 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
March 2017 WikiCup newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:
Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.
The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.
So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Aileen Hernandez
On 3 March 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Aileen Hernandez, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 21:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Texas Revolution
Thanks for your edit over there. I knew I didn't do it right, but didn't know how to fix it. My first attempt at that maneuver. Just an FYI, we have a pattern of this developing over there. I think it's been evolving since this achieved FA, same sentiment but not same words. Anyway, thanks for the help. — Maile (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Anytime! It's on my watchlist. :-) On the deleted revision, the text survived because there the Sinebot edit was still visible. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just now my talk page, requests for reduction in protection. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC) Also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/66.87.121.220. This does not look like it will be going away anytime soon. — Maile (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Maile66: That is genuinely frustrating. I'm sorry and hope the SPI comes up with something. Let me know if you need any admin actions to deal with them (I can't really help with the SPI, as I have no idea how the process works!). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just now my talk page, requests for reduction in protection. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC) Also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/66.87.121.220. This does not look like it will be going away anytime soon. — Maile (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Design A-150 Battleship
I've overhauled the article, with an eye towards FAC (and the March Madness contest), but I'd like for you to take a look at it. I'm having a bit of a problem figuring out to cut some of the excess from the article. In particular the main gun part of the last para of the background section seems a bit redundant to the armament section. Another issue is that we need to source the bit about length and beam from the infobox and I don't have that volume of Garzke & Dulin, do you? See how it looks and feel free to make any changes you deem suitable. Once all this is done, and if you're OK with it, I'd like to run it through FAC with you as a co-nom.
I was looking through all the other OMT A-class articles and there are a couple more that we might be able to whip into shape without too much work. Hawaii, in particular comes to mind. Didn't you use to have contact with Scarpaci, back when you and Parsec originally worked on it? It would be very nice to get the relevant pages from him if at all possible since he's updated his book and given it a new title.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hey Sturmvogel 66, I'll take a look asap. I do have that G&D volume, so I'm happy to help with info from that and any other articles that book covers. WRT Hawaii, you might have been thinking of Parsec and I's contact with Lars Ahlberg for Tosa? Scarpaci has a Facebook page where we might be able to get in touch with him if needed, but I wonder if his book is truly reliable... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I was thinking that you and Parsec had both worked on Hawaii, but I'll contact him about upgrading that article since you're going all Mission Impossible about it ;-) I also wonder if we can truly consider him and it highly-reliable. Be easier to actually tell if I had a copy to hand. Maybe one of the local libraries has a copy?Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: Oh, right, sorry. Misunderstanding. I did write Hawaii, but Parsec and I were not in contact with Scarpaci—you might have been thinking of Lars ... etc etc
- I think that's more clear now. Happy to help with getting the article to FA! :-) If I remember right, I used what I could see out of the Google preview for Scarpaci's book. I just no longer trust a publisher that's built on Pagekicker, which advertises "Build, buy, and sell instant ebooks." Also, no listing for it in Worldcat. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: I'm doing some source searching. My university library has U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History and Cruisers and Battle Cruisers: An Illustrated History of Their Impact, so I'll grab those the next time I'm on that side of campus. I also have access to "America's Forgotten Secret Weapons: The Alaska-Class Battle-Cruiser," which despite the absolutely ridiculous title was authored by Paul Silverstone. Would you happen to have a copy of US Heavy Cruisers 1943-75: Wartime and Post-war Classes? I'm skeptical that it'll have much, but it's at least mentioned in the book on pages 32 and 36 (according to the index). There's also a few newspaper articles to draw from. Last, I emailed you a copy of a Military Affairs article that deals with the Lexingtons.Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Cool beans. I like most everything that Silverstone's done, I wasn't even aware that he'd done a book on the Alaskas, so maybe there won't be too much pain if we delete Scarpaci. I've got Friedman and Osborne's books myself, although I do tend to forget about the latter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- In fairness, it's just an article and on a closer look doesn't look like it'll be extremely helpful. Did you have US Heavy Cruisers? And when were you looking to get this done by? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Really no big hurry. Less than a week would be nice, but not essential. Yeah, I've got the Osprey Heavy Cruiser book, but it's got just a little bit on the Alaskas.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds good, I'll start going through it this week. I have a wedding to attend on Saturday, so this weekend is going to be a little problematic. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- How dare you have a social life outside Wiki! So you want to do Hawaii first, then A-150?
