This is an archive of past discussions with User:BigDom. 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.
After reading your recent statement at WikiProject Football talk page, I just wanted to let you know that I am still here at Wikipedia, though on a limited basis as I mostly just revert vandalism and update French football news and player statistics. If you need any assistance with the creating of some articles within French football, just give me a shout. Also, congrats on Niort becoming professional again. Maybe in two to three years, the club can reach Ligue 1. — JSRant Away01:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Camelford F.C.
Hi, I have deprod'd Camelford F.C. as potentially controversial given the club meets the apparently usual standard of having played in a English Step 6 league. I understand you disagree with that standard, but given that it was referred to as arguments in multiple AFD only recently, let's take this to WP:AFD for community discussion rather than through PROD if you believe it should be deleted. KTC (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
DYK nomination of John Andrews (footballer born 1978)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
I've added a little to the article. Much of the details of his career in Southampton already in the article (sourced from "Nelson FC in the Football League") is almost word-for-word what is said in his bio in "The Alphabet of the Saints", so I guess one book was the source for the other. Cheers. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.
Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I updated the whole template for the Senegal Olympic team because it didn't match with the squad shown on the London 2012 website. As you can see, Bindia isn't on there either so I guess he must have been replaced (although I couldn't say who by). Cheers, BigDom16:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:GazelecAjaccio.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
PS. I have a nagging feeling that we may have fallen out over something or other in the past, but I'm dreadful with names even in real life. MalleusFatuorum18:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Course not, just had a look at what he added, the article's starting to look really good now. The only time I can think of that we've crossed paths is when you helped me out when I had 1920–21 Burnley F.C. season at its unsuccessful FAC. Can't remember any fall out though. BigDom (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking of you, not him. Anyway, it's all looking good. I'm still astounded by what we've managed to do with this article. MalleusFatuorum22:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I neglected to check the article history before I removed all of the publisher locations from the Bibliography. I don't find them at all useful and they're not required even at FA, but if you'd prefer to restore them I won't argue. MalleusFatuorum22:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been out all day and haven't really looked at the GA review yet (too busy arguing the toss on the Moors murders talk page since I got back), but there doesn't seem to be anything too serious there? MalleusFatuorum22:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah it all looks fairly minor, shifting commas and things like that. Think I'm going to go off the computer now but will sort out any remaining changes in the morning if need be. BigDom (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Footy
I see you’ve been quite active on the GA front. Congrats on Arthur Bell (footballer) and the others I’ve just noticed. I have a couple of footy ideas I’d like to run past you:
I’ve noticed a number of old Burnley player bios that are orphans and for a while I’ve been wondering about creating some Burnley players of the (insert a decade) templates. I figure these would tie-in with your Burnley seasons articles.
Have you ever thought of creating a Burnley Hospital Cup article? I remember a news story from a few years ago that claimed it was the oldest amateur football competition in the world. I can find almost nothing online, so that’s about as far as I ever got with it.
So you finally found my page! Thanks, it's always enjoyable writing about old Burnley players but I don't know how Bell managed to get a GA when I never bothered for many others. That first point is an interesting idea, never seen it done before but it would help to get rid of the orphan problem. I always intended to create better articles for all the Burnley players and seasons, but lost my Clarets Chronicles book before I got round to it unfortunately. On the second point, I've never considered it but I have also heard that it's the oldest football competition so maybe it will be one of my next projects if I can find enough to write an article. I reckon there must be loads in old newspaper archives. BigDom (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Clarke Carlisle
Was going to drop you a message on how well researched and balanced the article is; once he's retired I think a FA push would certainly be possible. Once he's fully match fit and into the swing of things I don't see why he won't be up there as a top centre-half at this level. Well, that's providing his media and political commitments don't prove a hindrance (not that they should, being a footballer it's not as if he's short of spare time). Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clarke Carlisle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Barnes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.
