User talk:The Rambling Man

Pinned post: Noticeboard notification

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A new section has been created concerning you at WP:AE. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Now please leave me alone or I will request an IBAN to prevent you from continuing such behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My First FA

Hi! Further to our conversation at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles, I'd like anything you could help me with to get 2018 World Snooker Championship to be ready for an FA review. I've passed a few articles into GA, so I have some knowledge of these principles, and what sorts of things reviewers are looking for, but FA seems like a bit of a wall, that I'm hoping you can help with.

I've added a slight explanation on what the world championship is to the article. (under overview), but I do understand it will need some explanation as to what Snooker is, however I'm having trouble wording it. So far, I've stated it's a cue sport, and that the tournament is a single elimination bracket, but otherwise I'm at a loss.

Anything you could help me out with would be appreciated. :). I'm not sure how familiar you are with the game, so any help in general would be fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've watched snooker since the days of Ray Reardon, Bill Waubernik, Alex Higgins etc. I have clue...! I'll see what I can do in due course. In the meantime, you could take a look at The Boat Race 2018 where you'll see a Background section which kind of covers at a top level the history of the event, its significance, and some statistics for the tournament since it started. That's probably where you should start with your background section... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Good, glad you are a fan! - Sorry didn't mean to offend, it's difficult to know what people already know, so I always jump in at zero knowledge and work up. I'll take a look! I did read through the 2016 article, and tried to add my own spin to it, but it needs work. I wasn't sure if a total history of the world championships is relevant, as anything prior to 1969 is basically considered to be non-canon.

I know you are very busy, so feel free to leave comments whenever you are less so, and I'll attempt to build something from the articles you've mentioned. Thanks again, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski No issue at all, no offence given or taken. I would include the following to the background:

1. Very brief overview of snooker, i.e. it's a cue sport, the history of which traces back to .... played predominantly in Europe/US but more recently Southeast Asia etc... (assuming you can find some sources).
2. The year and venue of the first ever championship.
3. How people qualify for the tournament.
4. (Total/winner) prize money/trophy.
5. Media coverage (e.g. broadcasters, viewing figures etc).
6. Individual player who has won the tournament the most times.
7. Brief synopsis of the previous year's tournament, perhaps just the final, the score and any stats about multiple wins should the previous year's winner be a multiple winner.

That should be a good starting point as a template for all World Championship articles. But let's focus on getting this one right! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for your help. I'll do a bit of work on it, and take it to FA eventually. These things seem like a lot of things that can be copy-pasted across to other articles in the series (say to the upcoming 2019 World Snooker Championship, which I'll no doubt work up to GA after the event). The broadcasters is actually covered in it's own section at the bottom of the article, but I can never find information on the viewing figures for events. Outside of the black ball final, there's very little information in the searches I know how to run - no doubt I'm looking in the wrong place (it's public data, isn't it?). Thank you once again for your help. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there some kind of snooker equivalent to the Rothmans Football Yearbook or Wisden? Despite the ever-growing sprawl of online sources, whatever the topic if there's a definitive print reference work it's almost always the best place to start. ‑ Iridescent 16:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Always used to be Rothmans funnily enough. Can't remember the last time I saw one mind you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

A few from the late 80s/early 90s on Amazon, e.g. this one. Can't find anything more recent... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I know Mac has some paper sources, so I'll check with him. It's a bit of a shame these stopped. 1992 was the last one I could find too. I'll check it out. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi The Rambling Man, I've done a bit of a expansion with the above information provided, thanks again. Below is a first draft of this. I can see it needs work, but I'm not quite sure what to do. The broadcasters are in it's own section, which also needs expansion. Do you think this needs a major expansion or just a tweek and copyedit? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

First draft

The World Snooker Championship is an annual cue sport tournament and is the official world championship of the game of snooker. The sport of snooker was founded in the late 19th century by British Army soldiers stationed in India. The sport originated by players from the United Kingdom, and later players from Europe and the Commonwealth. In more modern times, the sport has transferred to being played worldwide, specifically in Southeast Asia, such as in China, Thialand and Hong Kong. The world championship sees 32 professional players compete in one-on-one snooker matches in a single elimination format, each played over several frames. The first world championship in 1927 held in Camkin's Hall, Birmingham, England and was won by Joe Davis. Since 1977, the event has been held in the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England. Stephen Hendry is the most successful player in the modern era, having won the championship 7 times. The previous year's championship was won by England's Mark Selby, who won the event defeating Scotland's John Higgins in the final 18-15. This was Selby's third championship, having won in 2014, 2016 and 2017. The winner of the 2018 event earns prize money of £425,000, from a total pool of £1,968,000. References

