Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:11, 12 July 2013

Quacking ducks

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/June 16, 2013 will be the Aylesbury duck. The bot that should have left the proper message for you doesn't seem to like posting on all the talk pages that it should, hence this cheapskate alternative from me. You know the drill about TFA blurbs, and where to find me if you need me... Regards, Bencherlite 23:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Very slightly rewritten the blurb. Could I ask any remaining TPS'ers to watchlist this one, as it will have problems with good-faith errors; Commons and Flickr both have a number of photographs of other white poultry breeds misidentified as Aylesbury ducks, and a lot of people will undoubtedly notice that the article lacks a photo and add one of these photos in good faith. (An actual Aylesbury is the size of a small swan and looks like no other duck—if it doesn't have all the features listed under "Origins and description", it's not an Aylesbury; they're also unable to breed without artificial incubation and only exist on commercial farms, so be wary of any photo claiming to be free-use.) – iridescent 19:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If any new editors add inappropriate images to this article, I will apply the duck test. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And they'll end up doing bird. – iridescent 19:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC) yes, I know that joke only works in BrEng, but this is about Aylesbury…

(edit conflict)x2 I'll watchlist and try to keep an eye open for incoming incorrect photo inclusions. Also, I'm seeing a "Harv error" on ref. # 39 and the Dohner, Janet Vorwald item in the biblio. I don't have time at the moment to get it fixed right now, but will look tonight. (I'm not very quick at fixing those types of things and it often takes me some efforts with trial and error to get it looking the way it should). Congrats on the TFA, and always good to see you stop by. — Ched :  ?  19:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing either of the errors above—could any others have a look at how the refs appear to them and see if there's a glitch in Ched's browser or in the article? (This one should be a relatively painless TFA; if you want to see fireworks, wait until Tarrare or Pig-faced women lands on the main page.) – iridescent 20:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have some scripts installed in *.css and *.js which are the likely items that cause me to see it. I'll email you a screen-shot. — Ched :  ?  20:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's this script which is causing me to see it:

importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');

— Ched :  ?  20:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved—the {{sfn}} system doesn't like books with an editor but no named author. – iridescent 16:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for your participation at WP:TFAR for 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?).

Regardless of the outcome, I think it's a good thing to have a discussion about these sorts of issues.

I hope you're doing well, — Cirt (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. As I said there, while I don't have a problem with the title I think it would at the very least be a courtesy to run this by Jimmy and Philippe, since they're the ones who would have to field the calls from the press when Misplaced Pages gets blacklisted. (Complaints in the US would blow over quite quickly, in the same way that British Telecom's brief banning of the wikipedia.org domain is now forgotten, but having "fuck" in large blue letters on the main page will get Misplaced Pages shut down in places like Pakistan and Russia, which are exactly the places the WMF is keenest to expand.) Given that there are a lot of excellent music articles waiting their turn, it seems wilfully perverse to highlight an article on an obscure 1980s indie piece, which would probably fail a FAR. – iridescent 21:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I'm actually working on several other unrelated quality improvement projects related to freedom of speech, that grapple with legal and cultural analysis of the word fuck. The sociolinguistic history is fascinating. — Cirt (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You may want to look at Cunt in that case, which (AFAIK) is the only time anyone's made a serious effort to get an obscenity article up to a decent quality, unless you count Finger (gesture). It was much harder work than anyone going into it expected. The person you really want to get on board with that one is Malleus, as it's just the kind of topic he shines at, if you can handle the comet-trail of creepy obsessives, whiny malcontents, and clueless admin wannabees hoping to be noticed, all of whom who will follow in his wake like seagulls behind a trawler. – iridescent 23:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, most interesting, thank you. I've invited the two of you to WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech, I hope you'll join us! I'd love to collaborate with you on a quality improvement project in the future, — Cirt (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll decline; I'm to all extents and purposes retired, other than very occasional talkpage comments (eight mainspace edits in the last year, and four of those were a test of an AWB regex), and will almost certainly be one of the many who leaves completely once WP:FLOW goes live, since I've no desire to spend hours getting to grips with something which resembles Myspace circa 2005 just so Brandon and Oliver can play at being Mark Zuckerberg. – iridescent 17:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood, no worries, of course I'm dissapointed but I respect your choice. — Cirt (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't take this as a dismissal of the project, just as an indicator of the fact that I'm not joining anything. – iridescent 18:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Precious

