection of Manchester Art Gallery, now 10 strong. I'm sure there are more. Actually Category:Collections of Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery has 15. No Barber, Port Sunlight cats. See Category:Collections of museums in the United Kingdom. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If you don't mind a bit of extreme OR, Etty was unschooled in both the literal and the figurative sense—he'd been an apprentice printer before he discovered he had a knack for illustration. Since he hadn't had either the training in Ancient Greek classics, nor the academic training in the 'correct' way to paint various subjects, he presumably didn't feel it necessary to follow the traditional approach.

I don't know if he sparked a revolution, or if it was just a change in fashion (presumably inspired by the PRB), but chimeras seem to disappear from English art altogether at about this time, not just in the case of sirens—aside from heraldic uses and a couple of mermaids I can't think of any more recent gryphon, minotaur, selkie etc in any significant work. Someone will no doubt pop up to correct me.

I may make another brief return to Etty, having come across the sheer what-the-hell-is-going-on-here factor of Male Nude with Arms Up-Stretched. If Sirens was considered obscene, I can't imagine what the Victorians must have made of this, which looks like the promotional poster for a gay sex club as painted by a Soviet Realist. – iridescent 19:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Johnbod, noticed your tidy-up of Manchester Art Gallery and categorisation of the paintings. Can you think of a way that isn't horribly clumsy to make it clear on Work (painting) that FMB painted this one twice; there's a large version of it in Manchester and a slightly different version in Birmingham; he finished them both at the same time, so one can't treat the first one finished as "the original" and relegate the other(s) to "replica" as Wikipedia does with Beata Beatrix. The Last of England (painting) (Cambridge and Birmingham) has the same problem; interestingly, in both cases it's the Brummies who get overlooked in the infobox. – iridescent 11:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Likewise The Derby Day and The Scapegoat. Aren't the articles clear enough? My preferred solution to all the many art infobox problems is to remove the infobox, but I think they can cope with 2 versions; . The Scapegoat just has two. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

TLOE yes, Work no—the article only discusses it as a single piece and makes no mention of there being multiple versions, so any reader would reasonably assume that only one version exists, and that if they want to see it, they need to go to Manchester. It's not something I'd lose sleep over—for something like Virgin of the Rocks with a high number of readers who are specifically interested in the differences between the versions it's necessary (although whoever thought the best solution to two copies of a painting existing is two infoboxes should be drowned like a kitten), but unless and until Dan Brown writes The Pre-Raphaelite Code there's not going to be the same stream of people wanting to know where and how they can make a pilgrimage to the original to search for the hidden clues every art historian in the world missed up to now. (3200 views in the past three months; for comparison Tarrare had 100,000.) Besides, anyone interested enough in FMB that they'd want to know where they could find Work would presumably have Birmingham Art Gallery on their to-do list anyway for TLOE and Pretty Baa Lambs so would find it when they got there. – iridescent 11:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually Andy Mabbett appeared to me in a vision last night, with a fiery sword, and I have added the Brum Work, with a 2nd infobox. The Brum ref you gave above has raised an issue as to whether we date the Manchester one correctly. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but I suspect both sources are "right" regarding the completion date. The PRB were notorious for tinkering and retouching; I can quite believe that FMB completed it in 1863, then came back and made some changes a couple of years later. – iridescent 19:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Almost 13,000 views. Sex and death is still a winning combination, it appears. – iridescent 20:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Texas Revolution peer review

Hi Iridescent. I've just opened a peer review for Texas Revolution as the final step before we try for FA status. I hope I've addressed all the concerns/comments that you made earlier, and I'd very much appreciate it if you could take another look and let us know what you think. Warning: it's really long now. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Will do. All you people in the thread above, that goes for you as well, particularly Eric, since you're presumably the ones who'll be supporting or opposing at FAC. – iridescent 16:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs, I've not forgotten—will get to this when I get the chance. – iridescent 13:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 19, 2015

Hi Iridescent. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Does the article need more work before its day on the Main Page? I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? (And if so, what would you like me to remove to make room?) - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Surely this one would make more sense to run on 15 September, since it's so clearly tied to a specific date? Certainly, a 285th anniversary isn't a particularly significant one, but it still makes more sense than a random date, especially when we have Eraserhead in WP:FANMP with clear date relevance. (If I were in charge of scheduling, personally I'd keep this one back until 2017 and run it on the day construction starts on HS2, but that's not my call to make.)

Do you have any objection if I rewrite the blurb, or would you prefer I make suggestions and the delegates do the actual rewriting? (Bencherlite was generally happy for people to rewrite the blurbs, while Raul was notoriously touchy about it; I don't know how you prefer to do things.) The current wording seems rather unbalanced, and makes what was arguably the most notorious fiasco in the entire history of civil engineering sound like some kind of triumph. (Yes, the bad publicity ultimately created the Industrial Revolution, by drawing the public's attention to these new inventions called "machines", but that was a happy accident.) I appreciate this is a difficult one to summarise, as it's essentially a combination of three articles ([[Opening of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway]], [[Death of William Huskisson]] and [[1830 Manchester riots]]), all of which are significant in their own right but which are so intertwined that it's impossible to separate them into separate articles.

