This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eric Corbett. 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.
and smaller, oh dear, that is right under the Serial Guy, who may template me for starting a flame war with "even that Kablammo guy". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
As I once told someone who wasn't nearly as bad as this current crop: [ you, Kablammo, are an asshole.] (There, you always wanted an April Fools' flamewar! And we can't even have one because we are surrounded by the humourless.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no intention of spending time at your FAC. "asked to have this taken down" sounds surprisingly IRC-ish to me. It's one thing that the two of you have no sense of humor and don't recognize April Fools, but it's entirely another to cause a mess like you both caused and not even apologize.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, pings do occasionally work, which is nice. I have to say, I can't really consider myself to have caused a mess of any kind. I received notification via a talk page I watch (not yours, Colin's, or Immyzboolah) of inappropriate content on what is undeniably one of our most high profile—and most prone to spam / politics—projects, and, indeed found something which, even in the context of 1 April, was clearly too liable to misinterpretation to be appropriate so I removed it. You will doubtless note that I subsequently hatted the same material at AN. For which you were kind enough to thank me. Now: I seem to have wandered into a war of attrition amongst you medrs regulars, and if that means I have inadvertently taken sides, then that was clearly not my intention or my wish: I studiously avoid friendships, enmities, and everything in between on WP where possible. But I take a dim view—and will continue to take a dim view—of trivia, whatever day of the year. If, of course, WP:FOOLR had been adhered to, in that All jokes must be tagged using {{Humor}} or similar templates, or the inline template {{April fools}}, then it would have been so much easier to have come to another conclusion. It's a shame, really, that people have gone to the trouble of effecting a set of guidelines to follow for today—but which then are not. Anyway—I think we (I) have proabably supplied EC with enough message notifications to last a week, so I'll leave it at that. My talk page, however, is always available for discussions. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room15:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Yes, I thanked you, and then later saw the post from Ozzie, indicating he had asked someone to remove the post, which I mistakenly[2] assumed to be you, since you were the one who removed it. My sincere apologies for not checking that earlier (actually, I did, but didn't scroll far enough down on Ozzie's contribs). I can also see that you actually know how to write, so you are unlikely to be involved with the clownery coming from elsewhere. My apologies again :) (But I still try my darndest to avoid FAC these days, since without FAR, there is no value in FAC.) Sincere apologies, and best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
PS, Kablammo is still an asshole, and if some trigger-happy admin wants to block us for not using a humor template, I will wear that crown proudly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Just like nobody elected you? But if you keep reverting based on your own ignorance it will in all likliehood not go well for you. EricCorbett13:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd take issue with your extravagant use of the word "bullying", but I'm pleased we've been able to reach a satisfactory solution. As it happens though I'd forgotten about the 1RR discretionary sanctions applied to this and all other Ireland-related articles, so it's good we didn't have to go to war over it. :-) EricCorbett17:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello Eric, I have also added Wikipedia:Page mover to your account as well. Similar to your request for patroller, after this long, there is no reason for you not to be able to move a page while not leaving a redirect, for example. If you don't wish to be a member of this usergroup, just let me know and I can remove it.--kelapstick(bainuu) 15:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Eric, I completely rewrote DLB, and Ceoil, Colin and Johnbod are combing through it now; might you be interested in having a go at it in a few days, once they are done? If I can locate some third-party (independent) sources for the History section, it could be almost FAC ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Eric ... give it a few days, since Ceoil is doing good stuff, and Johnbod is only about halfway through. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Eric. It was meant as a compliment, you do indeed have a fine grasp of subtle and nuanced phrasing. I however do not have any grasp of spelling,[3] and will get my coat :) Ceoil (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh god no, dont worry, its amusing to me also, and is a condition, pff, I have long learned to live with. I was responding to Eric's admirable dryness in kind, certainly not slighted. I have looked up to him for yonks and am too long toothed to be anything other than amused. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.
Paid editing
Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.
