User talk:Chiswick Chap/TalkArchive2024
This should not be redirected to moksha, which is Liberation. That's different than Enlightenment. See the deletion discussion, which determined that the word "enlightenment" in academic sources can only refer to Enlightenment in Buddhism or Kevala Jnana in Jainism. Buddhists clearly distinguish bodhi from moksha, and refer to the latter as "personal liberation", a state short of Englightenment. Skyerise (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- With respect, your statements here are way too technical in this situation The simple meaning is plainly what was intended in the quoted statement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Rice you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Rice for comments about the article, and Talk:Rice/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RecycledPixels -- RecycledPixels (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Húrin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Húrin for comments about the article, and Talk:Húrin/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Frzzl -- Frzzl (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ant mimicry edit
The article Ant mimicry you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ant mimicry for comments about the article, and Talk:Ant mimicry/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Many congratulations on your 3 GAs in one day! Frzzl talk; contribs 20:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, one waits for months and then 3 come along at once, like London Buses all in a row! Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien edit
The article Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien for comments about the article, and Talk:Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Since these animals lack a common ancestor and are polyphyletic, I suppose you can combine the cladograms of the four extant families. Considering that this group came together due to a shared ecological niche, their evolutionary histories are not necessarily the same. 20 upper (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- 20 upper: I'll draw a tree. Obviously there are different clades of MHs within it. But this only covers the extant 1/4 of the story. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
| Placentalia |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Not sure how you get to "nine extant species", there seem to be 14 here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
20 upper: Your Pleistocene tree is something like this, but I'd need more detail of the species (e.g. what Cingulata? what Pilosa? what Perissodactyls? what Artiodactyls?) to fill it out a bit better:
| Mammalia |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Thanks for the help. For Cetartiodactyla: camels, bovids, and, of course, hippos. Cingula; glyptodonts. Pilosa, giant sloths. Perissodactyla; rhinos. Proboscidea, elephants & similar species, and Notoungulata, toxodonts. 20 upper (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- 20 upper: OK, tweaked. You can fill in the nos. of spp in each case as the "7 spp" for Artiodactyls don't show what goes where.
- Thanks for the help. For Cetartiodactyla: camels, bovids, and, of course, hippos. Cingula; glyptodonts. Pilosa, giant sloths. Perissodactyla; rhinos. Proboscidea, elephants & similar species, and Notoungulata, toxodonts. 20 upper (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
20 upper: Here's the tree for the Campanian (late Cretaceous). There are plenty of images available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
A Permian MH among the Pareiasaurs:
Your GA nomination of Tove Jansson edit
The article Tove Jansson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tove Jansson for comments about the article, and Talk:Tove Jansson/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ljleppan -- Ljleppan (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Translation of The Lord of the Rings into Swedish edit
The article Translation of The Lord of the Rings into Swedish you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Translation of The Lord of the Rings into Swedish for comments about the article, and Talk:Translation of The Lord of the Rings into Swedish/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Purported ancient yoga texts has been nominated for merging edit
Category:Purported ancient yoga texts has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Smasongarrison: thanks for letting me know. You should however have checked the article to see that the category is definitely not "subjective", indeed impeccably cited, before firing the blunderbuss. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Anopheles you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anopheles for comments about the article, and Talk:Anopheles/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Mental illness in Middle-earth GA-article review preview edit
Hello, I was about to sign up to review the article you nominated, Mental illness in Middle-earth, but from just a cursory view, I see there are some big gaps that I feel would best be fixed so that it does not get a quick fail.
- Include whatever intentionality Tolkien may have had to infuse his books with depictions of mental illness
- Include Tolkien's knowledge of psychology; for example, other articles on wikipedia discuss his interest in Jungian psychology
- Done.
- Include personal experiences (if applicable, I admit I am no expert on Tolkien) that Tolkien may have had with mental illness (his own experience of PTSD?)
- Done.
- Include Tolkien's knowledge of psychology; for example, other articles on wikipedia discuss his interest in Jungian psychology
- Epilepsy is considered a neurological disorder, not a mental-illness. That said, might be worth a mention of other specific medical conditions that are portrayed accurately in his books
- Removed epilepsy, not discussed in text. Not sure there are other conditions to mention.
- Consider broadening the article to "mental-illnesses depicted in the works of Tolkien", or something along those lines. I'm going to take a guess (especially considering the titles of some of the references) that there are works by Tolkien that depict mental illness.
- Not really, no. He certainly didn't explicitly write on that topic, but as the article says, people have read it into The Lord of the Rings in particular.
- Perhaps include the significance of this topic, such as cultural impact of potentially reducing (or reinforcing) stigma against mental illness, or examples of people with mental illness who said that they could relate to the characters.
- Not sure about that.