Plus, while describing William Huskisson as "a Member of Parliament" is technically correct, it's very misleading given that the man was one of the architects of the 19th-century world while MPs are two a penny—it's like describing Douglas MacArthur as "an American soldier". – iridescent 22:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Brian is doing the scheduling for March, so I've just pinged him. I had the same reservations about what to focus on that you do ... and if you can get something done in 1200 characters that doesn't raise more questions than it answers, you're more than welcome ~~to take a stab at it~~. The only reason I didn't say more about William Huskisson was that I was out of space. - Dank (push to talk) 22:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC) P.S. striking "take a stab", some see a negative tone in that. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Iridescent: If you feel strongly that the article should not run on 19 March, then I'll defer it. The problem is that most featured articles are tied to specific dates in some way, but I have to find articles for all the dates not covered by TFAR, and that inevitably means choosing some that would perhaps be a better fit on other days. If there was, say, an upcoming 100th, 150th or 200th anniversary, I obviously wouldn't pick it, but 185th (not 285th) doesn't seem particularly special. And I liked the article (I'm from Liverpool). But I'll go along with what you decide. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked it to add a bit about Huskisson; we're right up against the 1250 limit (1246), so you'll have to take something out if you want to put something in. If it doesn't run on 19 March, then ~~save it in the form~~ move it to WP:Today's featured article/requests/Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Dank, how about this as an alternative (1238 characters)? This strips out a bit of background and redundancy, and also fixes an error from the lead (which I've also fixed in the article) regarding the placement of "for the first time", while bringing in a bit about the riots so all the major aspects (opening/accidents/rioting/funeral/reaction) get at least a mention. Feel free to revert any or all of it. This is a pig of an article to summarise as it's such a sprawling saga—the legacy section alone is the length of some articles.

Brianboulton, I don't have strong objections to running it now (and am aware of what a pain it is to de-schedule a TFA), and certainly have no attachment to a 185th anniversary. This is (literally!) Wikipedia's only Liverpool FA that isn't about either football or the Beatles—it seems a shame to me to blow it on a nonspecific date. Since come May's elections Britain will either have a Cameron government with a manifesto commitment to Northern Powerhouse and Northern Hub, or a Milliband government with a manifesto commitment to HS2, it's pretty much a given that fairly soon the railways of the northwest will be all over the papers. – iridescent 12:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Very nice. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll defer it and await a TFAR nomination. I'd make this September rather than 2017 – who knows what may happen before then? Brianboulton (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for that. If you're after eccentric Victorian "better living through engineering" projects, you might want to try Noel Park, although it needs a bit of a clean-up. While you're here, could I ask you not to schedule Tarrare until this truly bizarre "chamber opera for puppets" gets a launch date—if anyone's going to take on a project as eccentric as setting this to music, I feel the least we could do is give them a spike in interest in their subject. Despite having hardly any incoming links, this page gets about 400,000 views a year purely from chatter about it on Reddit and Twitter—when it does run, I confidently predict it becoming the most-viewed-of-all-time TFA not to have an accompanying image. (If you ever want to have Jimbo Wales turn up earnestly asking you to reconsider your position, Pig-faced women has yet to run.) – iridescent 14:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What about Wotton (Metropolitan Railway) railway station? I'm keen to hold the railway theme if possible? Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, although bear in mind that its sister article Waddesdon Road railway station was the one that set the QAI group nuts about 'low standards' when it ran a couple of years back. You might want to go for Brill railway station instead, which is marginally less dull. – iridescent 02:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, Brill it is. I have removed a couple of twerpish additions to the text - maybe you could glance at it before 18th, to see there aren't other idiocies hiding away. I expect Dan is watching this page, so he will know that he has to work on the Brill blurb, but I'll ping him anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Done with the TFA paragraph, have a look. Again, I'm right up against the size limit, so if you want to put something else in, take something out. - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

How about that, which preserves all the meaning but brings it down to 1189 characters?

Not sure how you feel regarding images that aren't directly of the subject, but while we don't have an image of the station itself (it wasn't much to look at, anyway), File:Original Locomotive and Train, Wotton Tramway.jpg might be a good illustration for this, as it gives an impression of what it must have been like in operation, and doesn't show any other building so isn't going to mislead anyone regarding what the building looked like. – iridescent 13:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Crisco 1492 on the image question. I'll go make one edit where I may not be getting the point; otherwise your edits are fabulous. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Train image is fine. Uploaded locally (and thus not subject to UK copyright laws), published before 1923. Source is working. Good to use. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

quality standards
Thank you for quality articles such as today's Aylesbury duck, for patiently trying to reach the best possible quality, for understanding the difference between "ownership" of an article and responsibility for it ("People familiar with the topic are more likely to know of problems regarding it" isn't a blasphemy against the spirit ...), for presenting yourself not in userboxes but in dialogue, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (7 February 2009, 29 January 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 517th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize,

Thanks, although if I'm going to be remembered for something I'm not sure Aylesbury duck would be the one I'd choose. That one's so boring, even the vandals didn't bother with it. – iridescent 10:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Same for BWV 172 ;) - What would you want to be remembered for? - I put mine in my user's infobox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In terms of articles, Biddenden Maids, Daniel Lambert and Pig-faced women for (I hope) showing that it's possible to treat really peculiar topics sensitively without engaging in "hey, look at this weird thing!" posturing; Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway for (I hope) explaining why something 99% of readers will never have heard of was a genuinely world-shaking event with consequences that are still affecting all our readers' daily lives today; Battersea Bridge and Hellingly Hospital Railway for showing that it's possible to write on a dry technical topic without going into "the 4-4-2 Manning Wardle tank engine was fitted with twin reciprocating camshafts" nerdiness; and Halkett boat for bringing those wonderful drawings to a wider audience.

In terms of Wikipedia meta-issues, as one of those who fought to show that there isn't a clear dichotomy between Good Wikipedia editors who toil tirelessly for the greater good, and Evil banned users who circle the project like a pack of wolves (or if you prefer, Evil drones who slave for Jimbo's self-aggrandizing machine, and Good fearless rebels who dare to challenge the established order and are blocked by the evil cabal), back when the us-and-them mentality was far more entrenched than it is now.