quality standards
Thank you for quality articles such as today's Aylesbury duck, for patiently trying to reach the best possible quality, for understanding the difference between "ownership" of an article and responsibility for it ("People familiar with the topic are more likely to know of problems regarding it" isn't a blasphemy against the spirit ...), for presenting yourself not in userboxes but in dialogue, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (7 February 2009, 29 January 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully, this one won't have too many issues at TFA, as the social history of poultry farming in 19th century Buckinghamshire isn't a topic likely to attract the lunatic fringe. (I do stand by my quote you link above, though—people are far to quick to scream WP:OWN when the authors of an article complain about undiscussed changes, unrequested TFA nominations, drive-by reformattings and so on. The people who've done the most work on an article are the ones most likely to know of reasons it won't be suitable on the main page; they're also, by and large, the ones who will continue to work on it and thus be inconvenienced by drive-by alterations of the citation style, image layout and so on.) – iridescent 16:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I learned and have started to inform the principal author when I thought an article was good for TFA. I know what it means to be on the receiving end of undiscussed changes. - Did you know that your "name" appeared on the Main page? 'opens in a "mood of iridescent transparency"', not my idea ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggested Postman's Park now, did I remember right that the anniversary of the 1900 opening would be a good day? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, commented there. – iridescent 09:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Replied

—howcheng {chat} 19:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating as the concept of people who demand a source for the statement that 16 June 1967 was later than 10 June 1967 is, I really can't be fagged. This being Misplaced Pages, I imagine that same obviously false statement will be repeated as 'fact' on the sixth most viewed page on the internet every 16 June from now until the heat death of the universe. – iridescent 18:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Not what I meant, but to each his own. —howcheng {chat} 07:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal issues with London Necropolis Company. Thank you. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The WMF are aware of my concerns regarding the very unusual circumstances here. As Ironholds has said at the AN thread, this is a sensitive topic which may need to be resolved by WP:OFFICE action. I am not going to discuss this publicly any further unless and until the WMF state that they're happy for such a discussion to take place. – iridescent 16:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I have commented on the ANI thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:London Necropolis bombing.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:London Necropolis bombing.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less, although I'll say in passing that a company which ceased to exist in the 1940s is hardly going to come chasing Misplaced Pages for royalties, even in the (unlikely) event that this was actually the work of the company and not the War Office. FWIW, since that was uploaded it's passed the 70-year mark so AFAIK it would now be PD under {{anonymous-EU}} in any case. – iridescent 20:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Iridescent that there is no concern with the status of this photograph. Iridescent, I know you probably don't want to be bothered, but if you'd make these points in the file discussion it might help resolve the matter. If you don't, I will probably wind up doing so, but you know the material infinitely better than I do.

Since I am here, I will add that the comments about you (Iridescent) in the discussion of this article on another website are uninformed and defamatory. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever it is, I'm sure I've been called worse. – iridescent 09:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mail as a source

Didn't you once provide a very trenchant diff of our co-founder Jimmy Wales's low opinion of the Daily Mail? If you could repost it I'd be very grateful, as it has come up again. If it wasn't you or it was you and you can't be bothered, then I apologise for wasting your time. --John (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Did you mean any of these quotes? :

Iridescent is right, but so is Hans. The Daily Mail is of frightfully low quality most of the time, but - as Hans acknowledges - they do (rarely) get a scoop of some importance. I'm not comfortable with us using them as a source for anything, other than in some very very specific circumstances.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be a blocking offense to use the Daily Mail - and similar sources - to add negative information to BLPs. It's really really really bad...The Daily Mail is not a valid encyclopedic source in most cases. (There are a few rare exceptions, but even those should be subjected to the strictest possible scrutiny.) In particular, relying on a single tabloid source of known low quality to post outrageous accusations of salacious personal details of people's lives is wrong, wrong for Misplaced Pages, a violation of BLP policy, and not something that anyone should accept cavalierly. It is easy to solve this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

-- TABLOID TERMINATOR

That will be what I was thinking about. Thank you for your diligence, HBH. --John (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, John. To say I disliked the Daily Mail would be something of an understatement! I just typed "Daily Mail" into 'search' on Jimmy's talkpage archive and it was the top result. I'm really still a n00b with computers, the search tools here seem bewildering! I'm thinking it wouldn't be too hard to make a bot programmed to look out for links to certain websites (esp. in 'personal life' sections of BLPs) and have asked MZMcBride for some help.

Typing "Daily Mail" and various obscenities drags up some choice quotes, the best of which I'm putting here: Should I use the Daily Fail as a source on Misplaced Pages?

