This is an archive of past discussions with User:Belle. 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.
Manning? - Esteemed admin, perhaps I can ask you in this corner to promote a hook to the next queue - additional or replacing one - because it's only good today, OTD, DYK? - Request on the discussions, look for OTD, but so far no reaction. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
"Crewing" is I believe the WMF-approved term. Someone from the GGTF will no doubt pipe up to berate me at great length if I'm wrong. – iridescent15:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
There's another queue due to be promoted at 0330, which will still be today in at least part of the world. I don't want to step on the toes of User:Cwmhiraeth, who created it, and unilaterally slip another entry into it, but I'm sure if you asked they'd be happy to. (Alternatively, you could edit Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1–which isn't protected–yourself, and hope nobody complains.) – iridescent16:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, regarding "I would probably have picked the defeated warrior sketch", I did consider it as it's a very striking image (particularly Etty's, er, 'surprising' approach to male genitalia) but I couldn't find anything particularly interesting to say about it; something like "he appears more defiant than in the finished version" is meaningless to the 99.9% of readers who aren't aware of what the finished version looks like. It also looks a bit weird at DYK's 100x100px default image size, as it's not immediately clear what it's actually a picture of. (Speaking of breaking rules, given the nonsense at Talk:Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball#Image size I dread to think what a certain person will make of the double-lead image on this one.) – iridescent16:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Review done, nice to meet Cleopatra again. - I can't do anything promoting my own hook, not even to prep. On Pentecost, I brave admin added one directly to the Main page, but that day the DYK set was short so it actually looked balanced better with the addition. Not today. - The OTD notice will leave the main page in a few hours, before the next set comes, - I just let go. Always good practise, and letting go people is much harder. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The former reply was of course to further up. - I guess we might have had problems to show the beautiful defiant one on the Main age anyway ;) - Let's see who will question my review (without proper check for copyvio, tss tss.). I approved, but so did Dr. Blofeld, who wrote several GA reviews on Bach cantatas and knows the subject. Forgive me, didn't say I would let go? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 24 June
Don't let them get a look at this, it will give them palpitations. (Gerda, let it go; deep breaths, honey; let it float away.) Belle (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC) 2015 (UTC)
They did run The Sirens and Ulysses on the main page complete with this image of three naked women, a boatload of naked men and a stack of anatomically correct rotting corpses, and didn't get a single complaint; likewise, the main page has run a number of photos of crime scenes, murder victims etc with little complaint. In my experience, readers are far more willing to accept "offensive" content than the Civility Police in San Francisco give them credit for, providing it actually has a genuine educational value and isn't gratuitous. (Musidora is shortly to appear at DYK, and will test this hypothesis.) I actually do support censoring the main page to some extent—including explicit content or swearing can trip automated web filters, and get the site temporarily blocked in schools—but when the "offensive" content is the actual subject of the article I see no issue with including it. – iridescent17:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The image (and article) in 2012 also caused complaints, - longest debate about the Main page I recall, and much more to revert than for today's L'Arianna, a 2013 experiment, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
What's this? I return to find my talk page covered with the sort of images that a decent family wouldn't hang against their wall. Belle (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't even show Belle, the one about whom you said "That is very "almost"" last September, and I didn't see until the find per chance yesterday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't remember that far back; I'll have to check my archives to find out what you are talking about. Belle (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/List of accolades received by Fashion (film)
Would you like to tell me, How this (she won several awards) is an interesting hook? I mean you changed that hook without even telling me. I don't know what's the problem. In India, winning a National award is a very big deal. Just like AcademyAwards. No one says Jennifer Lawrence won several awards. Do they? They all say Jennifer Lawrence has won several awards including the Academy Award for Best Actress or something like that. I think it should be added back to the hook. What do you think?—Prashant03:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I said I was coming after it with the red pen; you know I like hacking about other people's work :). Embarrassing thing for me is I've forgotten the etiquette for FAC (or my etiquette at least; I think I used to put my questions on the talk page but I see everybody putting them in FAC noms, so I wonder why I put them on the talk page; maybe I had a reason; maybe I'm just weird; this is what happens if you take a long time off). Belle (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I kept that mind and knew you were coming after it; and honestly I didn't read over it again. There's a point, at least for me, that unless I go to the trouble of printing it out (which I never do) I lose perspective and can't see the mistakes. The font here is absurdly small and weak vision is only that: an excuse, but I should do better when submitting to FAC. I didn't expect to lose electricity right after submitting and being away since then, but c'est la vie, as they say. Re the questions - it doesn't