I like it. The one thing that stands out to me is the lack of a description of how the 32 are selected. That would be most instructive. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The next two sections go to this in extreme depth, and are subsections of the same section. Specifically with the paragraphs starting "The top 16 players..." and "All 16 non-seeded spots in the main draw...", however, I could put a one sentence line on the bottom of this section that says "The 32 players for the event are selected through a mix of the world snooker rankings, and a pre-tournament qualification round." Which I think explains the situation well, and could fit into the later subsections. This is very helpful advice. Do you think I should be over-zelous and place as a FA nomination (After a copyedit), or hold off and expand further? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the one sentence synopsis of qualification for the tournament is suitable for the background section. I'd be happy to give it a quick pre-FAC-review if you like, if you're happy with it as it stands? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be phenomenal if you don't mind! Thank you so much for your time! :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski Hi Lee, I'm acutely aware I haven't got to the article yet. One thing that strikes me (from looking at 2017 Masters (snooker)) is the use of "would" e.g. "Wenbo would miss the shot" when "Wenbo missed the shot" seems more BrEng? And snappier? And in that Masters article, "would" is used this way 41 times... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries. In your own time. I realize I am asking for a favour to look at the article. You are right! I hadn't noticed before, but I do write like that (probably just a lack of articulation on my part. I'll skim through all these articles and try and remove such things. Thanks for your help! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Just mix it up a little, no need to remove entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I think tense and overusage of words is probably my biggest issue when creating/expanding articles. I usually get a copyeditor on the case; but I'm trying to see if I can improve my own wordage. This makes total sense, and I'll incorporate it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Lee Vilenski, I wrote this some time ago, but a lot of the advice is still valid, I think: User:Dweller/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll be sure to take a look Dweller! Thanks! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Boat race participants

I noticed two boat race participants this year have articles: James Cracknell and Natan Węgrzycki-Szymczyk (neither of their articles mention their impending participation in this year's Boat Race, but that is a separate issue). How common is it for boat race participants to have articles (either at the time of the race, or later)? Is there a way of finding all the ones with articles? Ah, I've found List of Cambridge University Boat Race crews and List of Oxford University Boat Race crews and I see the last four years are redlinked and some of these either turn blue (as some rowers turn professional or win Olympic medals and so on) or not. I see someone is keeping that all in very good shape. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Carcharoth, yes, it's quite unusual for individuals in the Boat Race to have their own article, Cracknell is a true outlier in that sense, with such a stellar career, while Węgrzycki-Szymczyk's article is pretty much a stub with no detail, allowable under WP:NOLYMPICS (no medal required, just appearing in the games), but unlikely to ever get much beyond that. I do check each entrant to see if they have an article, and if I get time, I'll check to see if they qualify. But we're all up to date on the 2019 article, with a couple of weeks to go... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The Polish rower is feeling left out... On a quick browse through, the years where there is a full house of articles for a crew seem to be related to the Olympics and stubs relating to Olympians. It is noticeable that the Oxford crew of 2005 is a full house. Some of the more interesting people I came across were: Matthew Pinsent, Dan Snow, William Grenfell, 1st Baron Desborough, Oliver Russell, 2nd Baron Ampthill, David Rendel, Boris Rankov, Jim Rogers and Peregrine Moncreiffe of that Ilk. Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"Peterhouse College". I nearly died. And yes, there are some interesting people in there. Rankov is a legend, but you missed Hugh Laurie (and his dad) of course....! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of the 2005 Oxford crew, I used to know Acer Nethercott back when I was a student. He didn't get to have his own article until 2008 though, considerably after his two boat races. Very sad to hear of his death.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Some irony here: I was friends with Kevin Whyman... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Bah, something fishy about having a 46-year-old ex-Olympic champion on the university rowing team I think....? Congratulations to the Tabs though I guess, it was a solid performance and we never really looked like getting into it. By the way, is there any reason why 2015, 2016, and 2017 are named "The Boat Races", while 2018 and 2019 are back to singular?  — Amakuru (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  An old man!! Yes, that's what the official names of those particular years were, last year and this year, the official website talks about the events in the singular again. It was a big promo to include the women on the same day I guess, but now "normal service" is resumed, namewise at least. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Boat Race photos