Apologies that I did not read this article in depth, so perhaps some of these things are already there that I overlooked. And some of these items are more wish-listy, and may not constitute a fail if not present. I look forward to reading more into this in the future! Thanks for your work. Tea with toast (話) 05:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Tea with toast -- well, I've done most of what you suggest. Let me know if you think this is now ready for GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Winchester College football edit
The article Winchester College football you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Winchester College football for comments about the article, and Talk:Winchester College football/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
You thanked me on my Anopheles edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anopheles&diff=1198618074&oldid=1198240238 - however, such small edits are considered cosmetic edits and are not encouraged if they are done en masse, see the discussion at User_talk:Maxim_Masiutin#CiteByBot on my Talk page - you can commend there if you wish, for example, if you have on opinion on whether all "cite" templates should be lowercase or, vice versa, they should start with an uppercase letter {{Cite.... Anyway, thank you for your appreciation, this is very important for me, and it is a big pleasure for me when people thank me for my edits. By the way, I nominated a few articles on GA, and they stay for months, there are no reviewers for them :-(((
Can you please help me when you have time and select one article you like most and that you think is most suitable for GA and review?
Thank you again! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
FYI edit
I don't quite know why the Tove Jansson nomination attracted so much heat, but it is true that the people involved in DYK have grown a little tired of being constantly shouted at because of witty and ambiguous hooks that other people consider un-encyclopedic: see this one for one I promoted that was really set upon at WP:ERRORS recently. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- How interesting. It is clearly a cultural change, either generational or perhaps a widening from native speaker to multinational. I don't think it'll prove to be reversible. Philosophically, Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Minas Tirith edit
The article Minas Tirith you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Minas Tirith for comments about the article, and Talk:Minas Tirith/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ligaturama -- Ligaturama (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Barley you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Barley for comments about the article, and Talk:Barley/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bruxton -- Bruxton (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wondering if you would like to create a DYK for this article? If you do I have a quid pro quo to donate. I can do the nomination myself if you like. I am familiar with all of the procedures there. Also I am watching a Crusader show and The Barley Barn was discussed which made me think of this article. Bruxton (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Bruxton: That would be really nice, thank you! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- The Barley as money is intriguing - Mesopotamia's first currency. Bruxton (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, maybe we should mention it alongside the neasurement usage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Added. And the Barley Barn into the, er, Bargain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review on that holdout business. I nominated the article and you can participate there or propose hooks. Template:Did you know nominations/Barley. In writing hooks I see that one citation may need to be adjusted. #72 in the Beer, whisky, and soft drinks section. I could not find whiskey in the source. In a search, I did find this passing mention of Japanese whiskey in Magazine. Well I am on to the next one. Have a great weekend. Bruxton (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks. The whisky text had just got separated from its source; I've repeated the McGee ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review on that holdout business. I nominated the article and you can participate there or propose hooks. Template:Did you know nominations/Barley. In writing hooks I see that one citation may need to be adjusted. #72 in the Beer, whisky, and soft drinks section. I could not find whiskey in the source. In a search, I did find this passing mention of Japanese whiskey in Magazine. Well I am on to the next one. Have a great weekend. Bruxton (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Added. And the Barley Barn into the, er, Bargain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, maybe we should mention it alongside the neasurement usage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- The Barley as money is intriguing - Mesopotamia's first currency. Bruxton (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Tolkien's impact on fantasy edit
The article Tolkien's impact on fantasy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tolkien's impact on fantasy for comments about the article, and Talk:Tolkien's impact on fantasy/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tea with toast -- Tea with toast (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Forests in Middle-earth edit
The article Forests in Middle-earth you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Forests in Middle-earth for comments about the article, and Talk:Forests in Middle-earth/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Seltaeb Eht -- Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Chicken you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chicken for comments about the article, and Talk:Chicken/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DocZach -- DocZach (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Valinor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Valinor for comments about the article, and Talk:Valinor/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TompaDompa -- TompaDompa (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Ian Holm you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ian Holm for comments about the article, and Talk:Ian Holm/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
DYK for Tove Jansson edit
On 8 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tove Jansson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that artist Tove Jansson (pictured) based the children's book character Snufkin on a political philosopher whom she had dated? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tove Jansson. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tove Jansson), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
—Ganesha811 (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Issue with DYK for barley edit
Hello! I've temporarily removed the DYK hook for barley because of a source issue. I'm not convinced that the source given in the article, Timothy F. Peterson's Debauchery of Currency, is a reliable source. Peterson does not appear to be an academic - he's a crypto promoter. I don't doubt that the information is accurate, but a more reliable academic source should be swapped into the article for the sentence that supports the hook ("In ancient Mesopotamia...shekel"). @LlywelynII, tagging you as reviewer as well. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Barley < Link to the DYKN. — LlywelynII 19:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Upon cursory googling, there's this rather thorough treatment:
- * {{citation |last=Powell |first=Marvin A. |jstor=3632646 |contribution=Money in the Orient: Money in Mesopotamia |title=Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient |date=1996 |volume=39 |issue=3 |pp=224-242 |publisher=Brill |location=Leiden }}.
