This is an archive of past discussions with User:Harrias. 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.
Hi Harrias, thanks yet again for your support on the BR articles, looks like we'll just have the first and last to concern ourselves with in due course! In the meantime, do you fancy taking a look at Richie Benaud and if you're happy the sourcing concerns at ITNC has been largely addressed, would you consider adding it to RD? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The Richie article looks in a decent state now, so I've posted that. I don't really know my way around ITN, so hopefully I've done it right! No worries with the Boat Race articles, just a shame that 1829 hasn't made it yet. I assume after 1829 and 2015, the parent article is the next challenge? Harriastalk11:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Well I may try to at least get it to GAN by tonight, and hope for a review before tomorrow evening.... Then yes, 2015 to GAN then FAC while I'm working in the main article, all help grateful received!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Harrias, just a quick barnstar to say thanks for the many reviews of Boat Race articles you've conducted over the past year. As of this morning, I completed my (initial) goal of ensuing that every Boat Race had, not only its own article, but one that was either of GA or FA status: we now have 158 GAs and 3 FAs that we can all be proud of! It doesn't stop here, for me at least, I'm going to keep up with improving the quality of the GAs and look for more FA opportunities. Plus, there's the small matter of 70 Women's Boat Race articles to get up and running! But thanks again, and for your recent help on the inaugural race article... I couldn't have done it without your help. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Harrias, the nominator responded to your most recent set of requests back on March 21; in a few hours, the review will have been open for three months. Can you please get back to it soon? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Porthlevenlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I'd like to invite everyone to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
List of women's international cricket hat-tricks FLC
I finally responded to your review of my FLC, and went to review your list back... only to find I took so long it had already been promoted! I owe you one review, then- next nomination you have (at FLC or elsewhere) let me know and I'll take a look at it. --PresN02:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks and ...
Jiang Biwei is the lead hook in the set you kindly loaded into the DYK queue, thanks. I think the hook should say "nude one" and not just "nude" as without this word it fails to have the intending meaning. This was the wording originally agreed. Could you assist? Victuallers (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Victuallers: I'm afraid I disagree, I think the wording works better as it is now, rather than the proposed hook. Harriastalk17:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC) That's OK ... as long as makes sense to someone. Cheers 17:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
2nd person in DYK hooks
Sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to this before it got taken off the page. But ... I'm not aware of any discussion I could point you to. However, I know we've done similar hooks in the past that were not on April Fool's.
See Hypoalgesic effect of swearing. The hook that ran on Aug. 21, 2013 was "... that you should swear when you hurt yourself?" It got a lot of views, which is the idea .., you want people to clock on the bolded link, so (I have understood) we allow a little bit of deviation from our usual stylistic structures for that.
Probably not worth the energy. DYK people are .... odd. Best for your mental state to leave it and fix things when they appear on the main page. As usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Harrias! I am into a new list right now. As per your request I opened the writers on this one. Can I have your input on the list in total? Thanks. — Tom(T2ME)12:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Coincidence
While randomly going through this list, came across Leah Poulton and immediately located her on wiki. Actually a bit surprised to see her article already been listed as a GA. It's been exactly five years since it passed GAN. Do we have any GA on women cricketers, especially from the pre 1980s era? —Vensatry(ping)17:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Crescent, Taunton 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 Noswall59 -- Noswall59 (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The final FLC nom of a list of Scheduled monuments in Somerset
While I appreciate the thought, the person who did the work to make Big Inch a GA was Hchc2009 (talk·contribs). I only started it long ago as one of my first new articles. Yoshi24517 (talk·contribs) might have misunderstood the GA vs creator distinction for DYK. I've copied the DYK credit over to Hchc2009's talkpage and won't claim credit for the DYK. Acroterion(talk)11:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk·contribs·email), Miyagawa (talk·contribs·email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs·email) 16:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2005 Twenty20 Cup, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Richard Johnson (cricketer), Allan Jones and John Holder. 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.