I don't know yet. I missed 2017 due to football, and at the moment it's looking like that may happen again. I'll have to see if anything changes or if they can go without me at football. Would had been nice if they hosted the race on Saturday like they did last year! -- KTC (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I am planning to be at the race on Sunday. Planning to upload any photos that evening. No promises on quality though! -- KTC (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

KTC perfect news! Thanks for letting me know. I'll be planning to get the article onto the main page at ITN by the evening on Sunday, and then at FAC soon after, with the aid of your great shots! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Some of the photos from the start have been uploaded if you want to add it to the article. See c:Category:2019 University Boat Race. -- KTC (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

KTC magnificent, thanks, I hope you had a good day! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Dick Dale

On 20 March 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Dick Dale, 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 23:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Wow, to think I've been here since 2005 and technically awesome since 2009! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I love to walk down that memory lane, which was still before my entry here, - 10 years in August. DYK that in 2009, three people handed the awesome-stars (one beginning today)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It could also go in the OTD section. TRM receives the prestigious precious award. There must be reliable sources, surely?  — Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not the Precious award, though. It's awesome, created in 2007. Precious is much less awesome, just dating from 2012 when the outcasts formed a group ;) - Some recipients know that well and don't want it, or at least not be reminded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, was there some sort of rift and breakaway in the awesome awards team? Sounds almost as serious as Brexit. I had no idea that such was the history. For my part I think I am a holder of a Precious but not an Awesome....  — Amakuru (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

(As you can see in the history:) Awesome was started in 2007 by one person who dedicated a poem to each recipient, but then left. It was continued by Rlevse who did it for the longest time, but three others did it parallel, everyone with his own list. Rlevse was kicked off the project in 2010, one of the three held a bit longer. I picked it up in 2012, eventually combining all these lists, and the seventh year began, so I proved the most stubborn of us. (My first barnstar, a few weeks into WP, was for resilience.) There never was really a team, but so far two people helped me, and you (y'all) can do it, too! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Dude, you've always been awesome. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Congrats to the Ramsey promotion, you two! I had a nice first: while it's bitter to serve the recent deaths, Friedrich Achleitner died and was mentioned there the same day! Just a few weeks ago, when I linked to him from Jörg Streli (especially hard because distant family) I thought what a sad stub that was ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, and thanks for your input at the FAC. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago, again

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Today, I received the sad news that a friend died yesterday whose article I wrote. I guess for changing the article and possibly RD, I better wait for something official, right? Last time that happened, I waited, and then someone else did it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for your loss, but we need an RS to publish notification. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

April

Just some flowers, - your birthday? Not without irony that I suggested an article with image for Easter on the German Wikipedia which shows the one who died. Was on DYK already but without the image. Thanks for seeing all these little things that I miss, such as Roth, Bavaria! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Gerda you're welcome. I sincerely hope that throughout all of my (contentious) claims of errors and issues, you realise that I am only thinking of of readers. And thanks for the flowers, yes, heute ist mein Geburtstag. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Today Heinz Hoppe. de has this: de:Liste von Ensemblemitgliedern der Hamburgischen Staatsoper, an unsourced work of love. de:Hamburger Kammersänger seems to be a different kind of animal, - usually it's an opera ararding it, here, the city, and great names ;) - I hope it's fixed enough. The phrase "for his artistic achievements" was redundant anyway, sorry for not catching that. And the year? It would need a better source, but I have no doubt that 1962 is correct. His age at the time doesn't matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Der kleine Tag, 23 April. The most peaceful day. - Funeral day of the one mentioned above. Birthday of the "last time that happened". When I wrote the Jens Harzer article, the ceremony of passing the Ring to him had not happened, and forgot to udate. sorry. I hope people just stop dying for a bit. Instead, Heather Harper. - peace --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Need more than this for a chart?