In practice, I know damned well that my Wikipedia tombstone will read 'Coiner of the phrases "Indefinite means undefined not infinite" and "Without content Wikipedia is just Facebook for ugly people" ', with a brief footnote of 'only person ever to be expelled from Arbcom'. – iridescent 11:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, for explaining and for treating really peculiar topics sensitively! - I wish you were on arbcom! Some seem to wait for me to appeal my sanctions, - but how can I appeal to people who didn't look and understand in the first place? - In practise: I'm in the info-box, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been sanctioned by ArbCom as well Gerda but it bothers me not at all. I've never even considered appealing, and I very much doubt I ever will. Where's the fun in prostrating yourself before a bunch of sanctimonious windbags? Eric Corbett 12:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me too much, the restriction to 2 comments in a discussion is even a true blessing, which should be handed out more generously. I only said that I seem to be expected to appeal. No, I won't. My sanction is so ridiculous, example: I wrote more than 90% of Richard Adeney, but I am restricted not to add an infobox because I didn't literally "create" it = turn red link to blue. I had simply forgotten that I hadn't done that, this was in 2009, I only remembered the work I put in. Even more ridiculous is that my police bothers to follow me, revert me, and write a warning. Could some merciful soul perhaps restore the infobox? This is not a composer, there's no controversy on musical artists, - it's just ridiculous. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually there is, but that's beside the point: you're expected to either appeal or stick to the restriction - doing neither is not an option, and helping you to do neither is no mercy. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you hear today's music, lonely hearts club? When I started the article on Neill Sanders I had no idea that he played the famous horn calls. I gave him an infobox recently, and also several of his colleagues. One was reverted, per my restriction. Does it make sense? (The restriction leading to inconsistent treatment of articles, I mean.) Would it make sense to appeal a restriction that doesn't make sense with the very same people who passed it? No. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Break: tunnels and civility

Thank you for the tunnel, - hoping for light at the end ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you... I will put my hand up and admit that Tunnel Railway is not the most exciting article on Wikipedia, but it's as interesting as a barely-used hole in the ground is ever going to be. (What's the significance of the lambananas? With the greatest of respect to that fine city, as symbols of hope go Liverpool city centre wouldn't be top of most people's lists. Except for Hope Street, I suppose.) – incredibly toxic personality 10:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the signature. Great idea! - The lambananas are my signature: picture taken by a missing admired editor. You may remember reading in the Signpost that I translate for editors not wanted here, - in this case I took the picture and send it around the world, a little effort fighting toxic atmosphere. --incredibly toxic personality --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless you've done something to earn his wrath, I don't think "incredibly toxic personality" was aimed at you. Although he's very carefully avoided naming names this time round (understandable, in light of what happened last time he started attacking people he disliked by name), to the best of my knowledge Jimmy Wales's "toxic personalities who allegedly produce good content" are, in roughly descending order, Bishonen (undoubtedly top of his list), Giano, Eric Corbett, Thekohser, Wehwalt, every person listed here, Alison, Rlevse and myself, and I'm not sure the latter two are significant enough to make it onto the list any more.

As regards the issue at the root of this, my thoughts haven't changed since I proposed this rewritten civility policy back Before The Dawn of Time (my bolding of the key points):

The civility policy Wikipedia ought to have doesn't need a novel; it needs three short paragraphs:

"Wikipedia's editors are expected to avoid, unless necessary for editorial reasons, the use of language which can be reasonably expected to offend a significant number of Wikipedia's readers. Wikipedia's editors are also expected to avoid the use of language which can reasonably be construed as belittling another user, unless such language is necessary for editorial reasons (e.g. warning an editor who is repeatedly introducing serious errors and refuses to accept reasonable explanations as to why their changes are inappropriate). Once an editor has had it drawn to their attention that another editor considers their conduct unacceptable, that editor should either cease the behavior in question or explain to the complaining editor why they consider the conduct reasonable; if the editors are unable to agree on what constitutes reasonable conduct, wider community input should be requested to determine consensus on the issue. If an editor continues unnecessarily to use language which has been determined to be offensive to significant numbers of Wikipedia's readers, or which is widely considered to constitute the unnecessary belittling of another Wikipedia editor, sanctions may be imposed upon the editor in question.

Likewise, if an editor repeatedly accuses another editor of inappropriate conduct after such conduct has been deemed appropriate by the broader community, and continues to make such accusations after the fact of it being considered acceptable has been drawn to their attention, sanctions may be imposed to prevent the editor in question from continuing to make vexations complaints.

Other than in exceptional cases in which a given editor's continued activity has a realistic potential to cause serious damage to the English language Wikipedia or serious damage to public perception of the English language Wikipedia, blocks and other sanctions will not be applied for breaches of this policy, both in the case of users using language considered to be uncivil and in the case of users considered to be making vexatious complaints, prior to community discussion about the appropriateness of such sanctions."

While I'm sure there are excellent reasons why this wouldn't work, I've yet to hear one—this is basically a Bradspeak description of the way people interact in the real world.

@Newyorkbrad, Risker, Roger Davies, and Jimbo Wales: why and how has WP:FIVE somehow been elevated with no apparent discussion to some kind of Wikipedia Constitution, rather than an intentionally vague personal essay for people trying to explain Wikipedia to outsiders who disliked the word "dick" in the original WP:TRIFECTA? It still has the prominent "This is a non-binding description of some of the fundamental principles, begun by User:Neutrality in 2005 as a simple introduction for new users" disclaimer on the talk-page, but people who should know better (including Arbcom, Jimmy Wales and the WMF) have taken to quoting it as if Larry Sanger had brought it down on stone tablets from Mount Nupedia. (Presumably the Bomis Babe Engine provided the burning bush) – incredibly toxic personality 16:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Your remark inspired me to add an {{essay}} template; surprised it lasted nearly an hour.[15] Aren't people watching closely? Apparently it's "long established as policy". Hmmm. No {{policy}} template, I see. I should perhaps add one. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC).

Surely "...to make vexatious complaints"? Ben Mac Dui 17:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

'tever. You're probably the first person ever to read it that far. – incredibly toxic personality 18:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, Jimbo's ill-informed and fatuous comments were met with:

[prolonged applause]
Wow. [applause continues]
Okay. [continuing applause]
Wow. Um, I thought I was going to be pushing an agenda here. [laughter] Apparently I'm fulfilling my role as symbolic monarch by speaking the thoughts that bubble up through the community."