matter where they go. We were going back and forth on my talk for the Memling altarpiece and the Beaune so using the talk seemed natural. Questions or comments can go anywhere - here, my talk, the talk page, the FAC page - I'll find them and try to address. Victoria (tk) 00:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I know what you mean re re-reading; you end up just reading what you wanted to write; there's not any way round it except waiting three months; traumatic head injury or getting somebody else to look at it. I'll get back to you with my questions; they are mostly clarifying little bits of context; the main factual query (clarification; whinge)is that you say it is in the Robert Lehman collection but don't say how that collection originated; presume Robert is Philip's son and he bequeathed his art collection to the museum, but there could be more exciting explanations involving double agents and microfilm. Sleepy now; must go to b
Tried to find more about Lehman; couldn't. The Met website is curiously uninformative about it. Will look again while you're zzz'ing. Nite. Victoria (tk) 00:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks Belle for stepping forward and sorting out a tricky DYK nom and then persevering when further help was requested. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Is one of my no-doubt countless page watchers the type of masochist that goes in for GAN reviewing? Because I've just put this page (mostly written by Ipigott, I must own, though I added some pretty pictures) up for GA. Somebody be a darling and review it for me. Don't read this; Warning: I will be a total bitch nightmare if you ask to have any of the pictures moved, removed, rearranged or otherwise interfered with. I said not to read that. Mwah. Belle (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I would like to support this but cannot see how I can edit it! There is no edit button and however often I try to reopen it I get the same problem. I am coming from here.--Ipigott (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mirokado: Thanks. This is a serious problem and should be fixed. How many other positively inclined editors come into pages like this and give up? Can you complain to the right people?--Ipigott (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you raise this at the WP:VPT noticeboard. I can't really do it for you because I don't know the context (how you found the mobile link, what device you were using at the time, for example). --Mirokado (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Some of those would be good additions if I could plump up the article to fit them in, but it is so difficult to find anything that discusses one painting in the context of another (even in Danish). Also I seem to have picked the least-talked about of his painting. It's my favourite. Belle (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I will continue the search (and expand the criteria)... It would be quite a discovery finding monkeys wearing hats on any form of currency...--Godot13 (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Belle, for taking on the bulk of all this without alerting me until you had finished. I think I've managed to cope with the outstanding points. It was refreshing to read to article again after leaving it alone for a few months. I was actually quite impressed myself by the way it reads.--Ipigott (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
That was quick! Well done you mostly. FAC next? (I'm sure they'd want to change my precious galleries; no deal!) Belle (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not so sure they would. They're far more interested in copyright issues. But the first step would be to redo all the references, add more sources (especially books), and give specific page numbers for everything. All that takes a lot of time. You could always go for a peer review first if you're interested. My own priority at the moment is Jean Sibelius which I want to get to GA by the end of August and FA by the end of October (in time for front page display on 8 December, the 150th anniversary of his birth).--Ipigott (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a lot of work (he does look jolly in that 1939 picture); I can't help you there, I'm afraid; I never got on with Finnish and musically I'm a bit dim [sings] "Do ray me far so" [birds migrate; wildlife flees into the forest; cars skid off the road; people stab forks in their ears; etc.] Belle (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Iconostasis of Hajdudorog
Say it three times quickly and people will be able to tell whether you're fit to drive back home.
As you don't seem to have anything to do at the moment, given your interest in the Beaune altarpiece, I was wondering if the Iconostasis of Hajdudorog would attract you interest. The image is pretty good and might be a candidate for the front page. It is backed up by a detailed article: Iconostasis of the Cathedral of Hajdúdorog. I became interested in the history of icons a few years ago as I have an Italian friend who has done rather well painting them in the classical style but I have not contributed anything meaningful on Wikipedia. No obligation. Just thought it might interest you.--Ipigott (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Quite interesting (I don't think I've ever come across the word "Iconostasis" before); the article is a bit flabby though; I'm tempted to wade in with the machete and cut out some of the figures' back stories (mostly when there is analysis of the bible stories; I think a brief "This is X and he has Y in his hand because..." will do), but maybe I'm just in a cut the fat mood today. Belle (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Have done. Don't forget the absinthe (though making you forget is what it is supposed to do; you know what I mean). Belle (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Interior with Young Woman Seen from the Back
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mothers Day (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eva. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Belle, were you planning to return to this review, or would you like me to find a new reviewer to continue it? If the latter, please let me know here; if the former, I'll see any new comments you make. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
