 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Military Historian of the Year
|
The Half Barnstar | |
| For your nomination of Sturmovogel 66 as a candidate for the 2016 Military Historian of the Year I present you with the Left Half of the Half Barnstar. All to often, it is easy for us to overlook deserving editors, contributors, and participants, so it is a welcome development to know that the contributions from others are still noticed and appreciated by our community. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC) |
- Thanks, TomStar81. And happy new year! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy 2017!
Wishing good health and happiness as we start the new year! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rosiestep. Same back to you. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
War of the Pacific arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 17, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Big Picture with Kal Penn
The article Big Picture with Kal Penn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Not notable and unreferenced television program
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Whats new?! So, I've been here for a long time. That means that I know the rules and can easily push back on this by pointing you to sources like a New York Times review or many others, all found with a quick Google search. However, new editors don't have that luxury, and your PROD here makes me wonder if you're nominating articles for deletion without basic checks. Such hasty deletion nominations have been shown to drive new editors away. Please try to not contribute to that. :-) Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your reply. I have seen you are an experienced editor, which is all the more confusing as to why you created the article without references, and haven't expanded it beyond two sentences. I'm glad you have found reliable sources, and hope you can continue contributing to the article beyond its current stub. In my quick search, I found brief mentions relating to airtimes and unsubstantial sources. I'm satisfied you have establised notability. -- Whats new?(talk) 11:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Whats new?: thanks for engaging here. Certainly the article isn't ideal; I wrote it late on a Friday night while watching the show on TV and never came back to it. But the burden isn't on me—see WP:PRODNOM or its AfD equivalent, WP:BEFORE. All I ask is that you take slightly more time in conducting your search to ensure that you don't PROD notable articles created by new editors. Best (really!), Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your reply. I have seen you are an experienced editor, which is all the more confusing as to why you created the article without references, and haven't expanded it beyond two sentences. I'm glad you have found reliable sources, and hope you can continue contributing to the article beyond its current stub. In my quick search, I found brief mentions relating to airtimes and unsubstantial sources. I'm satisfied you have establised notability. -- Whats new?(talk) 11:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: December 2016
| ||||||
The Signpost: 17 January 2017
- From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost
- News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?
- In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more
- Featured content: One year ends, and another begins
- Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases
- Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new
- Technology report: Tech present, past, and future
Books and Bytes - Issue 20
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)
- Partner resource expansions
- New search tool for finding TWL resources
- #1lib1ref 2017
- Wikidata Visiting Scholar
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Friendly reminder
As discussed previously, please don't transclude unprotected images on the main page. Following the instructions displayed at WP:CMP is a simple method of ensuring that this doesn't occur. Thank you. —David Levy 13:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Oriental Desert Express
Hello! Your submission of Oriental Desert Express at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Joseph2302 (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
You need to do a QPQ for this nomination. Apart from that, the article is fine. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Executive order
I did discuss on the talk page, where consensus was to use the title that is in the actual document, at least until an executive order number is available.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
It now has an assigned EO number, since 11:15am EST. Federal Register published a publication notice, assigning 13769 to the EO in question. Public inspection document released today, with official EO publication scheduled for tomorrow, February 1. To stave off a potential flurry of name changes, I have taken liberty to insert a short summary of same in main article, updated List of United States federal executive orders 13765 and above with information available as published on FR website, and am contacting you -- the editor who effectively posted the 'please don't change' notice -- to make the if/when call on changing the title as appropriate. Cariboukid (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
DYK TRM, FYI
I tried a couple of years ago too. As you see, it's hopeless. Some people can't be helped. EEng 22:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- EEng, you're up next. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- See what I mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, you are not welcome on my talk page if you're just going to bait other editors. Furthermore, please don't respond to this message. Peace, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Is this becoming a too large of an article. Even with summaries?
Dear Ed17,
Do you think that the Wikipedia article Donald Trump, is becoming too big even with separate summaries, and other Main article pages that there already to decrease the size of the page? It is starting to get so interesting, that even with all the breaking into other articles, and making a summary of the articles in the sections, sub-sections, sub-sub-sections, on Donald Trump, and the page is still this big.
The point I am trying to make here is that, the immense size of that page is already big enough to affect the performance of web browsers on laptops and netbooks. I do not see this problem yet on desktops. Although the size this page is taking up on servers, is nearly reaching around, 350KB according to Donald Trump: Revision history, that is almost the size Administrators Notice Board is taking on servers. I think you know how long ANI is since you are an admin, as stated on your User Page. FYI, even Barack Obama's, George W. Bush's, Bill Clinton's, and Ronald Reagan's page, are all ether nearly or not at all the same size on the servers. The page sizes for those pages can be seen on their Article Revision History pages. However, this is the size of their Wikipedia Article, after their presidency.
However, I think the reason behind why web browsers are starting to almost freeze when loading the page, is because of the number pictures that are seen on the page. All I wanted or should I say, wanting to do, is to, inform you about this problem that I have noticed when that article page is loading. I understand and can see from the page history, that the info, on the page is trying to get reduced. However, I think that as time goes on more and more images will also, be added to that page. I think that a discussion page should be made, where people discuss whether there should be a limit on the number of pictures an article should have, based on its size. Another thing I thought about, was making an article about the summaries on Donald Trump's Wikipedia article, and making a summary of the summary. This would decrease the size of the page further.
I am just trying to state my concern over the size problems, of the Wikipedia Article, Donald Trump.
Sincerely,
Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- At 13000 words its shorter than Ronald Reagan's 14700 words. However, for some reason the source text is WAY larger (320K vs. 225K). Not sure why, but for sure a chunk is due to the # and bulk of the refs. In any event, it's nowhere near excessively long. EEng 02:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Size matters. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- DAMMIT! I was gonna make that joke but after gathering all those stats I forgot. EEng 03:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Heh, and here the pun is right. :-) Those on slower connections, ie most of the internet population, may click away because it takes too long to load. Certainly WP:Summary style should come in. But it'll require consensus on the article's talk page and someone willing to summarize the sections and split off some of the current content into second-tier articles. (I'm not as worried about the images, as there are not an obscene amount of them, but I'm not an expert on how much bandwidth it takes to render those at thumbnail sizes)
- Also, EEng. You missed your chance. Deal with it. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- DAMMIT! I was gonna make that joke but after gathering all those stats I forgot. EEng 03:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)