I find this most revealing: I always thought those that attended such functions as Wikimania were slightly odd, at best geeky (who else would choose to stay in a chain hotel Clerkenwell); however, now we know, they are not just odd, but a troop of trained performing, clapping seals. Living in Britain must be a complete ordeal for poor Jimbo; one can't help wondering if he ever mixes outside of his charmed circle of Wikipedians, but yes, of course he does, he's tres chummy with that well known paragon of good manners Alastair Campbell. Enough said. Giano (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps those shrinking violets who claim to work in a perfectly civil and harmonious workplace that I certainly don't recognise would find it instructive to spend some time observing Campbell in his: "Campbell admitted to his liberal use of profanities in the workplace". Eric Corbett 21:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite sure, Eric, that we are both mistaken. Surely Jimmy would never be friendly with anyone known for their profanities; no matter how influential they may be. Jimbo would publicly deplore such a person.........wouldn't he? Giano (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not sure why your "Five Pillars" question was aimed at me specifically. When I ran for ArbCom last time, which incidentally was the last time, I was asked about it, I said that it was a good essay that summarizes goals and aspirations, but spoke in broad generalities. I don't think I've ever personally cited it or based a decision on it, though I've voted for principles in which it was cited. The idea that we can resolve complex disputes by pointing to what is a "pillar" or not is an oversimplification. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you pinged me, either. In fact, I'm a bit annoyed that you did. You and I spoke (in person) some years ago about the phenomenon of people who have essentially divorced themselves from the project but occasionally show up being snarky to those who stick it out; back then, you didn't have very high regard for this sort of nonsense. You could well have taken advantage of the fact I was within a brief trip to whine at me in person over this past weekend - a couple of hundred other people did, in some form or another, although I'll admit some had nice things to say as well - but instead you take a sideswipe at me, and several others, for something I had nothing to do with. I have no idea why you're going around naming names that nobody else named, and I think you owe some people an apology. Risker (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(To Brad, Risker and Roger) I wasn't pinging the three of you as holding you responsible for the change (although I can see in hindsight how it would look that way), but in your capacity as Wikipedia's institutional memory. The decision to formalise WP:FIVE must have been taken somewhere.

(To Risker specifically) I still agree on the topic of people who leave Wikipedia but still hang around bitching from the sidelines. (You may have noticed my complete absence from Wikipediacracy et al.) I was briefly back yesterday because Bencherlite emailed me to let me know Tunnel Railway was scheduled for the main page, and the long post above was a reply to Gerda's post. It's hardly a secret that I've believed for a long time that Jimmy Wales's opinions have become divorced from the broad mass of editors to an unhealthy degree. – incredibly toxic personality 08:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

We-ell, let's have an RfC hug-fest. I've set one up at Wikipedia_talk:Five_pillars#What_is_this_page.3F and asked neutrality. Let's ask Jimbo too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Cas, given recent events involving RFCs that have been created at the spur of the moment to "answer questions" that only a few people have asked, and with the expectation that the outcome would be binding on the entire community, if not the entire Wikimedia global community, I'm going to say this isn't a good idea. In fact, I'm going to say that using an RFC in this way is pretty much a terrible idea. Having looked at the RFC you've started, frankly I can see no good outcome for it. People who treat those pages as guiding principles, policy or just some thoughts that were drafted in ancient times are going to continue to do so. There will be insufficient response to the RFC to consider its outcome binding. RFCs for project-wide issues have been largely ineffective since about 2008. Risker (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Risker disagree - to fob it off as Set in Stone comes across as patronising. Leaving these things open for a month or more and advertising. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything is set in stone. I'm saying that the recent history of RFCs to determine policy and similar site-wide issues has been ineffective; they're no longer discussions but instead have become votes that are then supposedly considered "consensus". Iridescent answered his own question in his link; it was rhetorical, not really an actual question, and I think it somewhat presumptuous to act as though this is a burning issue that requires resolution with a full-scale community-wide RFC. Not even Iridescent thought it was a big enough deal to raise the matter on the talk page there. Moving to an RFC when there really wasn't anything being disputed is rather absurd. Risker (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the page then? People throw it around like the ten commandments and yet the page obsequiously says it's not a policy. It goes without saying that once there are more than about four editors one has to review quantitative rather than qualitative aspects of consensus. Folks over there are using some words...and if the discussion ratifies what people want then all well and good. The RfC is then acting like a bit of introspection. No harm in that I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I do admit to cheering from the sidelines when I heard the rapturous applause that the Daily Mail was a very untrustworthy source of news. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What could Jimmy possibly have against the Daily Mail? Don't get me wrong, I agree with him that the Mail is only a reliable source for stories about itself, but he's hardly an impartial observer—and that's quite aside from the barrage of abuse the Mail has subjected his BFF Lily Cole to.[16][17][18] (Cole obviously has a soft spot for unusual characters with beards. Although the painting appears to be of Lion-O from Thundercats.) – incredibly toxic personality 15:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) In my capacity as "Wikipedia's institutional memory" ... I don't remember. (I probably didn't notice it was happening at the time; I've always focused, however ineffectually, on problem-solving, rather than "policy" in the abstract.) Make of that what you will. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly explains why you've voted more than once at ArbCom to have me banned. Policy be damned, let's get rid of the "problem". But the real problem is that you've never actually recognised what the real problem is. Eric Corbett 23:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec, I'm too slow) I believe, that if "incredibly toxic personalities" is used in the name of kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion, we do have a major problem to solve. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

ps: I agree that the term was likely not meant for me, but I don't want to see it applied to any editor or group, - I love my recent label "Fräulein Kriminelle" (my talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