BRFA
In fairness, while Britomart may be a positive female role model, BRFA gives equal prominence to the supremely drippy Amoret(ta), whose role in this painting is to swoon helplessly while being ravaged, and whose purpose in The Faerie Queene is (explicitly) to illustrate that a woman's job is to find a husband, while Spenser's description of Britomart herself ("Through hope of those which Merlin had her told/Should of her name and nation be chief/And fetch their being from the sacred mold/Of her immortal womb, to be in heaven enrol'd") is a not-so-subtle jibe at Elizabeth that Defending Civilization from the Papist Hordes was a distraction from her main job of churning out an heir. (Interestingly, six of Etty's nine monumental paintings—the Judith and Joan of Arc triptychs—were explicitly about strong female role models; unfortunately, these are also the hardest ones to write about as they're all lost.) ‑ iridescent15:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Destroyed by our patriarchal oppressors no doubt. I don't mind practising the role of finding a husband and turning out a heir, as long as it is just practising. Belle (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Destroyed for the rather more prosaic reason that Etty had the bright ideas of using asphalt to create a true matte-black effect, and painted onto a glue which dried rock-hard, both of which made the paint flake off every time the canvas flexed. There's a strangely fascinating video of one of his monumental paintings being restored here—the section at 02:22 where a room-full of people are trying to turn a fifteen-foot long sheet of canvas upside down without allowing it to bend is one I find quite striking. ‑ iridescent17:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd say they did quite well there; they didn't even look that worried. I think using asphalt makes him a street artist; well ahead of his time. Belle (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
DYK - Snaresbrook Crown Court
You were, of course, right; Albert didn't lay the foundations himself. I can't imagine 'er indoors being too amused if that was the case. Having been here for around six years, and being a frequent visitor to FAC, I seldom ever dip my toes into DYK. This, I believe, is only my second offering out of the dozen or so articles I have created. Auguste van Biene was the first, although I had help with that one. Just one observation: "cites sited in cite cite sites", left me quite dizzy; is that DYK speak for cites given appropriately, or are you blinding me with DYK science? ;) CassiantoTalk01:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I was just being silly Cassianto, I meant that the inline citations were all in the right place; the prep builders probably won't understand it either, but it kept me entertained with my own cleverness for ten seconds or so. Belle (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I especially liked your "these newbies blundering around in DYK, missing their article out of the hooks, breaking all our best china, sitting on the Pekineses, spilling wine on the cushions" – me down to tee! Lol CassiantoTalk08:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
You should do more DYKs; we'll be able to take your stabilisers off then. That one was good: long enough not to give the feeling of padding for DYK; not too long to put me off reviewing; and just enough typos to make me feel like I'm doing something useful ;). Belle (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I should; I think I missed the boat with this one which I started a few months ago. To tell you the truth, I've just never really been bothered with DYK, instead opting to concentrate on all things FAC. For my sins, I don't really tend to start very many articles, which might go someway into explaining why I'm such a stranger. From now on I may just post to DYK in the hope of once again making you feel useful. ;) CassiantoTalk08:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
In case you missed another boat: you can also nominate GAs the week after they were promoted. Takes all rush out of DYK: you expand in peace, get to GA, then nominate, - I do that now to old Bach cantatas, such as BWV 35, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
And re your comment about the article's length: I appreciated your work as much as I did because I had worked on the article for over a week, probably to the detriment of my prose. I could quibble with a few of your changes but I won't because I'm too exhausted from all the work I did to go back into it, and because for the most part you did too good a job to ruin the memory of by complaining.
But to respond to your comment: The larger context of the article is that the incident sort of precipitated the Yankees' 12 lost years (not all that lost in some cases, though: under the contemporary playoff system, they would likely have been a wild card in 1970), a/k/a the Horace Clarke era, and it's often treated that way in histories of the team (because without it it's probably less likely that Yogi would have been fired after the season). I didn't have as full access to my sources as I would have liked; had I, the relevance of the incident to Yogi's later career (in how it had affected perceptions of his ability to manage) might be clearer in that section. But basically I want the reader to understand all the factors at play beforehand, and how the game (so to speak) changed afterwards. I hope to be able to get better info in eventually. (I also sort of like the irony by which, when Yogi gets fired a second time as Yankees manager 21 years later, he's in the same ballpark, following a sweep by the same team, and rides the team bus back to the same airport to catch his flight home ... but you can't point that out; you have to leave it as an exercise for the reader).
I sort of see it as similar to "A Limo For A Lame-O", which I also researched and wrote (it's a similar story of how one little thing can put a lot of big things in motion and have long-term consequences for a revered institution). Although that one is necessarily more compact ... I think it's easier to see how that had the effects it did because the overall time frame is shorter.
