This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ritchie333. 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.
Good show. I have the article and talk page watchlisted so I'll know when somebody picks it up. If it passes, we could reinvent the Heymann Standard (WP:HEY) as the Hügel Marshall Standard or HMS for short. I can't believe the creator was a sock! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that was strange. It's actually a good thing it was created by a sock, because every page created by the sockmaster was deleted - but not pages created by the socks. Go figure. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Right. They blocked the sockmaster and deleted all the pages created by the sockmaster, including all the sock user pages. But they did not block the socks themselves, or delete the pages created by the socks. Lucky for us. MelanieN alt (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I do confess that on occasion, when sorting out the laundry to go in the machine, I have put a sock on my hand and satirically said "Hello. I think Ritchie333 is great and I agree with absolutely everything he says ever, but I've never met him!". I need to get out more often.... Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I just took another sock-puppet-created article to DYK. Or actually I guess he was banned for being a sockmaster, not a sock. I didn't realize it had been created by a sockmaster until just now. I know there are some people who think we should delete everything created by a banned user, but these two cases show that's a bad idea. Evaluate them on their merits, even a banned user or a sock can create something of value. --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Well done for the article improvements! I agree that you even if you have to ban a socking user, you should leave the edits alone if they improve the encyclopedia. I don't keep on tabs on RfA other than just drop in once in a while to ask the odd question. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sock isn't running yet, he's just publicly considering it on his talk page. I suspect that with a username like that, there would be a record turnout at his RfA. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Briarcliff
Hi again Ritchie,
Thanks so much for reviewing the Briarcliff school district article. I'm kinda confused by what you added to the article though: what does "Demand for school places is high due to its strong performance and ratings" mean?--ɱ(talk · vbm)21:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@SLBedit: Okay, perhaps it wasn't a great idea to have that edit summary that parodied José Mourinho's style at press conferences (the "shut up, shut up" and "the special one" coming directly from José and his Amazing Technicolor Overcoat), but basically someone of his stature should never require a citation to the Daily Star. It is pure tabloid journalism like The Sun and should never be used as a citation for anything serious like Mourinho. As the information cited - opinions of him being one of the best ever football managers - is cited to multiple alternative sources, it's not required. If Mourinho really is regarded as being one of the best ever, the information will also be cited to many more reliable sources. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Ritchie! Check out the note on my page (the Random Acts of Kindness section). I had mentioned, in reviewing a double DYK, that I thought either or both articles might qualify for GA. The author was excited about that idea - he has never had a GA. I suggested he might like to have an experienced GA reviewer advise him what needs to be done to get them (one or both) to GA. He didn't reply but he "thank"ed me for the comment, so I took that as agreeing that he'd like such input. Would you like to take a look at the articles and advise him? Maybe best on his talk page rather than mine. If this isn't something you do, then never mind. Happy Monday! --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I am only finding time to make brief appearances on Wikipedia at the moment, and I still have a GA to close off. Maybe this evening I will get that one nailed, then I can start looking at new requests. In the meantime, I'll try another article rescue. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You made it to the final round in the 2014-2015 GA Cup! Thank-you for being part of the success for the first GA Cup! We hope to see you next year!--Dom497 (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The inaugural GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists.
The winner of the 2014/2015 GA Cup is Jaguar! He earned an impressive 615 points, despite only being a wildcard in the Round 4. The key to Jaguar's success seemed to be reviewing lots of articles as well as reviewer the oldest nominations; he reviewed 39 nominations in this round. Overall, the key to everyone's success was reviewing articles that had been in the queue for at least three months, which was true throughout the competition. In second place was Wizardman, with 241 points, and following close behind in third place was Good888, with 211 points. Congrats!
Although there were a couple of bumps along the way, the judges have thoroughly enjoyed managing this competition. We hope that the participants had fun as well. The GA Cup was a resounding success, and that's due to all of you. The judges sincerely thank each and every participant, and for the editors who were willing to subject their articles to this process. We learned a lot. For example, we learned that even with meticulous planning, it's impossible to anticipate every problem. We learned that the scoring system we set up wasn't always the most effective. The enthusiasm and motivation of Wikipedians is awesome, and we enjoyed watching what was sometimes fierce competition. We look forward to the second GA Cup later this year.
We reached many of our goals. See here for GA Cup statistics. We made a big difference, especially in shortening the length of time articles spend in the queue, and in reducing the backlog. Overall, 578 nominations were reviewed throughout the competition and a total of 8,184 points were awarded. Everyone involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished through the GA Cup. Stay tuned for more information about our next competition.