- @Ganesha811: Any issues with that one? ChisCha: Assuming there aren't, just add that into the #Sources section and {{sfnp|Powell|1996}} in place of the cryptobro. Remove the "shekel" part since it's the wrong language in the wrong place at the wrong time. — LlywelynII 19:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: I've replaced the citation per this discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks to you both - I've restored the hook and it should be on the front page in the next couple days! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: I've replaced the citation per this discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Teachers edit
Hi Chap, Some headmasters taught as teachers before they became headmasters. Sabben-Clare was a teacher at Winchester, then became a headmaster, so shouldn't he feature in both categories, unlike those headmasters who were appointed from elsewhere straight into the top job? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for discussing. No, every headmaster is part of the teaching profession, and most actually teach while being head, too. Being a senior teacher and a junior teacher at different times still makes you a teacher. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Mosquito you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mosquito for comments about the article, and Talk:Mosquito/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 20 upper -- 20 upper (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
DYK for Barley edit
On 13 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Barley, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that barley was once used as a form of money? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Barley. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Barley), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting so many basic articles up to GA status. I'm glad someone nominated this one for a DYK and I hope you'll do more of these to bring all of your great work to the masses. — AjaxSmack 23:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the kind words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
DYK for Winchester College football edit
On 13 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Winchester College football, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Winchester College football used to be played on top of a hill, with a line of boys on each side to keep the ball from rolling away? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Winchester College football. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Winchester College football), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Cereal you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cereal for comments about the article, and Talk:Cereal/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bruxton -- Bruxton (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
GA review edit
Thanks for the GA review. It was my first GA. I will be able to do more GA reviews during the backlog drive and I want to review one of your nominations. Have a great week. Lightburst (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Lightburst: My pleasure! Well done, and looking forward to whatever you do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
In appreciation edit
|
The Good Article Rescue Barnstar | |
| This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Invasive species retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
- Thank you, that's very kind of you! Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Eusociality edit
The article Eusociality you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eusociality for comments about the article, and Talk:Eusociality/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Wolverine XI -- Wolverine XI (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Barnacle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Barnacle for comments about the article, and Talk:Barnacle/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lightburst -- Lightburst (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment post GA review. I listed this under GA invertebrates. I notice that the article does not seem to mention that they are invertebrates. Maybe you should think about adding it. Thanks for allowing me to review the article, it was a pleasure. Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Great work! edit
Only one more comment about the image, and I think Corey Olsen is a pass! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Corey Olsen edit
The article Corey Olsen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Corey Olsen for comments about the article, and Talk:Corey Olsen/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Averageuntitleduser -- Averageuntitleduser (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Important articles improvement edit
I saw your userpage and holy moly; I'm very impressed. You've actually turn most of the important articles in a decent shape/GA. You and Little Jerry. I was wondering if you're gonna work Honey badger or Komodo dragon soon, but anyway take care of yourself/your health. 2001:4455:3AA:B000:1023:CFC1:1024:132A (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's very kind of you. I very rarely work on individual species articles - there are perhaps a million of them: and I prefer to try to cover major groups so that we have a sensible starting-point for looking at the tree of life. But who knows, I might give it a go sometime. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I mean there are millions of individual species, but there are quite few popular articles (like I mentioned above) that have high page views. But, yeah. I'm just amazed at your work and thanks for making those articles look good. 2001:4455:3AA:B000:1023:CFC1:1024:132A (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, importance can be measured by views, or in other ways. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I mean there are millions of individual species, but there are quite few popular articles (like I mentioned above) that have high page views. But, yeah. I'm just amazed at your work and thanks for making those articles look good. 2001:4455:3AA:B000:1023:CFC1:1024:132A (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's very kind of you. I very rarely work on individual species articles - there are perhaps a million of them: and I prefer to try to cover major groups so that we have a sensible starting-point for looking at the tree of life. But who knows, I might give it a go sometime. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Pig you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pig for comments about the article, and Talk:Pig/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Wolverine XI -- Wolverine XI (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Elijah Wood edit
The article Elijah Wood you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Elijah Wood for comments about the article, and Talk:Elijah Wood/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cocobb8 -- Cocobb8 (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Elijah Wood edit