It's nowhere near ready! If you want to quick fail it or anything, that's fine by me. I recognise the nominator - he has a habit of doing this, if I remember correctly. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I know that you were aiming at a similar article a while ago. I'm planning to take the 2003 men's article to FAC. It would be so kind of you if you could give your feedback and inputs here. Thanks, —Vensatry(ping)13:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Like. The tables look a little bare, not sure what other info you could add? The Rambling Man (talk)
I considered the rationale, but I figured that realistically, there would be little way to avoid just copying exactly what Wisden put, or para-phrasing too closely. The only other option I thought about was whether they were recognised as a batsman/bowler/all-rounder/wicket-keeper, but it's a little too subjective, though Engel does provide a bit of a guide. I think to be honest, what is there might be all we can manage. This ref provides the best summary of all the information, what do you reckon? Harriastalk20:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sieges of Taunton may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
navy, and spent the rest of his life as a naval commander, for which he remains best known.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/robert-blake |title=Robert Blake
abbey.org/our-history/people/robert-blake |title=Robert Blake |publisher=[{Westminster Abbey]] |accessdate=16 June 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=
Obviously you make the choice yourself, but I thought that as a West Country sports fan and prolific GA reviewer you may be interested that I have Adam Stansfield (gone too soon) listed on Good Articles nominations. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
We need a clear philosophy of what is and isn't OK for DYK hooks
I'm bringing this up privately (so to speak) so as not to add to The Rambling Man's current tantrum. I more-than-generally agree with your judgments at DYK (where good judgment is sometimes hard to come by -- especially timely good judgment) but I would really like you to think about your pull here [1], prompted by [2]. Must we always be at the mercy of the skittish schoolmarms? Must anything fun and intriguing, which just maybe teaches the reader something new and interesting (i.e. re Roanoke) alongside the main hook fact, be smothered in its crib because one IP don't get it, after which a grump with his nose in the air chimes in he DONTLIKEIT? EEng (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@EEng: In my opinion that hook was just trying to do too much. As the IP correctly pointed out, saying that this is "no danger" of something "mysteriously" disappearing is more or less a direct contradiction, while drawing a comparison between the Percina roanoka and the Roanoke Colony was extremely tenuous. The problem with ERRORS is that all decisions become somewhat rushed and often lacking in general consensus, but I try my best: they have been a number of times that complaints have been dismissed too, it isn't just a case of bowing to the moaners! Harriastalk07:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Harrias, it's precisely because you don't bow to all the moaners that I approached you. I'd like to discuss with you a framework for thinking about this, after which we can approach the broader field of DYK participants. It occurs to me there are really two things to talk about: (a) to what extent may hooks depart from utterly straightforward "just the facts, ma'am" style?; (b) what should be the criteria for a pull? I'd like to start with (b). Are you game to talk this through a bit? EEng (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@EEng: I'm always happy to talk anything through, though I'm not around so much at the moment as I would like. That said, I check up on WP a few times a day, even if I don't edit, so feel free to post; I will definitely read and think about it, even if I don't reply straight away. Harriastalk20:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, good, but if you're pardon me I've changed my mind and would like to go back to (a). Let's start with this food for thought: what do you think of ALT3 of this nom? EEng (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@EEng:Personally I think that is fine. It is slightly misleading, but intriguing. It remains completely factual, retains the correct capitalisation, and uses professional language. There is nothing wrong with quirky hooks, but I think hooks are perhaps straying too far towards an April Fools style joke or pun. For example (and I was actually the admin that promoted this from prep to queue) the hook currently on the main page: ...that Thao Ma's 1966 Laotian coup bombed? In my opinion on the Main page of Wikipedia, we should be using a professional level of English, and "bombed" in this usage, is an informal or slang term. Therefore, while I did promote it, now that I'm considering where the line should be, I would actually rule against that hook. I'm going to stop pinging you after this post, and just assume you're watching my talk page, because the pings annoy me! Harriastalk17:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Picking up in the discussion at TDYK... Exactly because I think you and I are at somewhat different points on the spectrum of