Iwan_Roberts#Career_statistics --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

What were you after? I note it seems to be unverifiable..... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

So, I dimly remember there being a problem with the sourcing, but every row looks properly verified to me. What am I missing? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking a simple version of the third chart ("scoring rate" here --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Elly Mayday tone tag

I'm afraid that as a writer, I reveal myself as more of a computer programmer. Could you make some specific suggestions, which I will then endeavour to follow? --GRuban (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

GRuban looks like someone copyedited it for you! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, that was Vanamonde93, and I am quite grateful, but I would like to confirm, you know,learn to fish. Vanamonde seems to have expanded some contractions, used some more formal language in places, and removed some enthusiastic adjectives; was that the essence of what you were getting at with the tag, so what I should learn to do, or am I missing something else as well? --GRuban (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right. As a completely new reader to the subject, it was as if I was reading a favourable magazine review of her life. The tone was a little twee and colloquial, I guess another word for it would be hagiographical. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hush

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On User talk:Woodensuperman, Woodensuperman keeps removing my edits and making threats, and so on. Just wanted to inform you of the context in case you haven't known. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 11:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know or care about the threats, but anyone is entitled to remove anything from their user page, stop re-posting or you'll find yourself blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Another editor was consistently harassing me by doing exactly what is described at WP:HUSH. Multiple ongoing discussions at content talk pages with this user, so no need to bring it to my talk page. The only threat was that I would report them for this harassment if it was to continue. At no point did I threaten Woshiyiweizhongguoren, although I will give the benefit of the doubt as they seem new. --woodensuperman 11:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Please note, I don't really care about your squabbling, but don't re-post to the user page. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I stopped. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 11:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Woodensuperman: Though, I think you could have used a more polite choice of vocabulary than "ONCE MORE, AND YOU'RE BEING REPORTED FOR HARASSMENT. FUCKING TRY ME!" Just saying. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 11:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your views on the referencing of Harry B. Neilson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am trying to get to the bottom of a complaint you made at ERRORS and a tag you have put on the article. Would you please go to Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Is there a DYK rule that books listed in an article need to be referenced, as claimed? and reply there. Moonraker (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) TRM, I've explained the issue there as I see it, to avoid your being put in a situation where the DYK clique can bait you into breaching your restrictions; if I've misinterpreted what you see the issue as, feel free to let me know. ‑ Iridescent 19:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and Moonraker no, I can't contribute to any discussion there or anywhere else similar, as I am disallowed from doing so. I think Iridescent captures it well, and all I can say is this entire situation has been blown well and truly out of proportion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, The Rambling Man. I didn't know you were not allowed there. Moonraker (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addendum

Featured lists are almost invariably perfectly referenced (if not, they should be at FLRC). Sometimes the same reference is used multiple times so it's often better, cleaner and more aesthetically appealing to use the sources in the headings of tables, applying at least once to every item in the column. It does appear that some users, even admins, aren't familiar with that common way of using reliable sources many times. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest

Hi there! I'm writing to you since I see you as an experienced editor who could give me some consent regarding my following question. I have recently expanded and cleaned up the article linked above, it's only that I'm unsure if it should be nominated for Good Article or Featured Article staus (??). Can you help me? Please ping me if you answer since I don't want to forget about this ... Have a great day... Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Cartoon network freak, I think it might stand a chance at WP:FLC since it's a bit of prose and a few tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for The Boat Race 2019

On 7 April 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article The Boat Race 2019, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

– Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• If only all of our sporting event articles were held to the same standard as the work you put into the Boat Race articles. Well done, once again.--WaltCip (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Cheers WaltCip, much appreciated! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know whether you've done something right or done something wrong, but we've not had any proposals to remove The Boat Race from ITN/R yet this year! Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  It's very difficult to argue, one imagines, with continual excellence...! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