Hello, thank you for fixing the second paragraph in the lead, I had struggled with how to rewrite it because Wood's post-LotR career has been so varied. I hope you didn't mind that I made a minor change to the summary of the child acting phase of his career. The previous GAN also asked for the Lord of the Rings section to be expanded. More information has been added since, but I wanted to ask if you were aware of any other details that could be added? Best, Lord Theoden (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks. I think we've got it about right, but I'm aware that actor's careers need constant updating! Happy editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Marguerite Agniel edit
The article Marguerite Agniel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marguerite Agniel for comments about the article, and Talk:Marguerite Agniel/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lightburst -- Lightburst (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ancestry as guide to character in Tolkien's legendarium edit
The article Ancestry as guide to character in Tolkien's legendarium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ancestry as guide to character in Tolkien's legendarium for comments about the article, and Talk:Ancestry as guide to character in Tolkien's legendarium/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ZombiUwU -- ZombiUwU (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Economy of Middle-earth edit
The article Economy of Middle-earth you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Economy of Middle-earth for comments about the article, and Talk:Economy of Middle-earth/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reidgreg -- Reidgreg (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Mr. Elijah DYK edit
Hello again, are you interested in nominating this article for Did You Know as well? I was thinking Wood's Frodo audition tape and other career as a disc jockey would both make good hooks. Were there any others you had in mind? Lord Theoden (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Go for it! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you help me with this section? Writing about an animal's significance in human culture is my weakest point. Wolverine XI (den • 🐾) 03:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wolverine XI - it doesn't seem too bad, barring a quote that needs a ref beside it. It seems a reasonable length, too. I've copy-edited very slightly. What is your concern about the section? Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Per this peer review. I'm trying to make this section FA quality, and I'm struggling to do so. You've written FAs before, so I was hoping you'd help. Wolverine XI (den • 🐾) 04:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wolverine XI: Aha. My feelings on FAC are ... mixed. The GA principle is to cover "the main points" so as to create a decent article, reliably cited. Its goal, my goal, is to achieve decent coverage across the encyclopedia (only 6 million articles to go, then...). GAN used not to care very much about itsy-bitsy details like formatting, ref style, parameters and all such apparatus: it's steadily getting more FAC-like, which is a shame. FAC has the theory that perfection is possible within the confines of a small space, and that in that little arena the article should be "comprehensive", covering all the facts there completely and with perfect, symmetric, regular beauty like a polished crystal. No topic of any substantial size is like that; no article that has been edited by many hands over many years is remotely like that; and the amount of work needed to get an article like that is forbiddingly large, rising steeply with the complexity of the topic. Needless to say, there is no hope whatsoever of getting millions of articles that have been messed about with by the great unwashed into this pristine state within finite human lifetimes.
- The easiest way — perhaps the only sane way — to get an article through this particular needle's eye is to start by creating an article on a small but curious topic, using a strictly enforced format for everything per the MOS and one's personal taste, and to write the whole thing as a single coherent draft. Then one goes away and thinks about it for a while, and illustrates it as crisply as possible from Commons or by taking photos, drawing diagrams, or structuring tables to make the thing's single meaning as plain as possible. Then one carefully checks and polishes every single sentence, every single citation until one is heartily sick of the things. Then one waits awhile or converses with colleagues about the article. Then it's FAC, complete with all the usual stress responses, until with good fortune, wearing out two or three sets of perfectly good worry beads, and a following wind, the thing gets its little bronze star.
- This does not mean that I am totally against FAC, but it does go with a certain reluctance to spend much time there. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- I see writing an FA as being akin to the male rite of passage. Not everyone has the ability to write FAs. The GA procedure is just one of many processes that must be completed prior to FAC. Writing an FA is labor-intensive, and it is quite emotional to see it Featured and visible to the public on the main page. Since Wikipedia revolves around the FAC procedure, I'm afraid I'll have to join the FA community. One of the main reasons I've been editing Wikipedia since 2022 is to write a ton of FAs. I find it a little disappointing that you feel that way about FAC. Wolverine XI (den • 🐾) 12:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- This does not mean that I am totally against FAC, but it does go with a certain reluctance to spend much time there. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wolverine XI: Sorry to hear that; there's no reason really, as it's a personal choice for everyone. My take is that one FA costs about as much work as 10-30 GAs, and I'd rather see that many GAs improving the encyclopedia; more than that, I'd rather see big complex articles on knotty subjects like Animal and Plant taken to GA than a few articles on easier topics dragged effortfully to FA. By the same token, I don't see GA as a stepping-stone to anything, but as the goal in itself, a decent article in a decent encyclopedia. As you say, it's not for everyone; getting major articles through GAN isn't easy either. I don't know about rites of passage, that's very much a personal feeling; some people unwisely see getting the Admin mop as the same thing. I've tried FAC and know how to do it but it takes a lot to get me to do it for a topic, there has to be a pretty good reason. That doesn't stop me from helping out here and there, or even going for it hell-for-leather now and again. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- To truly have an impact on Wikipedia—and especially on articles about animals—I feel compelled to write FAs. I think we can work on the chimpanzee article after I finish with narwhal? They are our closest living relatives, and they deserve the best article possible. Imagine the impact on global opinion and the amount of knowledge that will be spread about this amazing species after we feature the chimpanzee article. As things stand in its GA-state, I don't see anyone learning everything there is to know about chimps. Wolverine XI (den • 🐾) 12:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- A great vision. Chimpanzee is certainly a big subject; it might make sense to start on Bonobo perhaps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Why not both? I work on bonobo and we co-nominate chimpanzee? Wolverine XI (den • 🐾) 13:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- A great vision. Chimpanzee is certainly a big subject; it might make sense to start on Bonobo perhaps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- To truly have an impact on Wikipedia—and especially on articles about animals—I feel compelled to write FAs. I think we can work on the chimpanzee article after I finish with narwhal? They are our closest living relatives, and they deserve the best article possible. Imagine the impact on global opinion and the amount of knowledge that will be spread about this amazing species after we feature the chimpanzee article. As things stand in its GA-state, I don't see anyone learning everything there is to know about chimps. Wolverine XI (den • 🐾) 12:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wolverine XI: Sorry to hear that; there's no reason really, as it's a personal choice for everyone. My take is that one FA costs about as much work as 10-30 GAs, and I'd rather see that many GAs improving the encyclopedia; more than that, I'd rather see big complex articles on knotty subjects like Animal and Plant taken to GA than a few articles on easier topics dragged effortfully to FA. By the same token, I don't see GA as a stepping-stone to anything, but as the goal in itself, a decent article in a decent encyclopedia. As you say, it's not for everyone; getting major articles through GAN isn't easy either. I don't know about rites of passage, that's very much a personal feeling; some people unwisely see getting the Admin mop as the same thing. I've tried FAC and know how to do it but it takes a lot to get me to do it for a topic, there has to be a pretty good reason. That doesn't stop me from helping out here and there, or even going for it hell-for-leather now and again. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Best way to get consensus on merging low-traffic agriculture articles? edit
Hi! So, while working on those livestock articles this week, I noticed several low-traffic, low-quality sub-articles which I think can be comfortably merged into more topic-specific articles, making that material more widely-viewed and easier to maintain. However, I am not sure of the best way to go about it as far as the procedure is concerned. Merging articles unilaterally, without a discussion, seems frowned upon, but a lot of those articles seem too obscure to attract any input during a merger discussion over a reasonable timeframe. Worse, the relevant WikiProjects, like Environment and Agriculture, also seem to be completely lacking in a core of users who could be expected to respond when a request for comment is posted to the WP talk page. Do you have any suggestions here? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- InformationToKnowledge: If articles are short, practically uncited, and at best marginally notable, then being bold and merging is pretty much the best solution. If they're more defensible, then discussion is generally essential, as editing can improve articles with additional sources. Rumen, for instance, is not well-cited but is definitely notable (22 million ghits; it gets some 200 views per day, 74,000 per year, which is pretty respectable: but even articles which get many fewer than this may be more than notable (measured by scientific paper count, for instance)), and is already covered in enough detail that it would not fit decently into Cattle (but would look like a WP:COATRACK) and merging would be destructive. Which articles did you have in mind? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- These are the ones I spotted for now.
- 1) Intensive pig farming -> pig farming (and some parts of the article likely moved to the almost wholly-uncited section in Intensive animal farming)
- 2) Bovine genome database -> Bovine genome
- 3) Environmental impact of pig farming -> Environmental impacts of animal agriculture (a lot of content is poorly cited and will likely be culled outright before the merge)
- 4) Environmental impact of cattle production (the sub-article you split away) -> also to Environmental impacts of animal agriculture
- For the last one, I started a merger discussion last week, but predictably, no-one has responded to it. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Those seem to make sense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- InformationToKnowledge: If articles are short, practically uncited, and at best marginally notable, then being bold and merging is pretty much the best solution. If they're more defensible, then discussion is generally essential, as editing can improve articles with additional sources. Rumen, for instance, is not well-cited but is definitely notable (22 million ghits; it gets some 200 views per day, 74,000 per year, which is pretty respectable: but even articles which get many fewer than this may be more than notable (measured by scientific paper count, for instance)), and is already covered in enough detail that it would not fit decently into Cattle (but would look like a WP:COATRACK) and merging would be destructive. Which articles did you have in mind? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, about a month ago there was a discussion on pl wiki about putting the translation of the article you've co-created to "Did you know" section. One of the biology experts - Carabus has made a lot of effort to review it all and made a lot of suggestions. One of them was to delete the whole "Myrmecophily" section, because - in his words - "it's unrelated to the topic". Here's the link for the discussion, I'm sending you it because you might be curious about it and it might also help make en wiki better, as this article has been awarded with Good Article title (it's all in Polish, but you can use some tools like Google Translation to get even more than a brief overview about what's happening there): https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiprojekt:Czy_wiesz/propozycje/2024-02/Myrmekomorfia
There's yet another discussion pending on pl wiki (about making it "Good Article'd"), but I'm waiting for the results: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Propozycje_do_Dobrych_Artyku%C5%82%C3%B3w/Myrmekomorfia.
Thanks for reading this block of text, regards Karol739 (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Myrmecophily is certainly mimicry of ants. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please elaborate? He has written that "he wouldn't name myrmecomorphical larvae of Lycaenidae or Myrmecophilidae" and stated it's "confusion of concepts". He also said something about Wassmannian mimicry in those species, yet "not all species have it".
- (source of Carabus's message I cite: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiprojekt:Czy_wiesz/propozycje/2024-02/Myrmekomorfia)
- I will definitely link this conversation to his discussion page, as it's really interesting for entomologists.