what we feel is acceptable, I thought we two might be able to clear a lot of the underbrush before opening a discussion with the wider group. That's what I'd still like to do with you once I catch my breath. EEng (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I kind of lost my fire there for a bit. So just to continue feeling out each other's sensibilities (that sounds kind of naughty, I guess) do you feel anything here is problematic? I'm thinking particularly of steakburger, Dr. Young, John Harvard, Jean Berko Gleason, and the brutalist gray elephant. EEng (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I've taken a break from DYK, so forgot about this. I'm not keen on the "brutalist gray elephant" one, while I would clarify the John Harvard one, if only because I think it would make it more interesting. But otherwise, while some are a little tacky, I wouldn't have any problems with them. Harriastalk15:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm just a tacky guy, and I appreciate your being willing to let that pass. What would you do to the Harvard hook? And what problem do you see with the elephant hook? EEng (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The elephant hook is too much of an EGG for me: it is not at all obvious what the piped link is sending you to, too much so. The Harvard hook, something like:
That said, the main reason for that, is purely that I'm so used to completely misleading hooks that I was expected the links to just be two unrelated John Harvards, so I didn't find it interesting. Someone with less DYK experience probably would. Harriastalk20:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm really glad we're having this talk. On elephant, see... People come to DYK for a little fun and to learn something new, so I don't think it needs to be obvious where the link goes. Someone wanting to optimize his time and make every click a targeted and productive one probably should look at DYK some other day when he's in a more relaxed mood. EEng (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this is certainly one point on which we differ! I get your point entirely, but my personal belief is that DYK hooks should still adhere to our MOS as fully as possible. As an April Fools hook, it would be fine, but any other time, for me it crosses the line. Harriastalk11:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
But listen, we'll have to come back to the "acceptable hooks" issue later -- we've got bigger problems. If we can't get something like this (Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#So_what_do_other_editors_think.3F) passed, then we'll be stuck in this low-quality hell forever. At the moment we actually have editors saying it's too much to ask. Please add your comments. EEng (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
(Note: I've moved things around a bit here so that the conversations flow a bit better, hope you don't mind.) To be honest, it's that sort of thing that has led me to take a break from WP:ERRORS and T:TDYK: I'm fed up of both the attacks on DYK (both the justified and unjustified ones) and the people who say there is nothing wrong with DYK. Frankly, I think we're at a stage where the real question needs to be: "In it's current format, is having DYK as a feature of the MP a viable prospect." And personally, I think the answer, at the moment, is no. The process is completely broken. I value the project as a whole, I think it is a good way into both article creation and "admin" tasks for newer editors, and helps to motivate people to write articles. However, I think the size of the backlog too often makes people rush things, which is why we keep getting complaints. In some ways I appreciate it would be more useful for me to stay there, and try to help the fight, but frankly, I come on WP as a hobby, to write. Through May I probably spent more time trying to keep DYK working and as "good" as possible than I did on mainspace articles, and yet still it fell behind and had complaints about hooks. Harriastalk15:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree on every point, and though I never thought of it before, the moment you said that maybe DYK should just be scrapped (at least until something new is built from the ground up) I saw that that might be not only possible but desirable -- perhaps the only way to get from where we are to (maybe) something decent in the future. And I know what you mean about putting in so much effort -- I was startled to find I've made 2000 (!) edits to noms and preps in the last 10 months alone! And it seems like trying to hold back the ocean.
If I may repeat myself, I think the acid test is the proposal I and a few others (maybe including you -- I forget) have on the table at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#So_what_do_other_editors_think.3F. If we can't get the passed -- and right now we have several people saying it's asking too much -- then the situation is hopeless and we might as well start working to scrap the whole thing and hope something new can be built in the future. Do you not agree? EEng (talk) P.S. See? Special:Diff/666579208 It's not, as TRM keeps saying, that people just need to be yelled at so they'll know grammar matters; many people actively think that it doesn't matter, and so will just ignore him -- unless we can make grammar and style an explicit part of the criteria.