On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, what's the difference? I hadn't realised they changed because the template still works but if it's better to use the new ones then I will. Also, good work adding all the persondata (although I still don't really see why it's needed.) Cheers, BigDom (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Difference is the old parameters will eventually be removed. This will cause editors/bots to go thru and fix things up. There were several different variations of the birth parameter and "they" want to get it down to one. In theory, the Wikidata project will really force the issue. Persondata is best used in articles with no infoboxes. It allows computers (aka DBpedia)) to parse things easily. Wikidata may cause the demise of persondata. WikiData is supposed to go live around the first of the year. On thing about Wikipedia you can count on, the rules change. Could be worse, my wife makes up the rules for me as she goes along, usually to my detriment. Bgwhite (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah OK, thanks for letting me know about the parameters and clearing up about Persondata. I've heard of this new WikiData but it seems like it's more for computers and programmers to show off than to actually make editing easier for anyone. True about the rule changes, I can never keep up – just keep doing what I always do and let the change happen around me. And well, that's what a wife's for! BigDom (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
More than 4000 page views in one day isn't at all bad,[1] and what's become apparent is that there are loads of peripheral articles that aren't up to snuff, such as the Honour of Clitheroe and manorial court; there's loads for Trappedinburnley still to do. :-) Even Pendle Forest itself might deserve an article. MalleusFatuorum08:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Not too bad at all, probably one of my highest ever. Ha yes they're definitely his kind of article. If there's any more articles you want to work on like Forest of Pendle, I'll try and help out again although in about three weeks I will be going back to Sheffield and won't be on Wikipedia anywhere near as much. BigDom (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I spent two years working in Sheffield, driving through the Woodhead Pass from Manchester every day it wasn't blocked by snow. Never again. I think we can rest on our laurels with Malkin Tower; I always suspected an article could be made of it, but never did I imagine anything like what the three of us have managed to achieve. Extraordinary really. MalleusFatuorum09:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I always take the Snake Pass when it's open, but I remember it once took me about 5 hours to get back when it was snowing and it was closed. I never thought we'd do such a good job on Malkin Tower either, like you say it's extraordinary when you think about it. BigDom (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah ha! I’d not been watching this page! I actually dropped in to talk about footy (will follow). I’d like to get the honour of Clitheroe article up to GA, just been learning (or trying anyway) to be a better editor before I revisited it. The only problem being that I wasn’t really the talent there, just wiki-babysitting a Cambridge don with an interest in Bowland. I’ve had a Forest of Blackburnshire (the administrative grouping of the forests of Pendle, Rossendale and Trawden) article on my ‘to do’ list for quite a while. I’ve also got 2 stalled projects on the go Whalley (ancient parish) and List of Scheduled Monuments in Lancashire, if you or anyone you know might want to get involved. Although I have an interest in local history my real mission here is an experiment in promoting Burnley through improved WP coverage. I only really got involved with these because nobody else seemed to be. One of these days I might have to visit the library, being involved with this has shown me how limiting online only sources can be!--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I know you're asking Trappedinburnley, but I definitely won't be trying to get the football club to GA any time soon, too many idiots edit that page and it wouldn't be worth the hassle. BigDom (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay I ran into a problem with a sock puppet and a church. I’ve thought about getting Burnley to GA, it would seem to be the logical thing. I’d be happy doing the work to get it there, but much like Dom, I don’t want to be stuck with defending it from vandals, amateurs and the ill informed. It seems to me that popular articles are not particularly suited to being good ones. How have you found looking after Manchester or the Trafford stuff? Queen Street Mill, Gawthorpe Hall or Towneley Park might be better suited?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Haven't found it much of a problem to be honest, and there's no reason why Burnley should be especially difficult in that regard either. I'll help with Burnley if you like, and perhaps BigDom will as well, so you won't be on your lonesome. MalleusFatuorum19:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd probably help out although I don't have many sources that could be used so more trips to the library might be in order! BigDom (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Do have a copy of Hall's Short History of Burnley? That's used pretty extensively in the History section, and I'm dubious that everything comes from page 40 of that book. MalleusFatuorum20:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, we'll have to sort that out later then. One thing you might like to start looking at straight away is reducing the number of images, and placing those that are relevant in an appropriate section. MalleusFatuorum21:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I've never been comfortable with the list of retailers either - do you think they should be binned altogether or limited to ones I can find a source for maybe?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Moved this conversation on a little on my talkpage (it might as well get used for something). I'm off for a week of sunshine in the Med, but it would be great if you have time to get involved!--Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charlie Bishop (footballer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Helliwell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.
If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 September newsletter
We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.
It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!