- Thanks for clearing it out in advance, Karol739 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it's always possible that "ant mimicry" is broader than "myrmecophily", and the Polish definition may be narrower, I don't know. The Lycaenid caterpillars of course do not visually resemble ants, so the mimicry is by other means, such as chemical. To me that is still definitely "myrmecophily" but no doubt scientists use different definitions too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have any scientific articles on that topic? I couldn't find it while reviewing sources you've cited, it might be really helpful to put it in both pl and en wiki versions of the article. Karol739 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- What topic? But do note that myrmecophily is zoo-Greek "ant-loving", implying "ant mimicry", whereas "myrmecomorphy" is zoo-Greek for "ant-shaped", implying physical structure. Perhaps that is the issue over at PL wiki. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- It might be, as in Poland we don't have any term for "ant mimicry". It might be translated directly to "mimikra mrówcza", but it's not really correct, as it's not really used. That's why I named the article "Myrmekomorfia", which is translated simply to "Myrmecomorphy". As myrmecomorphy is not myrmecophily, it makes sense now. Thanks! Karol739 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- What topic? But do note that myrmecophily is zoo-Greek "ant-loving", implying "ant mimicry", whereas "myrmecomorphy" is zoo-Greek for "ant-shaped", implying physical structure. Perhaps that is the issue over at PL wiki. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have any scientific articles on that topic? I couldn't find it while reviewing sources you've cited, it might be really helpful to put it in both pl and en wiki versions of the article. Karol739 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it's always possible that "ant mimicry" is broader than "myrmecophily", and the Polish definition may be narrower, I don't know. The Lycaenid caterpillars of course do not visually resemble ants, so the mimicry is by other means, such as chemical. To me that is still definitely "myrmecophily" but no doubt scientists use different definitions too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
It's semi-interesting, but I wonder what "Eowyn as negative animus" is supposed to mean?? AnonMoos (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ours not to reason why, it's a standard item in Jungian psychoanalysis, and reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- OK, but it doesn't seem to make much sense. AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's plenty on the subject on the web, e.g. Jungian Psychology Series: The Anima and Animus. The concepts are I think clear and readily grasped: Jung was not a woolly new-ager but a clinician with a sharp mind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- OK, but it doesn't seem to make much sense. AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ours not to reason why, it's a standard item in Jungian psychoanalysis, and reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
P.S. File:Beowulf Tribes.svg is pretty helpful. AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Maize you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maize for comments about the article, and Talk:Maize/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you! edit
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For all your work, help and patience in the GA review of Jo Clifford. Thank you! GnocchiFan (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
- Thank you, that's very kind of you. I'm glad you're pleased with the result, and hope you'll pick an article from the GAN queue to review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Literary devices in The Lord of the Rings edit
The article Literary devices in The Lord of the Rings you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Literary devices in The Lord of the Rings for comments about the article, and Talk:Literary devices in The Lord of the Rings/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CipherSleuth -- CipherSleuth (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Triangular Rings of Power diagram edit
- I don't know why you didn't just refer me directly to the "Unfinished Tales" book, instead of to a 1-megabyte PDF file of some dude ruminating about Buddhism. Of course, if you had done so, it would have been evident that the reference was to the "Galadriel and Celeborn" section, which is the most tangled and sometimes self-contradictory part of Tolkien's whole framework. As Christopher Tolkien made clear, JRR Tolkien changed his mind a number of times about some things connected to Galadriel and Celeborn. If it were me, I would definitely not connect Narya to Gil-galad based on anything in that section of the "Unfinished Tales" book. AnonMoos (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, staying with the facts, we clearly agree that Gil-galad is at most a temporary ring-bearer in a UT draft; and that there is no great need to have him in the diagram. I've removed him. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know why you didn't just refer me directly to the "Unfinished Tales" book, instead of to a 1-megabyte PDF file of some dude ruminating about Buddhism. Of course, if you had done so, it would have been evident that the reference was to the "Galadriel and Celeborn" section, which is the most tangled and sometimes self-contradictory part of Tolkien's whole framework. As Christopher Tolkien made clear, JRR Tolkien changed his mind a number of times about some things connected to Galadriel and Celeborn. If it were me, I would definitely not connect Narya to Gil-galad based on anything in that section of the "Unfinished Tales" book. AnonMoos (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Patrick Grant's Jungian View of LOTR.svg edit
- I just realized that you're the same person I previously tangled with over the worthless and useless "Aphrodite"[sic] gibberish on Paganism in Middle-earth (when Roman Catholic influence is a far simpler and more natural explanation), as well as changes to "Basic constituent structure analysis English sentence.svg". You undoubtedly have knowledge and technical skills in certain areas, but you also have narrow rigidities and curious blind-spots which make it almost useless to try to discuss issues which you have fixed preconceptions about, and are thus unwilling to admit the possibility of any alternative views to your own. I see now from page Talk:Paganism in Middle-earth that you've had an extended discussion with someone other than me about the Catholicism-denialism policy which you've unilaterally imposed onto that article. You have a sense of WP:OWNERSHIP over that article which is contrary to Wikipedia policies, and is blocking improvement of the article. AnonMoos (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- On the structure analysis file, the result of the discussion was a prompt change to the file, undoubtedly correct and many years ago, and I've never been near it since. On the "extended discussion with someone", that involved not just me and the "someone" but multiple editors, and we all agreed that the "someone" had an unacceptable point of view which was not supported by the evidence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- And MEANWHILE, if you have little idea what the heck "File:Patrick Grant's Jungian View of LOTR.svg" is supposed to mean, and are unable to explain it in any meaningful way, then that means that you're necessarily unable to advance any valid argument as to why that image should be on the Galadriel article... AnonMoos (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NPA.