There will be some much-needed changes made in the scoring system next time. We appreciate your feedback, and commit to seriously consider it. If you haven't already, please fill out the feedback form here. If you're interested in being a judge in our second GA Cup, please let one of our judges know or click on the tab found in the feedback form.
Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners!
Congrats to the stats! - I would like to add you to list of the precious, DYK? My problem is that I would have to break a rule (which I admit to have broken on occasions): not from me to someone who supported what women with courage opposed. It's a while ago, I normally proclaim "letting go of the past", - how do you feel about it now? I still miss him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: - I'm not sure what the "precious" is (other than something to do with Gollum) but if you want to add me to a list which recognises I've done something to improve the encyclopedia, then that's absolutely fine by me. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
(ec) ps, looking at the sock image below, ... and who said: "Meh; my mom taught me to change my socks everyday. It just feels right" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I do appreciate your spreading of calm, peaceful vibes through ANI and elsewhere with reference to Geh aus, mein Herz, und suche Freud. It reminds me of the picture to the side of this. There needs to be more of this. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Once upon a time, I had Peace in front under the image. Then two users died, and I moved Reformation to the position, to write RIP. Follow that link, for a bit of history ;) - The image was used here first, after prep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
One of the great thing about modern technology is that memories can be preserved and people can be enjoyed long after they've gone. Things may come and things may go, but the article goes on forever. Hang on - this is a redlink - it's a brilliant title for an album, and it's sourced here. Hmmm. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's a shame that good editors come and go and that content doesn't seem to get the respect that it should around here. I don't know what to do about that, other than grill RfA candidates about it closely. Hey ho. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, the missed photographer of the flames went, but afterwards (!) he was banned by Teh Community of which you were part but I was not (nor Eric and some women with courage), - I made it a red category on my user page (but gently modified it to the current one when I decided that I didn't have to follow him) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you understand that I miss a great spirit? (builder of Giano's palace, designer of my lead images, photographer of the cremation, banned by Teh Community to which I don't belong, nor Eric and Drmies) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
"I am your god-king and I know best. Anyone offended? Well be offended then.
The way I see it, is there are two ways of approaching conduct on Wikipedia. On the one hand, there is the widely documented "be nice to everybody" mantra from Jimbo, which we all know about it. On the other hand, there is "this is a shop, you are here to do work, and if you lack the WP:COMPETENCE, we'll have to offend you for the greater good" method that Eric, Giano and, to lesser extent, Drmies and I practice. It's a method that Linus Torvalds is infamous for exhibiting, and is the principal difference between the Linux kernel and Wikipedia, which are otherwise both open-source content projects. Linus has absolute control in a way Jimbo does not. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
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.
Keep going! You are doing a fine fine job. Those stables and Hercules spring to mind... cheers DBaK (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Thanks. Had cause to drive the whole route recently and I though surely after all this time it'll be a half decent route, but no - still big queues at Henlys and Bounds Green. I can remember upgrades to the NCR in the 1980s. And this is a half decent road for Greater London - I'm sure the South Circular is some joke I don't get. I'd like to find out more about the dilapidated houses along it and some of the politics behind it. Check out the excellent CBRD article on the London Ringways to see what was proposed. Now, I can try and get the train into London for gigs there, but if Imm taking full PA and gear, and it's soul destroying driving into Central London particularly. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou Gerda for making me feeling awesome. Hammond organ is still one of my favourite articles that I improved, pulled apart and put back together and got it to GA status. For all the praise heaped on the Yamaha DX7 and the Korg M1, it was not unless I picked up a load of cheap LPs that shops couldn't give away in the late 1980s that I realised that there was in fact an instrument that could hold its own against an electric guitar, and even replace it entirely in some instances. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, since we're all here, I think MelanieN should get co-credit for Ika's article being the shape it's in today, and also sharing my interest in rescuing articles from the bin. Still, putting a positive spin on that, I think Kat Wright and the Indomitable Soul Band may be surprised they have suddenly picked up some British fans via me rescuing their article from A7 speedy, but they have and we've been impressed with their musicality and presentation. Go and have a listen. If I knew Jools Holland (but I don't), I'd badger him to fly them over from Vermont and stick them on Later (but I can't because of point 1). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Precious is only once, - and she got it, - actually that's what got it for you, because I found it kind of unfair to leave you as about the only contributor to DYK Germany who didn't get it, only because of a few remarks in an old discussion ;) - In case she didn't get DYK credit (but I think she did): you can always share a DYK credit, even afterwards, just copy to the other user's talk. (I had a case when a user contributed substantially while it was on the Main page, and asked then. It's "official".) - What do you think of the concept that main editors control their product? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a fine line between "control" as keeping the article's quality up, and "control" as in WP:OWN, and a difficult one to straddle. If I want to find out about a subject as a reader that I previously know nothing about, the presence or absence of any templates, formatting and presentation are likely to be indifferent provided the content is well-written and believable. If an IP comes along and fixes "wrong" information about Denmark Street, should I revert, or should I spin through sources to find - bugger me - that the IP's actually correct? Tricky one to call, that. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie, you were generous enough to recently post a soundcloud link to one of your band's numbers. I was blown away and I'd be very grateful if you could email me any similar links! Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