- Sounds good, I'll start going through it this week. I have a wedding to attend on Saturday, so this weekend is going to be a little problematic. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Really no big hurry. Less than a week would be nice, but not essential. Yeah, I've got the Osprey Heavy Cruiser book, but it's got just a little bit on the Alaskas.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- In fairness, it's just an article and on a closer look doesn't look like it'll be extremely helpful. Did you have US Heavy Cruisers? And when were you looking to get this done by? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Cool beans. I like most everything that Silverstone's done, I wasn't even aware that he'd done a book on the Alaskas, so maybe there won't be too much pain if we delete Scarpaci. I've got Friedman and Osborne's books myself, although I do tend to forget about the latter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: I'm doing some source searching. My university library has U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History and Cruisers and Battle Cruisers: An Illustrated History of Their Impact, so I'll grab those the next time I'm on that side of campus. I also have access to "America's Forgotten Secret Weapons: The Alaska-Class Battle-Cruiser," which despite the absolutely ridiculous title was authored by Paul Silverstone. Would you happen to have a copy of US Heavy Cruisers 1943-75: Wartime and Post-war Classes? I'm skeptical that it'll have much, but it's at least mentioned in the book on pages 32 and 36 (according to the index). There's also a few newspaper articles to draw from. Last, I emailed you a copy of a Military Affairs article that deals with the Lexingtons.Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I was thinking that you and Parsec had both worked on Hawaii, but I'll contact him about upgrading that article since you're going all Mission Impossible about it ;-) I also wonder if we can truly consider him and it highly-reliable. Be easier to actually tell if I had a copy to hand. Maybe one of the local libraries has a copy?Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Aileen Hernandez
I disagree but see your logic and am happy for it to be re-introduced/remain! GiantSnowman 09:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Cheers! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info
I wish I'd known about this before. DuncanHill (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- @DuncanHill: No prob, it's not something you could have known if you weren't following along with it! I genuinely hope that TRM comes back with a different approach to editing once the month is up. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I knew he had had, shall we say, "issues" before, and had searched for some kind of ruling, but hadn't come across that. I'm sure he and I have in the past tried to stand up for each other, so I look forward to that happening again. DuncanHill (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Dorothy Rice
On 7 March 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Dorothy Rice, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Access date format for cite web
Greetings, Ed! In your recent edit of David Rubinger you made several changes to the format of the access-date parameter, rendering it as YYYY-MM-DD. As I'm located in a country with the standard usage DD/MM rather than the MM/DD as in the USA, I avoid ambiguity in ordinary texts written for a global readership by using DD-Month-YYYY. For usage in WP editing I've relied on Template:Cite web which uses DD Month YYYY (unhyphenated), and not the format you substituted in the a/m edit. As I'm the syntax coach (and ranking native speaker of English) in a local group of WP editors, I want to understand deviations from set standards I use and teach. So I'd appreciate your remarks on this matter. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hey Deborahjay, it's purely a matter of convenience. I manually went through to standardize all of the dates before ITN per MOS:DATEUNIFY (sorry for the alphabet soup), and YYYY-MM-DD is a lot faster to type. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for filling me in, Ed, and the link to that section of the MOS. I'm presently struggling with incorporating LTR content into cite templates of an RTL language, so here I had a good opportunity to review standards on something much more basic. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Deborahjay: No prob! I expect YYYY-MM-DD is better for machine translation and is easier to translate, but those are just hunches. Best of luck. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for filling me in, Ed, and the link to that section of the MOS. I'm presently struggling with incorporating LTR content into cite templates of an RTL language, so here I had a good opportunity to review standards on something much more basic. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: February 2017
| ||||||
Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Hawaii (CB-3), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page USS. 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 OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 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) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
Donuts from a grateful student/teacher combo |
| Aporter90 brought you some unbelievably tasty donuts. Dude, wish you had been there--we ate them all. Thanks for all your help, Ed. Dr Aaij (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC) |
- @Dr Aaij and Aporter90: Thank you for making me want donuts. Jerks. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
DYK for James Sullivan (Medal of Honor)
On 18 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Sullivan (Medal of Honor), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Peter Van Hoesen, an American Civil War deserter, was paid $300 to enlist by a drafted man, and performed a Medal of Honor-worthy deed at Fort Fisher in 1864 for which he got no credit? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Sullivan (Medal of Honor). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, James Sullivan (Medal of Honor)), 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.