Might be a good place to send unsure users for the time being! -- Hillbillyholiday 00:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

fyi

you have email — Ched :  ?  07:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

RFAR

I am going to mention you by name at a RFAR that I've tried to file. Not as a "party", but as someone who has experience in the situation. I would welcome your input. — Ched :  ?  18:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Already commented there. – iridescent 18:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I just now read that .. thank you. — Ched :  ?  18:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Per your question at the RFAR page, I've no objections to your using my list of proposed parties. Bear in mind that most of my knowledge is two years out of date, and new faces may need to be added to that list. You probably ought to invite Giano to this—although he's not a party to the current incident, he's one of the few veterans of the original Infobox War who's still around, and may well have something to say. – iridescent 18:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably you should invite me, but there have been so many Infobox Wars, can you link me to the "original Infobox War" to which you refer. Thanks. I'm sure I was in the thick of it, but I cannot remember which one it was.  Giano  21:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you've been so helpful finding holes...

Can you look over Battle of Hastings and let me know if anything important is missing? It needs a copyedit before FAC, but it should be mostly ready. Now to decide if I go with working on Harold Godwinson or Battle of Stamford Bridge or something else Conquest-related.. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Will do when I get the chance. If you want to do another conquest page, I'd suggest Edgar Aetheling—people can find out about Harold or the battles easily enough, but Edgar is in a bit of a ropey state and isn't quite so easy for people to dig up info on off-wiki. – iridescent 18:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is what I see on a skim:

• "…landed at Pevensey"—I was under the impression that the landing site was still disputed. Certainly, pretty much every town on the Sussex coast claims to be the actual landing site. If this is still disputed, there ought at least to be a footnote;
• Nitpicky assholery I know, but "Edward died at the beginning of 1066" isn't obvious; New Year's Day hadn't yet been standardized and the Anglo-Saxon year began on 25 March or 25 December, depending on where you were. It would probably be better to put the date;
• Either standardize on "Harald III" or "Harald Hardrada", or make it clear that they're the same person. Remember, this is an article that will be read by grade-school kids with no prior knowledge, so you probably ought to knock a couple of years off the age of the hypothetical 14 year old target reader;
• "William spent almost months on his preparations"?;
• You won't like it, but try to find a way to work the comet into it. It's one of the few things everyone knows about the Conquest, and it's slightly jarring not to see it mentioned;
• Even though it offends your historical sensibilities, I'd suggest a full paragraph on Taillefer into the body text (with an appropriate disclaimer). While it's probably bullshit, he's certainly an accepted part of the mythos, and it would break up the "then the Saxons… then the Normans…" back-and-forth with a bit of color;
• Why the "Malfosse" paragraph? "Something might have happened somewhere, but we don't know what it was or where it happened" doesn't seem a great deal of use;
• You can't use a word like "dorter" on a general-interest article like this without at least explaining what it means (I freely admit to having no idea);
• Do we have any idea why William trekked out to Wallingford to cross the Thames, when he couldn't get across London Bridge? Wallingford is a long way from London, and there are many fordable places between the two; the traditional crossing points for armies attacking London from the south have always been Battersea and Brentford;
• This is going to end up with an "in popular culture" section at some point. Would it make sense to add it now, so it's on your terms, rather than come back one day to find a list of ropey Victorian novels pasted in at the end?

Good luck with it. I don't envy you writing this one—piecing a narrative together when so few of the facts are reliable can't be pleasant. – iridescent 20:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Couple of quick replies - I whacked a great lot of "in popular culture" out a long while back and it hasn't returned, so I won't add anything in (I consider the Tapestry stuff to be "culture" enough) lest it return in force. Surprisingly little stories have been based on Hastings that have had any great cultural significance. The bard didn't deal with it, and I honestly can't think of anything that really is that great - no great artistic works (beyond the Tapestry) or works of literature or dramas. I mention Taillefer - he's getting about what amount of coverage the various guidebooks give him (I've used several guidebooks, including English Heritage's excellent one for help with the "common man" angle here). Same with the comet .. I don't think it's mentioned in either guidebook but if it is, I'll throw it in. The malfosse is because it DOES get coverage in the various guidebooks and battle books. There was a heck of a lot more about it and where it supposedly located (down to the current road that crosses the supposed ditch) before I trimmed ... the current amount is considered entirely too little by at least one person on my talk page currently. Everything else looks very helpful. As for it being unpleasant, it was actually not that bad, and there is at least a lot of speculation to cover. Compared to the usual 9th century bishop, this is lots of source material to work with! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with what has been written above. With particular reference to "Malfosse" there is general agreement with modern historians as to the location and what happened there. The research and location should be re-inserted. This is

not a "guidebook", but serious research of a event at the end of the battle, but not on the battlefield itself. Perhaps a passing reference to the "comet" should also be inserted. Best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)