In a general sense, one could quite easily make the case that the most toxic personality on WP is Jimmy Wales. Eric Corbett 23:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett, I've never voted to ban you. More than once I've voted against banning you. I did, regretfully, vote to exclude you from one aspect of project governance (RfA), for reasons discussed in findings in that case. You would at liberty to seek modification of that restriction if you were prepared to participate in that process in a less acid-tongued fashion in the future (and I use the subjunctive because I anticipate you would have no such intention). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I apologize to everyone. That last sentence contained far too many consecutive prepositional phrases. I cringe when I reread it myself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As you correctly anticipate, I have absolutely no intention of appealing anything, ever; in fact I've never even bothered to appeal a block. The RfA process is what it is, and nothing I nor anyone else can say would be likely to improve it now. Eric Corbett 00:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

"The optimist feels we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is so." And with regard to RfA we have few remaining optimists. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That sums it up nicely for me. Eric Corbett 00:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to see the term applied to any editor, which includes JW. --Fräulein Kriminelle --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither do I, but he who lives by the sword dies by the sword ... what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander ... and all that jazz. Eric Corbett 00:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Iridescent, for today's Quainton Road railway station, with a lot of background. - As for "optimist": "hope" is the first word I kept on my talk, placed there by a user who is now a candidate for arbitration ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

And thank you—given that when that one's sister article ran it prompted a huge burst of shouting from someone who appeared to think I was part of some huge unspecified conspiracy to get undeserving articles featured, it went remarkably smoothly. (Possibly because it's such a specialist topic, all those with an interest in it had already read it.) – iridescent 11:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for another "saga of well-intentioned incompetence" today, and that phrase! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you... (Although, this is an article that if I had my way would never have existed) – iridescent 18:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Next meetups in North England

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

Leeds on 12th April 2015
Manchester on 26th April 2015
Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Mike Peel, I probably can't make any of those, but I applaud the advance notification—it always puzzled me why London events were always announced months in advance, while those elsewhere (even the ones like Manchester which are regular as clockwork) aren't announced until a couple of weeks before.

I'm not sure how much work it would be, but I think it would be a good idea to list the whole of the UK rather than just North of England. Someone in (for instance) Derby can get to Manchester, Birmingham or London in much the same time, someone in Newcastle might find it more convenient to go to Edinburgh than the traditional English meetup cities of Manchester & London, etc. Plus, there are some people who wouldn't consider attending a Wikipedia meetup in their local area* but would be happy to make a day-trip elsewhere.

*Some people will have had a falling-out over articles on their home town, and be reluctant to attend a local meetup as they're concerned they'll run into someone they recently had an on-wiki shouting match with, but would still be perfectly happy to meet people with an interest in Wikipedia on neutral ground. I can also think of at least two UK cities whose local Wikipedia groups have acquired a reputation (justly or not) for attracting fruitcakes, loons and weirdos, where people who'd never consider attending their local meetup might be perfectly happy to take a 45-minute train trip to somewhere else. And of course, there are going to be some people who want an excuse for a day-trip to London/Glasgow/Manchester/etc, or are going to be visiting somewhere anyway.

I would also suggest it would be a good idea to have whatever bot is going to deliver these notifications deliver them to all the county/city projects listed at WikiProject England, WikiProject Scotland and WikiProject Wales. Even the moribund ones like WikiProject Sheffield and WikiProject Gloucestershire might still be watched, or at least occasionally read, by people who might be interested in coming. – iridescent 10:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been pointed out on the UK mailing list that there is as yet no set of off-wiki email groups that such people can sign up to. In addition to what you say above, these would be potentially very useful for the large group of people who sign on much less than they once did, but might still be interested. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea, although any off-wiki notification system would have to have a very strictly limited remit to being only for notifications of public events. It would be very easy for such a list to become an off-wiki version of Article alerts and a de facto canvassing mechanism, and lead to a lot of negative blowback. One only needs to look at how many variations of "please come and comment at foo discussion" posts—some of which no longer even pretend to be anything other than canvassing—there are on the GGTF mailing list to see how quickly something set up with the best of intentions can slide down that particular slippery slope. Given the history between San Francisco and Development House, it's safe to say a UK mailing list wouldn't benefit from the "those aren't abuses, they're good faith errors of judgement" blanket indulgence granted to the GGTF, the Education Program and other WMF pet projects.

An elephant in the room that would have to be confronted if the notifications process went off-wiki is eligibility. Are you going to allow anyone interested to sign up, or try to restrict it in some way, and if it's moderated who decides who can join the mailing list? I'd support allowing anyone who wants to sign up, given that they can find out the dates just by watchlisting Wikipedia:Meetup/UK if they care, but bear in mind that this does mean you're likely to find yourself emailing invitations to some rather colourful characters if they choose to sign up. – iridescent 15:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we're talking about an email group maintained by one person, with a "bcc" list, so just easy one-way notifications of events in particular locations rather than opening dialogue, or wider discussions. I don't think you can reply to the group on those (not sure - may depend on the email brand used). We should be anyway. The UK list remains for broader stuff. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It still raises the issue of eligibility, though. While in practice it would just be reposting already-public information, there's a psychological difference between 'This event was publicised on a publicly-viewable board and we have no way to restrict who reads it, and the event is held in a public place over which Wikipedia has no control regarding who has access ' and 'Wikipedia sent a written invitation to a convicted paedophile, to an event whose own publicity said "hopefully younger Wikimedians will still feel welcome and safe"'. You can guarantee that the latter is how the usual suspects will spin it in The Register and The Daily Dot. – iridescent 15:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice idea! This notification was somewhat a test to see if user talk page messages were effective. The results are rather more interesting than I expected: a number of people have signed up for the wikimeets, whilst others have asked not to receive such messages, and most (particularly non-regulars) have not acknowledged the notification yet. I was a bit surprised by the number of banned users on one or another project that I encountered when circulating the notification.