WSC 2019

Sorry if I have pulled you into the conversations at 2019 World Snooker Championship; but I think your input is very beneficial. I was planning on updating my template for the event finals table to see if I can come up with a decent table. I know very little about screen readers - do you know if there is a standard width for things like this (and also mobile?) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and as per your suggestion I have removed all flags from the 2018 article. Turns out I already had a script to remove flagcruft installed, but didn't realise. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey, no stress. One or two individual users seem to have become unduly stressed, but no issue for me at all. Focus on the readers, and what they want, rather than what the project "normally does" etc etc. I deal with it every day, "why change?" and "we've always done it this way" etc. Some people are keen to learn and embrace new concepts, some are confused and scared by them, and some just stick to "it doesn't need to change" paradigm. It's fine, we'll get there in the end! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not a fan of forcing other people involved in my own projects; but I don't think I know what should be the case better, and certainly can't argue the point - Most of the time, I put my argument across, and let other argue over the details. Thanks for your help with this. I want Snooker/cue sports articles to be MOS compliant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this a list?

With your "the list guy" hat on, would you consider Ceilings of the Natural History Museum, London to be an article that happens to have a pair of enormous lists appended, or a list that happens to have a much longer than usual explanatory background section? (Or both; it might be interesting to see how many anguished complaints it would draw for something to be listed at FAC and FLC simultaneously.) Ordinarily I'd split them into two separate pages, but in this instance much of the list refers back to the prose section, it would be a disservice to the reader as it would just make both sections confusing (without the subsequent mention in the list that the cacao plant was probably included as an oblique tribute to museum benefactor Hans Sloane, the reader will just be thinking "why on earth do we need to know who invented chocolate milk?", etc). Plus, it seems silly to have two separate pages for a topic this niche. ‑ Iridescent 19:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Definitely keep it as a single page, and while it would be most welcome at FLC, it's better off going through FAC I think. It would be interesting to see how many people rail against the "technical content" (i.e. a table!) there. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"Start class", apparently. You've got to love Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 20:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Well that's why 99.9995% of the sensible folks on the project pay no heed to the "class", what bollocks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment on Kim Clijsters FAC?

Hi The Rambling Man, I nominated Kim Clijsters as an FAC a few weeks ago, and seeing that you have helped me out with tennis articles before, I was wondering if you could leave comments. I think the article is in good shape; it just needs one or two more reviewers. So far, I have two supports, but the nomination has been open for nearly a month. Thank you, Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777 sure, I'll add it to my to-do list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest

Hi there! I hope I'm not bothering, but I would very much appreciate some comments on my current FLC linked above →. Just disregard if you're too busy at the moment. Many thanks and have yourself a good day Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak I normally try to review every list that goes through FLC, so I'm sure I'll get to yours in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Tommy Smith (footballer, born 1945)

On 14 April 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tommy Smith (footballer, born 1945), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

1969 Curaçao uprising

Hi, How's it going? A few months back you reviewed the GA nomination for the article 1969 Curaçao uprising (thanks again for that). I've since expanded the article a little and incorporated a new source. I want to take the article to FAC. If you have the time, I was hoping you might take another look at the article to see whether you think it's ready. Thanks a lot for your help.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

'Dead Heat to Oxford'

I think you are mistaken to claim that all the articles on individual Boat Race years include the same text about "(excluding the "dead heat to Oxford by five feet" of 1877)". It was in fact only to be found in two: those of 2003 and 2015. Of course the dead heat is not included in the tally of wins, because it was a dead heat. Why does it need to be mentioned at all? And why open up the controversy over the remark in an irrelevant article? It is quite plain nobody ever said "dead heat to Oxford" in 1877 - it's a self-evidently absurd thing to say, and no contemporary source mentions it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Listen Sam Blacketer, you tried this in 2015, and it was a waste of time then as it is now. Pack it in, leave consensus-led content alone. Just because you personally think it's something that shouldn't be there, many others have, by consensus at 164 GAs/FAs have said it should be there. You are on your own. Stop being deliberately disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

87.236.135.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has now vandalised the 1877 article. They've only ever made one other edit. Interesting stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

FLC closure

Hi TRM, just a heads-up that I noticed that Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Michelle Keegan/archive1 was closed more than two weeks ago but is still showing on the FLC page - not sure if there's a problem with the bot.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Chris, yeah, I noticed that too, it certainly looks like FACbot is taking umbrage with us. I'll do some digging, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you perhaps making a reflection on the motivations or competence of FACbot? Naughty, naughty. ;-) --WaltCip (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Infantile edit of the month?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is the winner of "Infantile Thread of the Year", coupled with "Infantile Rambler of the Year" and "Infantile Peanut Gallery of the Year", so take that!