Indeed; thanks for your revisions on the plot summaries; they are much improved. Please feel free to go through the others and do similar; I really struggled with those! Once I've got a layout established, I hope to go through the other collections and do similar. Harriastalk11:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Harrias. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sieges of Taunton 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 Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert Ramsay (cricketer) 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 Vensatry -- Vensatry (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
No promises but I will have a think & try to remember the camera when travelling (ignoring Yeovil):
Agricultural Showgrounds, Frome – Still in use. - is it the same site used for the fairground shown in lots of images on geograph? - don't go that way often but you never know
Imperial Athletic Ground, Bristol - I drive passed this almost daily. As you say now housing but next to football & other sports pitches so may still be part of the old cricket pitches possible to photograph. The housing development is a long thin one next to the road, between the road & sports pitches.
If you go from the coords for the Frome ground you get to this, on page 2 are some fairground images which I thought might have been on it, but I don't know Frome well either.— Rodtalk17:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
On 4 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tonedale Mills, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Tonedale Mills complex in Somerset is notable for having remains of water, steam, and electrical power generation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tonedale Mills. 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.
Hello Harrias, due to other commitments, I don't have the time to respond to all the points on Carl Lewis. So I am going to fail it (following procedure) and I might come back to it some other time. FunkyCanute (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I see that you are currently working on this list. The list was one of my "to-do" tasks. Shall we collaborate on this one (and the parent article)? —Vensatry(ping)11:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Can do: I've been working on the parent article for a while here. Even if you didn't do anymore work on the list, I would include you as a co-nom, as you created the list in the first place. Harriastalk11:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Silk Mills Park and Ride
In my sandbox I'm currently working on a list of local nature reserves in Somerset (not complete yet - source list). I can get photos for most of them from geograph, but there are a few where I can't source any suitably licenced pics. I was wondering if you every travel anywhere near Silk Mills Park and Ride, just outside Taunton? If so would you mind taking a camera with you?— Rodtalk16:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rodw: No problem, I run that way pretty often, and it shouldn't be any bother to take a backpack with a camera to get some pictures. I can get some alternatives for the other reserves around Taunton as well hopefully. Harriastalk18:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I know Children's Wood pretty well, as it's near where I live, and I can't see it meeting WP:GNG. I doubt most people in Taunton would even know it by that name. Harriastalk18:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:2015_ICC_World_Twenty20_Qualifier regarding Let to know No result or Abandoned. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Please help me to resolution by your comments at DRN. Srinu(Talk|contrib)15:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.
In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.
The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.
The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.
Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!
Just wanted to get clarification on this talk page post from the other day. Per WP:SOCIALMEDIA, since the Facebook link is from the station's official Facebook page, it would be considered a reliable source, correct? Just want to make sure. Enjoy your vacation....Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
More or less, yes. Technically, it is still not considered reliable, but a special exception can be made for limited use of such references. Harriastalk17:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I am only using it for the station's launch date, August 8. So, it isn't being used multiple times, just once in the infobox and once in the article itself. Both times, citing the same thing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Harrias: I asked for other admin options regarding this at AN. I mentioned you, so I am letting you know about the discussion at AN. I am just trying to figure out who is correct (you or The Rambling Man) since I am considering taking the article to GAN. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Lyme Regis 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Craig Kieswetter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Lumb. 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 Harrias. I hope you had a good holiday. Just wondering if I could get you to have a look at my response to your comments on this FLC? Many thanks. Relentlessly (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
DYK for South African cricket team in England in 1907
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pope Theodore II 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 Relentlessly -- Relentlessly (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The Herald (submissions) during the second round.