What an amazing article. I had no idea. I had guessed it was the Fab Four's tribute to Frank and the Mothers. One question - what's a "steamer trunk"? Presumably some kind of 1960s American item of domestic furniture? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
According to Trunk (luggage)#Styles and manufacturers, they were originally designed to go on the cabin of a steam ship. But the "Butcher Cover" is quite a well known artefact for Beatles fans - when you consider that The Butcher Album was released to a mass market in 1966, it's amazing that Capitol Records even thought to ship the thing. @JG66: should be able to fill you in on this. Mind you, Blind Faith has got more controversial since its original release, in this post Glitter era. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
A long time ago, my then girlfriend found my copy of Blind Faith's LP, showed it to me and said, "Please for goodness sake tell me you bought this because of the music on it." Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
MelanieN attempts to explainWP:N, WP:V and WP:RS to a newbie without using three letter acronyms.
Just a heads up that when you were withdrawing the AfD you forgot to put subst:Afd bottom at the bottom messing up the entire page format. SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Cheer up, Ritchie - I've been an admin for a month or so, and I've done both (forgotten to sign my name, and broken the AfD log page by mistyping the bottom template). The most embarrassing is when you forget to delete the article, after closing the discussion as delete. Yep, I've done that too. Good thing they don't require perfection, or we would have no admins at all. --MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, putting my rose tinted wikigoggles on, I was hoping for a result of the article's subject saying "hey, you're right, thanks guys, I'll withdraw my legal threat and help you get the article up to FA status. Here are a bunch of offline news and magazine hits for you....." but the reality is somewhat different. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Oops! Strictly speaking, you shouldn't have closed that discussion at all - because even though you had withdrawn the nomination, there was an outstanding "Delete" !vote. See Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I don't think you need to revert the close, but that's something to keep in mind in the future: speedy keep only applies if there are NO recommendations for delete. --MelanieN the Schoolmarm (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, forgot about that since it looked like an obvious keep and the AfD was half-hearted in the first place (as I kind of made obvious). Oh well, some days you just can't help making mistakes. I'll probably wake up tomorrow to a nice message from DPL bot telling me about something I would never have thought of as being a disambig page. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
LOL, that picture is a riot! Saddle oxfords on the teacher? Shorts and knee sox on the kid? Hey, I'm not THAT old! On the other hand, this line from the caption - Most of Landaff teachers don't stay on since if they are well-qualified, they can get better paying jobs elsewhere - certainly applies to would-be teachers about Wikipedia! --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The caption's right - they moved to the home counties where people vote for a pint of bitter if it's got a blue rosette on it. Did you know you can drive up the Bwlch-y-Clawdd road west of the Rhondda and buy an ice cream at the summit - in February? (I'm sure Martin knows it well) Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sacramento Book Collectors Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Book club. 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.
Did you think about thanking me for adding the four sources to that article that stopped it from being speedy deleted? No, of course you didn't. Damn bots... Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Daniel. Although it doesn't look like it superficially, this was one of the hardest GA reviews I've done recently, primarily because I knew very little about the topic and while I could see the prose had had substantial copyediting from earlier reviews, I was a little concerned about it just being a whole bunch of opinions lumped together, and wondered what might be missing. Still, we got there in the end and it's now an interesting article about an important political topic. Well done. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I dare say I could work on both. Revolver is in a good shape because of GabeMc; the principal problem I have with GA is I don't have the vast array of book sources that he does to be able to fact check should the need arise. I always kind of hoped he'd come out of retirement and finish the job off. As for Jackson Street, let me have a rumage around and see what I can find - there is this book source talking about pre-earthquake architecture, but I'd like to read through that at my own pace. In my experience if you start pulling out facts from sources without understanding the overall picture, you stand a high risk of making a mistake, and anything that uses the {{sfn}} template is by and large considered unquestionably correct by the masses. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Right! Stop that! It's far too silly! Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Woolwich Ferry 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 Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for what you've done so far, some really interesting insights, and for the copyediting. I've got to pop out in about half an hour to go here - not sure if there's enough to make an article on that pub but it was Steve Marriot's local in the 1980s and Jamie Oliver pops in from time to time. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
You have an imitator. They look like a short-lived sock of somebody, and I doubt they will ever make any more than that one edit, but thought you would like to know. --MelanieN (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
On 16 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Naomi Sager, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Naomi Sager helped develop the first computer program to parse English? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Naomi Sager. 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.