- When I have a moment I'll look past the rudeness to see if any actions may be needed in response to any substantive points you may have made. For now I'll just note that if you believed what you have written about me, we could certainly not have any form of intelligent and constructive dialogue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Stop adding the diagram to the article -- if you have little knowledge of what it is, and can't really explain it when it seems to have some problematic aspects, then it's hard to see how you can really know whether it's useful to the article. I don't really care too much whether you mess up "Paganism in Middle Earth", but I care quite a bit if you add excrescent material to Galadriel. AnonMoos (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- (You'll see from the paragraph below that I was just adding that I don't agree about the "can't really explain", that is not correct, and between us we can certainly explain a bit more about Grant and (indirectly) Jung. On the diagram, it is reliably cited and readily justifiable, so the use of emotive "messing up" language is once again unhelpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Stop adding the diagram to the article -- if you have little knowledge of what it is, and can't really explain it when it seems to have some problematic aspects, then it's hard to see how you can really know whether it's useful to the article. I don't really care too much whether you mess up "Paganism in Middle Earth", but I care quite a bit if you add excrescent material to Galadriel. AnonMoos (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) On Grant's Jungian view of Galadriel's relationships, I never said I couldn't explain it, just that I didn't want to put words in author's mouths, and that on the whole I felt it wasn't appropriate to go in depth into Jungian psychology in an article which is not mainly psychological, let alone Jungian. I did not claim to be the sole authority on such matters, quite the reverse; but I do note that Grant has received respectful treatment from multiple Tolkien scholars, and to my knowledge nobody has seriously challenged his interpretation. That is not to say that there aren't other, independent interpretations: those are summarised in the article in other sections. In other words, Tolkien scholarship tolerates multiple viewpoints, and the Wikipedia articles do their best to summarise the multifold analyses of almost every Tolkien topic. That is almost the opposite of anyone's thinking a particular point of view is the only correct one; and I don't find any single academic position on a character such as Galadriel particularly attractive, though often there are several positions on such topics which all seem to have some merit. Since you feel so strongly about it, I'm happy to add a couple of glosses (something you could of course have done yourself since you're familiar with the literature). Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've added glosses and direct quotations from Grant to explicate his view of Jungian archetypes as he applied them to Tolkien's characters. Clearly these may differ in some aspects from Jung's own formulations. If you want to tweak anything, or add a footnote on what Jung actually said, that would be fine; obviously inviting the reader to note errors in Grant's interpretation is straying quite close to the boundary of the acceptable, but a factual statement in a footnote should be all right. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Tolkien and antiquarianism edit
The article Tolkien and antiquarianism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tolkien and antiquarianism for comments about the article, and Talk:Tolkien and antiquarianism/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Heavy Grasshopper -- Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Fish you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fish for comments about the article, and Talk:Fish/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reconrabbit -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Million Award for Fish edit
|
The Million Award |
| For your contributions to bring Fish (estimated annual readership: 1,170,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC) |
- That's very kind of you, thank you very much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The article [Cattle]] you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cattle for comments about the article, and Cattle/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Wolverine XI -- Wolverine XI, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Orange (fruit) edit
The article Orange (fruit) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Orange (fruit) for comments about the article, and Talk:Orange (fruit)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Philology and Middle-earth edit
The article Philology and Middle-earth you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Philology and Middle-earth for comments about the article, and Talk:Philology and Middle-earth/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Averageuntitleduser -- Averageuntitleduser (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Anachronism in Middle-earth edit
The article Anachronism in Middle-earth you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anachronism in Middle-earth for comments about the article, and Talk:Anachronism in Middle-earth/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Pauline Baynes edit
The article Pauline Baynes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pauline Baynes for comments about the article, and Talk:Pauline Baynes/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
LUCA talk page edit
I was trying to put all the archives in the list because they weren't showing but then you also started editing. Anyways, I might was well leave it up to you since you are quite an experienced editor. Okmrman (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I've (I think) sorted out the mess, all I've done is renamed the archive and made the archive box point to it; the archive file is called Archive 1 so the next one will be Archive 2, etc. I can't see any sign of other archive files - I was concerned there might be dozens of mini-archives but it seems there was just one, let's hope so. If you find any more, I can merge them. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Last_universal_common_ancestor/Archives/2012/March
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Last_universal_common_ancestor/Archives/2012/April
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Last_universal_common_ancestor/Archives/2013/May
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Last_universal_common_ancestor/Archives/2014/March
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Last_universal_common_ancestor/Archives/2015/May