News
The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
Hi Eric, I wonder whether you could put my mind to rest regarding use of honorific suffixes/prefixes for UK orders of chivalry. It's a long time since I had to look at Debretts etc before meeting someone (don't ask, she died in Paris) but formulations such as Sir John Somebody KCMG and Dame Janet Somebody DBE strike an uneasy note with me. Yes, they are appointees to a particular order but if they're a K or a D then the Sir or Dame is tautologous with the suffix. I realise this is a bit of an oddball thing but I wonder if you've come across it? I do understand that in normal speech they would be Sir John and Dame Janet (rather than Sir Somebody and Dame Somebody) but I am thinking here of the written form. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
You obviously move in more elevated circles than I do Sitush. As it happens I'm doing some work on Baron Overtoun, a 19th-century Christian hypocrite. As with him, I wouldn't introduce him in the lead as Lord Overtoun KG for example (he wasn't actually a KG). Using your example I'd say "John Somebody KCMG", not "Sir John Somebody KCMG", which as you say is redundant. In the body of the article I'd normally use just the surname, as in "Somebody died in DDMMYYY". I suppose there are bound to be some exceptions though, like "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle", where the "Sir" has almost become part of his name. I'mnot sure that really answers your question? EricCorbett01:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I should have been more clear in my query: I am thinking primarily of how these things are shown in the dreaded infoboxes, and also in the opening sentence of the lead. Eg: Kathleen Ollerenshaw, of our parish. - Sitush (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
No worries, I did another search and found it this time. It is prefix + suffix for invitations, so I guess the present style at the Ollerenshaw article and hundreds of others must be correct - see here. Seems odd to me but then the peerage etc is odd (and are odd, in many cases). - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
FYI, the MoS guideline is here, so the Ollerenshaw article does indeed look correct for a Dame, although would not be for a Baron or an Earl. Strange. EricCorbett10:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Just a note...
I removed your A7 tag on Michael Gutteridge since he was the founder of a notable institution. The article probably should have stated that to begin with – the only reason I checked on it was because articles about non-living people are fairly rare. Feel free to put it up for AFD since I can't find much more on him (essentially, only non-independent sources and trivial mentions exist). Thanks, Appable (talk | contributions) 18:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that the boilerplate notice you created in this edit was intended to be addressed to someone who created an article, rather than to a neutral panel of experts whom you are asking to pass judgment on it. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
If your project has no interest in the article being discussed for deletion then I suggest that you remove your project tag. I make no observation on whether or not I consider the members of wikiproject mathematics to be experts in anything, but I suggest that you update yourself on the AfD protocol and stop bothering me. EricCorbett23:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
TFA
Thank you for your share of Urse d'Abetot, "a somewhat obscure figure in Anglo-Norman history, not a big magnate, but definitely powerful and through his daughter ancestor of an important family in late Medieval England. He's mainly famous for invoking a rhyming curse from Ealdred."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
... whom I gave credit first ;) - I didn't have time to analyze the percentage of help from those listed in the FAC, also think it's impossible - how would you evaluate ideas? - and believe that even minor help deserves thanks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Eric, when you have a moment, would you mind looking over this? I'm about to put it up for DYK, but a. you know my prose isn't the best and b. if I translate from Dutch my prose gets even worse. I'm also not entirely convinced of the proper organization (and sectioning), not really having written many such articles before, and I suffer from a relative dearth of information. Your help is, as always, appreciated. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much. The place is maybe an hour from where I was born, less than half an hour from where my father was born. Writing about home always makes me want to go home. I don't know that area very well, but we drove through it a few years ago on our way to a printer to get the cards for my dad's cremation service. It was green and windy and sunny and I loved it so much. Maybe I'm making up for leaving. Next up, my mom's village, haha! Drmies (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
More than copy edits on Aartswoud, Eric, but this barnstar comes closest to the appropriate reward. Really, I owe you dinner at the Horse and Pony. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Nice memories of your family are worth a little bit of effort to keep alive. I've recently realised just how little I know about about my own mother (now deceased). After all, I got half of my genes from her, and I want to know if they're up to spec! EricCorbett15:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and a question for you. The article says "... much of the area has been flattened by egalization", but doesn't egalization mean flattening? EricCorbett15:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I looked for the meaning, and I ended up with this page, discussing the work of Evelin Lindner. The Aartswoud sentence continues "...old meadows of Cynosurus cristatus are still present". This crested dog's-tail is between 15 and 45 cm high so I suppose egalization must clobber everything over half-a-metre tall. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Good point, Eric--that's one of those Dutch-English things, where I am in the one and pass back into the other only with some difficulty. I start writing steenkolenengels. I suppose the thing is that it's always flat but sometimes it's more flatter than at other times. A difference of 1.5 meters was enough to cause a huge ruckus and that dike to be built. YES--User:Xanthomelanoussprog, that is very nicely done, thank you. Eric, thanks again. I wish that I hadn't felt such a strong urge to leave when I was young, but it's so much easier to love from a distance. I suppose my father knew the landscape pretty well, especially after that one night when he had gotten completely drunk and his father made him walk from Benningbroek to his job at an auto repair shop in Hoorn. Usually he rode Honda Dream, with an exhaust system so modified (wittingly or unwittingly) that he could be heard from miles away by fathers whose daughters he was dating. Or so the stories go. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, just passing - but what are the "iconoclastic" details in the present church? - the source says (translating) "eclectic details and cast-iron arched windows". John O'London (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
It's certainly true that it's not for me to decide on these issues, but I guess the assumption is that Drmies is watching this page. EricCorbett08:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
"I want flatlands/I never cared about money and all its friends/I want flatlands". The church, the presbytery and a farmhouse are all described as being in "eclectic" style. This is a Dutch Blaise Hamlet innit? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Soubriquet
Regarding your revert of my spelling "correction", right, that's not part of my everyday vocabulary so I didn't immediately pick up on soubriquet being a valid alternative spelling, as indicated by Wiktionary.