BTW, do you think that Charlotte Johnson Baker has a shot at GA? I was trying to think of notable women to write an article about (Women's History Month and all that), but found she already has a well-developed article here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The article seems quite brief. I appreciate there is no size limit on GAs, but 3K tends to be at the lower end. That said, writing about 19th century figures does generally turn up less in sources unless you look carefully. The large quotation needs an inline citation (that's a deal breaker for GAs) and I would paraphrase it anyway. The "Positions held" list would sit better as prose. Watch out for POV in prose such as "a noted suffragist" (noted by whom?) I'm not entirely sure what year the events in the "Political position" section are (1888/9)? There's nothing about her life in the 20th century (if she was a notable suffragist she ought to have still been reported in sources in the 1900s and 10s, even if we can't immediately find them) and no information on when she died other than the "1937" in the lead. In summary - needs a bit more work and beefed up to reach GA, I'm afraid. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie, I just wondered whether you are still interested in reviewing Sleaford at GAR. It's been up for a review for well over a month now (during which time it's received a copy-edit) and I have just finished my term at University, so I should be around to make changes for the next few weeks. I appreciate that you are busy both on- and offline and may well be burnt out after the GA Cup, so if you can't do it, let me know and I can put it back up for review. Best wishes, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd forgotten all about this, but I hope I can get around to it in the next couple of days. And yes, I did go GA-review crazy in the cup, doing 50-60 reviews from memory, and needed to take a break and go back to writing. Still, I think I'm over the hump and J3Mrs is a good editor, so hopefully it should be a relatively brief job. What's 95.145.204.226 been doing? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that's great to hear and your need for a break is very understandable (that's a lot of reviews!) As for the IP, it's not me and as far as I can tell from these diffs, they have been copyediting by adding/removing links and de-capitalising (?) certain words. All the changes are minor and I can't see that there's anything untoward, though I think the wapentakes ought to be linked, even if they pages don't exist yet (following comments from Rodw at its PR). Many thanks for taking this on, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC).
A very brief perusal through suggests this is a borderline FA! But yesterday I said Revolver (album) looked like a GA but then reviewed and discovered it was some way off. Still, I know the fingers that have been in the pies for this one, so we should be alright. I've got to nip out in a mo and I can't remember what I'm doing tomorrow evening, so I'll have to get back to you! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Look all these blue links! Far too many! Let me grab my copy of Newnes Dictionary of Arcane and Bizarre Wikilawerying Policies and Guidelines and nuke some articles!
@Shirt58: I don't think Eric will touch an article like that at the moment as it involves women's rights (broadly construed) and he's fed up of people pouncing on him and tripping over themselves to serve arbcom enforcement blocks :-( .... @MelanieN:, who I seem to be pinging about 4 times a day at the moment might be up for rescuing it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice try, Ritchie, but I don't find this organization to be notable so I won't be attempting a rescue. I doubt if there is enough significant coverage to support an article. You can try, if you like; I would be happy to be proven wrong. Re: the original version: I would have chopped out almost everything Shirt did, except I would have kept (and suggest re-adding) the qualifications for membership. I think that is important to define what the group is. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I would have left the history (all one sentence!) and the affiliates, gone looking for sources for both and either plumbed sources in or slapped [citation needed] on them depending on the result - but I think I would have probably ended up in a similar state to Shirt58's version. I suppose we could always send it to AfD and see what happens. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I have attempted to add a bit of pre-emptive firefighting on the AfD before an angry mob turns up from Twitter with torches and pitchforks calling for my head on a plate for having the complete and utter chuzpah of nominating this article. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Don't worry about "butting in", Martin does it all the time ;-) ... I haven't looked at all the sources yet, but I looked at three and all were on the general subject of women in the film industry, rather than specifically the AWD. I'll pick through the others if I've got time, but as things stand I can't see a good reason to switch my !vote from "delete" at this time. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Ritchie333. I was just searching for anything that might possibly help establish notability, but to be honest I don't think I found anything that would cause me to change my mind as well. The irony is that many people get frustrated with Wikipedia when their articles are deleted or not approved for lack of notability, even though Wikipedia's function is not to make things notable. If such people were only as feverent in getting their groups, etc. significant coverage in reliable sources, there would be hardly any need for AfD at all. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Comments like this (or indeed many comments trying to contest a CSD, particularly A7 or G11) make me want to bang my head against a desk with a sigh, saying "you just don't get it". I've had this discussion with people off-wiki, where I've patiently explained the basic core of verifiability and no original research only to get the response along the lines of "Why do I need to get The Guardian / Telegraph / Independent / Times / BBC to write about us - everyone knows who we are and that's of no benefit to us!" It's frustrating, but at the end of the day all I can do is suggest that if an organisation is truly notable, getting a major news outlet to cover them independently should be a reasonably easy task. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Technical question. Why did you format the O'Neill book as a source and not simply cite it using "cite book" like any other reference. I think this is the first time I've seen it done that way. I've used sfns before, but always just cited the book like any other reference. Is this something that comes down to personal style, or is there an actual formatting reason for doing it that way. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
There's no real reason other than it's just the way I've got used to doing things, if you're expanding an article towards GA / FA (as I have a tendency to do), then I'll frequently want to cite multiple pages from the same book, and shortened footnotes save time if you're referencing lots and lots of pages. I also hoped I'd be able to cite more than the two pages given (and one of those doesn't actually tie directly to the AWD, so somebody might consider it OR and pull it), though that doesn't seem to be the case. Actually, there is a political reason, when you add {{sfn}} with Harvard Referencing, people immediately think you're an experienced Wikipedian and are much less likely to revert you. That's a double-edged sword, as it means you have to check your work and referencing far more closely if nobody else is going to do it! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I've used Harvard before (I think). I just never break the references section up like you did. I always wondered why people did that, and you're the first person I've had the chance to ask. Something for me to work on for future articles. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Re: Ephemerals (band) notability guidelines
Hi Ritchie,
I write in response to your comment on my edits to the article on Ephemerals (band). Below is your original comment:
I've had a listen to the album and had a good look around and tried to see if I can save this article, but the basic rule of thumb is you need at least a chart hit (verified by any Official Charts Company source) or write-ups in national magazines such as The Guardian or The Telegraph. I hope it's only a matter of time before this happens, and if the album gets picked up and covered there, we might be able to fit you into Wikipedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)'Italic text
Wikipedia's guide on notability does not require a chart hit and my submission references playlist rotation on BBC 1Xtra (very trustworthy source), national and international magazine coverage (DJ Mag, Mixmag) as well as featuring as the subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network (Loose Ends on radio 4.)
Of the points on notability as per wikipedia's guidelines the article satisfies 1, 10,11 and 12 so I don't understand why it has been rejected on these grounds since it fullfils 4 of the criteria guidelines. Please can you rereview your comment, the article and the guidelines and respond appropriately.
@AlexM171087: It looks like I declined this with regret, which sounds about right as I do try and approve and pass band articles wherever possible. The problem is that the guidelines say you need sufficient coverage, and I thought, all things considered, that there wasn't quite enough. If I passed the article and another editor took it to a deletion debate, I would struggle to defend it. My comments about typical sourcing are a basic rule of thumb. Just about any band, chart hit or otherwise, has a write up in The Guardian. Much of what I found via an online search was very scant coverage, really that Radio 4 "Loose Ends" appearance is the main thing at the mo, that didn't really suggest there were enough sources to write a really good biography.
A serious question to ask is - do you think having a Wikipedia article (or not) will benefit the band, and if so, how? I did notice this comment in Chicago Now that says "This band is too new even for Wikipedia", which I find worrying. Wikipedia shouldn't be a "benchmark" for any band to obtain as it's a general purpose encyclopedia that's generally behind the times and reports things after they happened. The best thing to do is wait .... your draft isn't going to be deleted, and if the band is good then other sources will start to write about them, we'll notice, and then we can have an article. It won't hurt to wait six months. After all, Things May Come and Things May Go but the Art School Dance Goes on Forever, which is nearly 45 years old, only had an article created last month!
Finally, just because I declined the submission, it doesn't follow that I don't like the band ... in fact I seem to recall they were quite good and align with my musical tastes. I'll have to have another listen. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited If I Could Do It All Over Again, I'd Do It All Over You, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bongo. 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.
.jpg)
.jpg)
![[1]](https://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2013/10/17/1382004419231/Daily-Star-front-page-fea-001.jpg){kind=link}