There are currently 15,862 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 345 unreviewed articles. Out of 439 total nominations, 24 are on hold, 66 are under review, and 4 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article! Even just reviewing one will help!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Social sciences and society (80 articles), Sports and recreation (70 articles), Music (63 articles), Theatre, film and drama (52 articles), and History (41 articles). Please consider reviewing articles within these sections.
There are currently 13 articles up for reassessment at Good Article Reassessment. Please help out and go to WP:GAR and review an article! Remember that anyone can review articles that are listed under "Community Reassessment" even if another user has already listed their opinion...the more opinions, the better!
Member News
There are currently 222 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to all the new members that joined during the past 17 months! If you aren't yet part of WikiProject Good Articles and interested in joining WikiProject Good Articles, go here and add you name. Everyone is welcomed!
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
If you haven't done so already, please remember to add your name to this list if you are still interested/active with this WikiProject. If you are no longer interested/active you don't need to add your name anywhere, you're name will be moved into a "inactive participant" list at the beginning of November. Inactive users will not receive future newsletters from this WikiProject via their talk page.
GA Task forces
There is currently not much going on at this time but there is a very large backlog. Until the next backlog elimination drive, please help reduce the number of nominations by reviewing articles and helping other reviewers that may need second opinions.
Thanks to everyone who committed some time to help reduce the nominations backlog during the June-July 2012 backlog elimination drive. Most barnstars have been given out but there are still a few left. Participants that haven't gotten a barnstar yet should get it soon.
Possible Fall/Winter 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive
A discussion is currently being held on the WikiProject's talk page on weather another eliminations drive should take place within the next few months as the last one proved to be extremely successful. Please take the time to go to the the talk page and include your opinion on if you would be interested in taking part in a Fall/Winter 2012 elimination drive.
Good Articles of the Month
Each month, 5 random good articles will be choose to be featured here as the good articles of the month.
Having references included in articles is one of the most important aspects to a good article, let alone Wikipedia! Without them, no one would ever know what is true and what is false and Wikipedia probably wouldn't be where it is today. So this month, I will talk about how to check for references, how reliable they are, and so on and so forth.
The first thing to do when reviewing an nominee is to do a quick scan of the article. One of the things to look for is if the article has references! If you don't see a list at the bottom of the article page, quick-fail it.[2] For newcomers, quick-failing is failing an article when you spot a problem before actually conducting a full review. If you do find a list of references (and in most cases you will) make sure to look through each and every one. If you want to save some time, use this tool as it will tell you if there are any problematic references in the article you are reviewing.
Next, check the reliability and type of the references/sources. In terms of the type of reference, check to see how many primary and/or secondary sources are included. Primary sources are the ones published by the subject of the article. For example, if the subject of the article has to do with the iPhone 4s and the source is published by Apple, it is considered a primary source. Secondary sources are those not published by the subject of the article (or in close relation to it). Newspapers are examples of secondary sources and considered one of the better types to include in the article (not saying primary sources are bad). If you find that most/all of the references are primary sources, notify the nominator about this issue(s) and place the article on hold once you have completed the review. Only in the event that a secondary source can't be found as a replacement, then the primary source can remain. If there is a good mix of primary and secondary sources, that is perfect and no references need to be changed.
Now, reliability. Forums are generally not considered reliable and some blog's may not be reliable either. Newspapers, most sources published by the subject, some blogs, etc. are considered reliable. If you don't know wether the source is reliable, ask for a second opinion. For more info about how to identify wether a reference is reliable or not, visit this article.
Finally, one of the more basic things to look for is that every statement in the article has at least one reference! The only case that a statement doesn't need a reference is when it is common sense that the statement is defiantly true and/or in the case where the statement can't be challenged, as per what Wikipedia says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation."
From the Editor
After a long 18 month hiatus, the third volume of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter is here! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue of the newsletter here or on the editors talk page.
Also, Happy Halloween...in advance!!!
PLEASE READ: If you do not wish to receive future WikiProject Good Articles newsletter's on your talk page, please remove your self from this list. If you are viewing this newsletter from the WikiProject Good Articles page or on someone else's talk page and want to receive future newsletters on your talk page, please add your name to the list linked above.
^Before quick-failing the article, verify that one of the several referencing templates is correctly placed at the bottom of the article. If the template is not placed, try to place it to see if references are displayed. If this proof returns no references, then proceed to quick-failing.
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list.
→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
){kind=link}