It was only after I had bypassed all the redirects using this alternate spelling that I came upon the British Thoroughbred racehorse, and verified that was how the horse's name really was spelled in the source, that I realized hey, I should check to see whether this really is a valid alternate spelling...
No worries. It's sometimes difficult to remember all the subtleties of the differences between American and British English. In the specific case of soubriquet the Br English spelling is exactly how I'd pronounce the word, as in "sooo..." as opposed to "so...", so it makes sense to me to spell it that way anyway. EricCorbett13:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Ref Lists
Hello Eric Corbett I came across this edit and wanted to make you aware that you no longer need to add the 30em, the ref list now auto formats when there are enough references listed. This is relatively new and I found out when someone pop'd a note to me in a edit summary, [|here is some more information] Happy editing. --Cameron11598(Talk)16:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
For years I've been doing that with the edit summary "per MF", in gratitude to a former editor here with a funky user name. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I remember him. He was a great editor, very much under-appreciated, especially by Jimbo's cult followers and those who found the truth to be uncomfortable, i.e. Americans!</joke> EricCorbett13:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Careful with them jokes and them cu- words, sir. But summarizing, you think that the automatic columns should kick in before "enough" references, whatever they think is enough? And I know there's someone who knows how to plow through my edit summaries to count the "per MF"s. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Precisely. Or perhaps a parameter should be added to customise the number of citations before the columns kick in from the default of nine. EricCorbett21:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm well aware that the US is such a large country that it makes very little sense to think that they're a homogeneous group. EricCorbett21:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Interesting: an infobox troll! Great edit summary--"What on earth do you think you’re doing!" That's an existential question, Eric. I'm glad they didn't ask me, cause I have no clue. (I also have no clue who's behind the IP. And I keep forgetting who is on which side in the infobox war truce) Drmies (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
There's a false dichotomy that's been set up, in that I'm unaware of any editors who are 100% anti or pro infoxes. In my own case, for instance, I've argued against an infobox in Beeston Castle, an argument which I lost, and in favour of an infox in White Cliffs of Dover. In fact, it was me who added the infobox to the cliffs article. EricCorbett21:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
On reflection I'm going to have to amend my comment. I can think of quite a few misguided editors who are 100% in favour of infoboxes. EricCorbett21:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Most articles I work on (biology, astronomy, medicine) they're pretty useful, but occasionally they are useless to the point of misleading (which I didn't really process until I saw them there) - generally on fictional/folklore creature articles. I actually don't think it'd be that hard to map out which articles they are more or less useful on really....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Without wishing to put words in his mouth, I'm pretty sure that Giano would argue that stately homes are another category of articles where they can be rather misleading. EricCorbett22:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
They are generally crap on most arts subjects, with fields that are often misleading, like "movement" and "influenced by", too tempting for the fillers. They are fine for films, sports bios, taxons and other subjects where the types of key facts are predicable and generally little disputed. Template:Infobox World Heritage Site issues straight from the keyboard of Satan, giving ALL the wrong information and usually none of the right. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The sheer length of some infoboxes, particularly it seems to me in the MilHist and locomotive arenas, for my money makes a mockery of their primary function, to provide a concise summary. I've seen articles in which the infobox is longer than the article itself, which can't be right. EricCorbett01:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Since John mentioned Satan's keyboard just above, I thought I would provide a picture showing the place where infoboxes are made. Dr.K.01:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: et allii. Leave infoboxes as they are. The purpose of an infobox is to provide as much information as is available from reliable sources. To shorten infoboxes would create chaos and a loss if information that is of interest to people who are interested in their specialties. Peter HornUser talk03:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I left a note for Peter Horn since he is the person who originally added the infobox to Cherry Street Strauss Trunnion Bascule Bridge. When he first added it, it was small. Now the infobox has grown much bigger and has some lines that seem to verge on duplication. Some of the entries would be combined or dropped. Joseph Strauss is entered three times: for designer, architect and engineering designer. The bridge was both constructed by and fabricated by the Dominion Bridge company. Through an amazing coincidence, it is both owned by and maintained by the Port of Toronto. Normal article improvement should lead to a smaller infobox. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I find the notion that an infobox should contain as much information as is available from reliable sources to be a very challenging one. As articles consist of nothing but reliable information from reliable sources, any words outside an infobox would be extraneous, and articles would consist only of infoboxes, perhaps supplemented by one or more images. Bizarrely I can see the logic of that position, but would it really help anyone? It seems perfectly obvious to me that not all reliable information can be distilled into one or more infobox parameters, as Johnbod has pointed out above. EricCorbett05:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