I like the idea of having a UK-wide notification list, and circulating it to the project talk pages too. I suspect that we need to have a wider discussion in the UK community about it first, though. There's the point about mailing lists vs. on-wiki notifications that you've raised above, but I'm also worried about the possible accidental "outing" of people on-wiki as living in a certain area when they don't want that to be known, and that people might find UK-wide notifications to be too general/diluted. We'd also need to consider how often it would be sent around, particularly given that some wikimeets are planned well in advance while others are quite short-noticed, as well as how to deal with interested people in areas where meetups aren't currently happening.

I'm wondering if we should do some sort of survey asking past and potential wikimeet attendees questions like those at User:Mike Peel/Wikimeet survey. Thoughts/edits to that page would be very welcome! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Mike Peel: I'm possibly more susceptible than most to "make it nationwide", as my work tends to take me all over the place. RexxS and HJ Mitchell would probably be better place to say how many people go to events outside their local areas, since they seem to know everyone involved in Wikipedia.

I would think that at a minimum, it would be worth circulating the big regular ones (London, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Leeds) to all parties, even if you don't circulate all the more minor short-notice ones. With the possible exception of Oxford and Cambridge, most people in Great Britain are going to visit at least one of those six places occasionally regardless of where they live, and I can easily see people tweaking their itineraries to attend events if they have enough notice that they're taking place. I would guess that, once a regular mailing was up and running, the more ad-hoc meetings would start to see the advantage in arranging and publicising themselves in advance. (The current arrangement, where people publish a sign-up sheet and cancel if they don't get enough signatures, is woefully inadequate.)

I don't think outing people's location is a legitimate concern, provided you stick to published lists of attendees at previous meetings or membership of projects. Both are already public information, and neither actually discloses anyone's location (as evidenced by the fact that you've just included me in a North of England mailing even though I live squarely in the southeast). A GB-wide mailing list (GB, not UK; I would assume NI users would be more likely to be interested in events in RoI than in the mainland) would surely address any residual outing concerns anyway as it wouldn't distinguish between a subscriber on the Isle of Wight or the Isle of Lewis.

Yorkshire and
the Humber

North
East

North
West

My comments on your proposed survey questions are:

Which city are you based in?
Probably not necessary to ask to this level, as some people might not feel comfortable disclosing this level of information particularly if they live in smaller towns. How about using the nine standard regions (right) for England, North/South for Wales, and Glasgow/Edinburgh/Other for Scotland? That will give you almost as accurate a picture of how people are distributed, without raising privacy concerns.
How far would you travel to attend a wikimeet?
This needs to be asked, obviously, but the answers will probably be incoherent. It would probably make more sense to treat it in terms of time and expense, rather than distance. (In much of the London periphery, it's literally quicker to get to Europe than to the other side of London; Greater Manchester and Merseyside border each other, but psychologically and logistically may as well be in different time zones, and so on.)
How would you like to be notified about future wikimeets? [on-wiki/email/twitter/facebook/etc.]
Makes sense, although I'd probably leave out Twitter, since that's not only inviting the recipient but every weirdo who happens to be subscribing to the Twitter feed.
How far in advance would you need to be notified about a future wikimeet? [1 day / 1 week / a fortnight / a month / two months]
I'd reword this to "prefer". Nobody needs to be notified—it's not like someone will die if they don't get to see Ironholds give a powerpoint presentation on the progress of Visual Editor. I'm not even sure it needs to be asked at all—surely it's always going to be preferable to have as much advance notice as possible, so those who want to go don't make alternative plans for the day and those coming from further afield can get their train tickets at cheap advance rates.
Would you prefer to receive notifications about wikimeets [a) when they are announced, b) every week, c) every month]
Yes, good question
Would you be willing to organise a wikimeet in your city?
Throw in a "if yes, would you need any assistance setting it up?"
Would you prefer meetups in a pub or cafe?
Sensible question, "pub" seems to have become the default and I'm sure it puts some people off
Would you be willing to abide by Wikimedia UK's Friendly space policy]?
I wouldn't be willing to sign up to that as currently worded, let alone would I encourage anyone else to. I certainly have no intention of giving a blanket promise always to "show friendliness and courtesy to volunteers and staff", given the distinct lack of friendliness and courtesy shown by certain volunteers and staff (and founders) in the past. Deliberate intimidation, stalking, unwelcome following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention, as well as all the stuff about discrimination, is already covered by criminal law so forcing people to explicitly pledge it comes across as a monumental assumption of bad faith (I'll guess someone at WMUK has just cut-and-pasted this from an American document, where such things do need to be spelled out given the different legal framework regarding discrimination and anti-social behaviour), while such things as sexual or distressing images in public spaces is far too vague, since it effectively means "anything which anyone, anywhere could potentially find offensive". I've just written The Sirens and Ulysses which is liberally illustrated with images of naked women, naked men in a bondage pose, and a heap of rotting cadavers—under this policy, I wouldn't be able to show it to someone if they asked me what I'd been doing recently. (Two days ago the main page had an image of a dead body being recovered from a collapsed building, which surely qualifies as a potentially distressing image.) And do I really need to point out the ridiculousness of banning "discrimination on grounds of age" for an event held in a pub, where the publican is not only permitted but legally obliged to discriminate against unaccompanied minors? This whole thing just seems like a fancy way of saying "the management reserves the right to refuse admission" and "troublemakers will be ejected", couched in inappropriate US-style pseudolegalese. – iridescent 18:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! I'm also inclined towards thinking on a nationwide basis, and I've attended wikimedia events from Portsmouth to Edinburgh. ;-) The minimum list sounds sensible. Your response about outing locations puts my mind to ease about the problem. :-) On the survey questions, (1) is a very good suggestion, (2) I'm not so sure about how easy it is to take "time" and "expense" into account when considering locations, but distance is a much easier metric to take into account (also, I cross the Greater Manchester and Merseyside border quite often!). (3) I'm inclined to expand the list rather than remove items, (4) I agree, (6) sounds sensible. On the friendly space policy: yes, it was originally a US-written document, but it was rather more considered than just a copy-paste (see the history of the page). You raise good points against it, which mean that it should probably be reworked. However, I don't think it's assuming bad faith; rather it's setting out expectations (in the same way that Wikipedia's MOS supports many standard guidelines without assuming bad faith). I'll continue working on the draft survey, as this does seem like something worth doing before trying to do nation-wide wikimeet notices. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I know it's not possible to take time and expense into consideration, or expect people to quantify it—it was more a general observation that "geographical proximity" doesn't psychologically mean "close", even when you disregard the peculiar quirks of British geography. (Ilfracombe and Swansea are less than 30 miles apart, but are a 170 mile drive; the train from London to Weymouth takes roughly twice as long as the train from London to Lille; to get from one side of one of the big urban areas to the other can literally take hours.) Huddersfield is one stop out of Manchester on the train but may as well be a different planet as far as the locals are concerned, while well under half of the population of North London will cross the Thames in any given month. (RS for that particular claim.)