This is the other winner of "Infantile Thread of the Year", coupled with "Infantile Rambler of the Year" and "Infantile Peanut Gallery of the Year", so take that, twice!

So, you are edit-warring to impose the use of "retrieved" rather than "accessed" for access dates. Can you really not think of anything else in Wikipedia that needs doing? Or is there a new edition of the Infantile Edit of the Month contest? If so, you certainly get my vote. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

insert picture of Michael Jackson eating popcorn here. --Jayron32 15:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Jayron32 did MJ eat popcorn? I don't recall that in the documentary..... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong documentary [1]. --Jayron32 17:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that was thrilling. A little infantile, but not award-winningly infantile. But I am the winningest infantile trophy holder these days, a record which is going to be hard to beat. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You only won the award for this month. We're going to need to wait till December to see if you can take the top spot for the year... --Jayron32 18:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, fuckit. And I'd opened the Essex champagne and everything. Never mind, I'm certain I can keep this thread going another eight months. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It's never a wrong time for a good beer. --Jayron32 18:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The wife and I did valentines day at an Indian restaurant in Kigali once and they brought out a complimentary magnum of Heineken for us. Classy.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I also made that "this isn't going to go well" face there. However, {{cite web}}, {{cite news}} and others do indeed display access dates as "Retrieved on..." despite the fact the parameter is called accessdate, so it does make sense for consistency to make them "Retrieved". Black Kite (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It's okay Black Kite, this kind of stomping around happens from time to time, my two-year-old just told me she hated me because I wiped some remains of a chocolate egg from her face, but she's two. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a terrible waste of good chocolate to me. She was probably saving it so it could be retrieved (or perhaps accessed) later....  — Amakuru (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The intent (and I know I'm not allowed to speculate on editors' intent, but I don't think she counts) was certainly to make as much mess on the white walls and bedding (that her mummy insisted on but for which I'll get the blame once ruined...) At least she's nearly potty-trained, unlike some of the users here...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers thanks for taking the time to provide your well mannered feedback. I could have sworn you used to be an admin but clearly with that style of approach, that's no longer the case, which is a shame. I really hope you'll take the time to read Black Kite's comment above, which demonstrates that, while you think you're "right", you clearly are not. But you feel free to change that medicore article back to whatever inconsistent version you like. I was simply trying to make it less embarrassing for its appearance on the main page tomorrow. Magnifico!! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd opt for some consensus version, accreived or retressed or similar. I don't understand why we argue here, it's just letters ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not sure what was more infantile, me making articles more consistent for the main page, or some "admin" stomping around claiming such edits were infantile. It really makes you wonder, doesn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh look, I've been rolled back: [2]. Maybe I was being infantile as well. Fun times.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Abuse of the tool, ABUSE OF THE TOOL!!! And not even an apology. Man alive there are some rudies out there these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do not protect my talkpage

Future Perfect at Sunrise unprotect my talkpage please, I don't want IPs to be unable to post to me. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I've unprotected it again. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Cheers dude. How assumptive some people can be... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The 1877 Boat Race

I'm afraid we are not in agreement about this issue. It's now time to find more and better sources and seek wider community consensus, so can I ask two things? First, to agree the best location for a combined discussion of how to treat the 1877 Boat Race (across all relevant articles, including The Boat Race 1877 and other individual race articles). I suggest Talk:The Boat Race is probably the best as it has more editors watching it; though a case could be made for Talk:The Boat Race 1877.

Second, it might be possible to narrow the area of disagreement if I state my position from the start. If there are any of these propositions that you agree with then please say:

1. There is no good evidence John Phelps gave any indication that the result of the 1877 Boat Race was other than a dead heat. Articles should not imply that he did.

2. There is no good evidence John Phelps ever said "Dead Heat to Oxford" or words to like effect. Any use of that phrase must give the context that there is no evidence for it and no contemporary source quotes him using it.

3. The 1877 Boat Race is officially recorded as a dead heat. Articles should not state, or imply, that it was a victory for one side which in some way went unacknowledged.

I hope that lasting consensus can be reached. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)