I honestly didn't expect it to be so long; that's OK. As a regular copy editor you can probably better appreciate a philosophy that says it's better to write more than you may need and cut rather than writing too little and having to add more. Daniel Case (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. There are always tweaks to be made and quibbles to be had, especially when you are copy-editing a jargony ("shagging balls" has quite a different connotation in British English) subject that you don't know anything about (not quite true; I've reviewed some baseball DYKs before and become quite the expert on statistics; that's a lie; I can find them in a table, that's it). I still think you could summarize great swathes of career and season information without losing the impact of the long-term effects; it might enhance it as you'd be focusing attention on the important aspects. Belle (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership Dates: 7 to 20 September 2015
The Virtual Edit-a-thon, hosted by Women in Red, will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in Leadership to participate. As it is a two-week event, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in leadership. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and find more details →here← --Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't you love to cast your eyeballs on her? She is a WikiProject Women good article candidate and I've been working on her for about a week. Think it is finally at the place for someone else to look at it. When I started, I knew diddly squat about her, but I think I have hit the highlights. Should you choose not to accept this mission, no worries. SusunW (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Accepted; isn't this message supposed to self-destruct in ten seconds? I have to go out in a few minutes, but I'll look at her later. Belle (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Woot! I think that self-destruct mechanism would would require a technical skill for coding which I don't have. ;) Thanks for looking at her. When I started there was very little there, so in reality, not so much to complete. I should've also said I didn't do anything much with the lede. I find it easier to do it last once the rest of it is mostly set. SusunW (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, version 2.1 is ready. I think I addressed all of your questions. Very few of the sources clarified "many". I tried to rephrase or quantify where possible. I reworked the entire lede and got rid of unverifiable claims. Changed the last section to "Gender consequences" as when I was searching for a quantitative number on prostitution I discovered the bit about re-criminalizing sodomy and decriminalizing rape. Besides which, I think it makes it more balanced. Again I thank you for your help :) SusunW (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we can reasonably consider this as even a competent levels adjustment. We cannot promote this as the best of our work. Adam Cuerden(talk)17:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've put your new Czech article down in the potted bios round. You're most welcome to join! We'll often have Danish entries or artists etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld19:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Dr. Blofeld, I went looking for where to add it and didn't work out the purpose of the "Extra" section. I'm "artists and Danish"? I'll have to do something on one of the unpronounceables of the Sasanian Empire or the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation or something to escape my pigeon-hole ;P Belle (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd already seen that (as there is a photo of her there that I was thinking of uploading before I got the bad news about the copyright status), but it doesn't seem to be authoritative and c1930 is still covered by c1920s; what a pain! All artists should be forced to sign abd date their works in front of an official; it would be much easier for us! Belle (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I really want her to be the next GA candidate of WikiProject Women, her contributions are huge. I don't find a lot of sources I can access and it seems to rely fairly heavily on the Renfrew article. Your thoughts and input, as always, would be valuable. SusunW (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll have a look; I don't know how you do it, it takes me about six weeks to recover every time I write a tiny stub; though I suppose that's because I'm a lazy cow. Belle (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
You make me laugh. I love researching. The hunt is a fascinating game, sort of like working a jigsaw puzzle. Stubs, are like only the exterior edges completed. My OCD personality will not let me stop there. ;) SusunW (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Frederick Trump AfD
Belle, since you promoted Frederick Trump to DYK, I hoped you might weigh in on the AfD recommendation that someone slapped on it while still on the front page, and which has now extended to this same user attacking George Washington's paternal grandfather for lack of notability. I don't know what to do in these circumstances, and would appreciate your gentle or not-so-gentle guidance. Thanks! Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Punishment of Lust, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Symbolism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
We don't normally do that on FPCs; it looks like it will sail through anyway, so you don't have to worry about my opinion swaying the result. Belle (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Can you revisit this FAC pls - I notice you made detailed comments. You have just been canvassed; we are all about to get blocked. Ceoil (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Ceoil: I supported it aaagggeesss ago; admittedly my support is hidden in the wall of text, but so's yours. At least we get out of being blocked; I do anyway, you should probably still get done for attempted vote rigging; five years, take him down. Belle (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Ach, goes to show how sharp I am. Vote rigging? Depends on how you spin it afterwards. I suppose it's just that a promotion without your blessing would feel hollow somehow <gush>. Anyway I can do the time, if they take me alive. Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
For this one, you probably want to ask User:Eric Corbett, if you're able to bite your tongue when the flock of cranks who follow in his wake also turn up, as he's generally very good at spotting problems you never noticed on articles about books. (I don't think it's canvassing, when the person being canvassed is arguably FAC's most notoriously critical reviewer.) ‑ iridescent22:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a series of "physical" Guggenheim edit-a-thons. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in architecture and design to participate. The campaign aims to further the goals of Ada Lovelace Day for STEM, and Art+Feminism for art, in a field that by its nature combines both. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over a week and a half, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in this field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
.jpeg)
.jpg)
_%E2%80%93_Candaules,_King_of_Lydia,_Shews_his_Wife_by_Stealth_to_Gyges,_One_of_his_Ministers,_as_She_Goes_to_Bed_%E2%80%93_N00358_%E2%80%93_Tate.jpg)
_by_Ron.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