On "friendly spaces", without knowing a great deal of the back-story here I can see why it was considered necessary in the US, where the culture of "free speech" and "free movement" is much stronger than it is elsewhere. In the UK context, it just looks like an attempt to codify "Don't be a dick" into Bradspeak—virtually everything in it is already covered by UK law regarding anti-social behaviour and discrimination so doesn't need to be written out, while per my previous comment the "sexual or distressing images" clause is a weapon that could be turned on virtually anyone. (Your own userpage has a photograph of a human corpse on it.) If they seek to participate for reasons other than the advancement of our charitable objectives, then the Chief Executive should recommend to the Board that that individual be excluded from all Wikimedia UK activities is also a very weird clause. I'm sure many editors have little interest in "promoting and supporting the widest possible public access to, use of and contribution to Open Content of an encyclopaedic or educational nature or of similar utility to the general public" (WMUK's charitable objective)—most editors on Wikipedia are here because they have an interest in a few specific topics, and couldn't care less about encouraging wider public access to open content as a whole. By a literal reading of this, if I turn up to the Oxford meetup because I'm interested in meeting Redrose64 in the flesh, WMUK not only has the right but the obligation to kick me out. The whole policy could be replaced with "We reserve the right to eject or refuse admittance to people whose conduct we consider inappropriate" and nothing of value would be lost.

Add one more question to the survey: "What would be the most convenient time for you?". Sunday at 1pm seems to have became a default time, but that appears to be something people have drifted into rather than the result of discussion. There are plenty of potential reasons the Sunday afternoon slot might be putting people off attending: the generally poorer transport links on Sundays discouraging people from coming into town; religious reasons; clashes with sporting events; the likelihood that students (who make up a significant part of Wikipedia's editor base) have weekend jobs; childcare issues. If the occasional meetup were held on a weekday evening rather than weekend daytime, it might attract a completely different crowd and broaden the participant base from the usual CAMRA types. (Of course, it might be an abject failure and there are arguments against it—the most obvious ones that spring to mind are that it would make it harder for people who travel in from further afield to get home afterwards, and that the venues are more likely to be crowded—but I think it would be an experiment worth trying.)

Oh, add another question as well—"Is there anything in particular you'd like to see at events?". There are all sorts of things that might help broaden the meetings away from the core "group of people discussing template markup and kvetching about admins", ranging from special guests ("Your chance to meet Jimmy Wales!") to more formal workshops and debates (if you could get NYB and Malleus mic'd up and on a stage together, you could probably get people to pay to listen), to help sessions ("Your chance to ask questions without having the fact you didn't know the answer preserved as part of the public record and held against you for the next three years!). Publicising "wiki-celebrity will be here, here's your chance to meet them!") has historically been something WMUK has done very poorly—Sue Gardner's attendance at a 2010 London meeting to offer her thoughts on the state of the WMF was probably something a lot of people would have been interested in attending, but "Sue Gardner will give a talk with slides" sounded about as appealing as being stuck in a lift with Theresa May. – iridescent 17:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Composition of the GGTF

unknown (7.1%)

Australia (4.3%)

India (2.8%)

New Zealand (2.8%)

UK (8.6%)

USA (65.7%)

Canada (7.1%)

Other (1.6%)

@Mike Peel: Two more, both of which should probably only be used if the survey is fully anonymised:

Do you feel the organisers of Wikipedia meetups and events should be making more of an effort to make them welcoming to women? If so, do you have any suggestions?
What is your ethnicity? (checklist for ethnicity questionnaires for UK organisations). Do you feel the organisers of Wikipedia meetups and events should be making more of an effort to make them welcoming to members of minority ethnic groups? If so, do you have any suggestions?

I know "Gender gap" is Jimmy Wales's current hobby horse, but it would be worth quantifying whether people in this country actually feel there's an issue, and if so whether it's an issue worth directing resources towards and whether it's an issue that affects their participation in events. Per a comment I made last month here, I think much of the whole "gender gap" drive is an artefact of current US debates around identity politics and has very little relevance to en-wiki editors in the UK, Australia and Europe where those particular battles were fought to a stalemate by Blair and his imitators, and where ethnic diversity, rich/poor polarisation, a focus on city-dwellers at the expense of the countryside and the digital divide are likely to be of more pressing concern today.