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Last_universal_common_ancestor/Archives/2016/September
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Last_universal_common_ancestor/Archives/2018/October
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Last_universal_common_ancestor/Archives/2019/January
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Last_universal_common_ancestor/Archives/2019/August
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Last_universal_common_ancestor/Archives/2021/August
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Last_universal_common_ancestor/Archives/2021/December
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Last_universal_common_ancestor/Archives/2022/May
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Last_universal_common_ancestor/Archives/2022/October
Okmrman (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed. That was one of the maddest bits of archive design I've ever seen, tho' I admit I don't go about seeking such things. Let's hope that's the end of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of A History of English Food edit
The article A History of English Food you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A History of English Food for comments about the article, and Talk:A History of English Food/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Illustrating Tolkien edit
The article Illustrating Tolkien you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Illustrating Tolkien for comments about the article, and Talk:Illustrating Tolkien/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cocobb8 -- Cocobb8 (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Yoga and the Buddha edit
Hi. I just read some of the definitions again at the Yoga-page; I was struck by the text from the Katha Upanishad: "They consider yoga to be firm restraint of the senses. Then one becomes un-distracted." The oldest Buddhist sutras say almost exactly the same; they keep hammering on sense-restraint. Noted of course many times by scholars, but Buddhism was not that different from other sramana-traditions from that time. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not the same, but from the same cloth. I hope the yoga pages and articles on yoga texts make the many connections evident. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
The article Meat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Meat for comments about the article, and Talk:Meat/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Alyosha (tank) discussion edit
Hello, I just wanted to better explain why I think that the Alyosha (tank) article is necessary. Like I said earlier, The purpose of the article is to tell the history of the tank similarly to other articles about named tanks such as Eagle 7 or Bomb. I also understand that there has been a lot of Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine from both the Russian and Ukrainian side. An example that I can think of from the Ukrainian side is the Ghost of Kyiv which the Security Service of Ukraine claimed had downed six Russian jets. Later it was found to be a myth however it was a moral booster for Ukrainian servicemen and women. An example from the Russian side is when they claimed to have killed 13 "French Mercenaries" in an airstrike on Kharkiv. However, unlike those two instances, there is video evidence of Alyosha in combat. Please feel free to comment. Salfanto (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Two wrongs do not make a right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
What exactly makes Laura Bishop noteworthy but not Moongates Guardian? Granted, it is an obscure genre, but it can be verified and is relevant to the article. I can't even find the version by Laura Bishop... (unsigned cmt 16:19, 16 April by 2024 2a0a:a549:f2d8:0:c803:bb67:d278:3fae)
MG appears not to have attracted any reviews for this album, let alone for the song. What is done with other stuff may be right or wrong but is not relevant to the MG issue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Rice and Fish in the Philippines edit
Hi Chiswick Chap, saw you had nominated Rice-fish system at GAN. In some work I've been doing offline I have found a bit on the Philippines which may be of interest, including a few paragraphs on history[1] and some recent stats[2]. Best, CMD (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC) CMD (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Wilfredo G. Yap (1999). "Opportunities for Further Development". Rural Aquaculture in the Philipines. FAO.
- ^ "Philippine Fisheries Profile 2020" (PDF). Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. 2020. p. 35. ISSN 2704-3355.
New message from Narutolovehinata5 edit
Message added 10:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- sorry not well atm. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The article Organism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Organism for comments about the article, and Talk:Organism/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Esculenta -- Esculenta (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Credit where credit's due edit
|
The Feathered Quill Barnstar | |
| Just a token of appreciation from one Tolkien fan to another! |
Niggle1892 (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, that's really appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Hiya, I see that you brought Bioluminescence up to GA status. I was thinking about updating the article with information from a recent study, "Evolution of bioluminescence in Anthozoa with emphasis on Octocorallia."
The study would change the lede slightly: "evidence that bioluminescence has arisen over 40 times" to "evidence that bioluminescence has arisen over 100 times." It would also impact the evolution section substantially. I wanted to see if you had any thoughts on the study's importance.
Best, -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 17:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Classicwiki That's a very new paper! Haddock is among the authors, so it has a good pedigree. Ideally we'd choose a (systematic) review article for such a major change, rather than relying on a single research article, but the work has much of the nature of a review so I think we can trust it for the number of occurrences. Your "substantially" isn't much to go on for what may need to be done to the evolution section; I hope any changes will be conservative and consist mainly of additions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Rice-fish system edit
The article Rice-fish system you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rice-fish system for comments about the article, and Talk:Rice-fish system/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)