(Statistic which those who profess themselves so concerned with "systemic bias" might do well to ponder: the Gender Gap Task Force membership list as of today breaks down as Australia 3, Canada 5, India 2, New Zealand 2, UK 6, USA 46, others 1, unknown 5. Even in the unlikely event that all the "unknown"s are from elsewhere, ³⁄₄ of GGTF participants are in North America.)

a bunch of white men and a white woman — *"Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me."*

IMO if WMUF has a gap that causes concern, it's not gender but ethnicity—the participants in an event in The Most Ethnically Diverse City In The World™ shouldn't look like this unless the event in question involves Nigel Farage. (Per the #More cemeteries thread above, the UK has a huge Polish population but I'm not sure I've ever seen a Polish UK-based Wikipedia editor other than Daria, whose mainspace contributions can be counted on one hand. Popping over to pl-wiki, clicking Losuj artykuł a few times, and looking at the interwiki links to see how many of the topics have no corresponding article on en-wikipedia is striking.) And the coverage of topics of interest to the black and Asian communities in Britain makes our coverage of Poland look positively outstanding—if a cathedral article were as dismal as Manchester Central Mosque, Birmingham Central Mosque or London Central Mosque (or an equivalent Christian category as non-existent as Category:Hindu temples in Greater Manchester) there would be outcry. – iridescent 15:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Marek immediately to the left of Sue in the 2010 pic is very Polish (UK-born). I'd better not link to his user name. Maybe you should come to more meetups! Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Huh, you live and learn. Still a singular lack of non-white faces, though. I do (very) occasionally attend, or at least poke my head into, Wikipedia meetups, albeit never the London ones. – iridescent 15:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK

I decided to take your DYK, Victorian painting - it is on the urgent list. I am about giving it the green tic. I would like to discuss only some minor things with you. May I ask if there was any reason to avoid the word classicism and neoclassicism in the lead? Hafspajen (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

In the specific context of British painting in the Victorian era, I'm not sure it really makes much sense to speak of classicism/neoclassicism. The Royal Academy traditionalists didn't by-and-large see themselves as upholding the traditions of Greece and Rome, they saw themselves as building on the Italian tradition; neoclassicism in Britain was effectively an architectural trend. In this context, "classical" refers to the trend in the late 19th-century (epitomised by Edward Burne-Jones and Frederic Leighton) of pretending the last 200 years hadn't happened and painting stylised pastoral scenes; using it in the lead to mean something different would, in my opinion, just confuse readers. – iridescent 15:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Etty

Nah, it was two &nbsp in sequence- I had to re-enter the thing to cure it. Didn't get it the first time. The Etty "Varnishing Day" thing came from that anecdote about Turner and Constable ("He has come here and fired a gun"). Do you know if Etty was "skied"? I have this fantasy that the RA were conflicted- they want the painting as near the ceiling as possible, but are worried about its size and weight. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, well done for spotting them.

Paintings were only skied when the Royal Academy was still on the Strand, and the RA had to cram the Summer Exhibition into the Great Room with its high ceiling. The 1837 Exhibition was held in the Trafalgar Square building, which was purpose-built as an exhibition space and had long corridors with lower ceilings (the present-day high vaulted ceilings weren't added until the 1880s), so the issue didn't arise. Something like The Sirens and Ulysses wouldn't have been skied in any case, even when the RA was still at Somerset House; a monumental grand style painting by a full Academician—especially someone like Etty who was touted as being the heir to Reynolds and Titian—being hung anywhere other than on the line would have been a major scandal. – iridescent 16:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Victorian painting

On 14 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Victorian painting, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Victorian painting became so unpopular that Flaming June (pictured) was worth just £50 in 1963? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Victorian painting. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Thanks from me and the DYK project. Victuallers (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well done! 6400 views on the day. Johnbod (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm vaguely surprised it's as low as that—that's less than half what Sirens got, on a much less mainstream topic. I believe the particular lesson to be learned here, regarding who is actually reading the Wikipedia main page, is "DYK illustrated with five breasts" beats "DYK illustrated with one breast". With this in mind it will be interesting to see what The Destroying Angel…, with its all-male breasts, gets. (There are a couple of female ones in the background, but at mainpage sizes they're not noticeable.) – iridescent 20:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"Breast thoughts" definitely caught my attention. Eric Corbett 21:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

6.4K is pretty good, but boobs will beat bucks every time for DYK views. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Support that impression. While my typical topics, singers and hymns, get views in the three-digit range, one where I mentioned sex made it to the stats, the other not even, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

And fat northern blokes beat everything mentioned above combined at DYK.

I still take a certain pride in Daniel Lambert ranking higher on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed than Elizabeth II on the day of the Jubilee, Michael Jackson on the anniversary of his death, Olympic Games on the day of the closing ceremony, and American Airlines Flight 11 on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. (Almost everything above Fat Daniel on that list was either on a current event or celebrity which would have had that kind of traffic level anyway, or got an external boost from Google Doodles or an incoming link on a major website.) – iridescent 16:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reflecting

Thank you for reflecting the Gerechtigkeitsspirale!

Did you know ... that a church's 1510 spiral of justice declares: "Justice suffered in great need. Truth is slain dead. Faith has lost the battle"?

The poem ends with "Praise the right thing".

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It rather belatedly occurs to me that although it's not a literal translation, in this context a better translation of Gerechtigkeit might be "integrity" or "decency". "Doing the right thing" has a slight whiff of "following instructions" about it. – iridescent 22:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Decency sounds good, but has also more than one meaning, no? Is there a better term for "doing the right thing", when it means "do something not correct, against the rules, if it is right in the situation" ("just", "decent")? I recently read here again: "Last decent person to leave needs to remember to lock the database." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining reality, ignore it"? Personally I'd say "decency" is unambiguous in this context, since it's obvious that it doesn't refer to "not making lewd comments or dressing provocatively", but it maybe doesn't have enough impact. I completely understand the concept you're trying to describe—the opposite of "Befehl ist Befehl"—but it maybe doesn't translate so well into English other than as legal-sounding phrases like Lex iniusta non est lex. If you read through the myriad of translations of Proverbs 21:3, you'll see how many of the finest writers of all time have struggled to render "being ethical is more important than slavishly following instructions" into appropriately dignified-sounding English (choosing any two from "right", "just" and "judgment" seems to be the way to go). – iridescent 13:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

In one of the cases I think of, the crime/"abuse" was to protect an article. I can imagine worse. I may not mention the name of the article without giving a reason to cite me to arbitrary enforcement again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I added "decency" and "integrity" to the top of my talk, thank you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)