User talk:Bencherlite/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

The Boat Race 2012

Hey dude, the above is currently undergoing a Good article review, it may pass, it may not, but in any case, I was wondering if you could have a look at it when you get a chance as I'd like to ultimately push it through to WP:FAC, and I'd like to make sure it's balanced and comprehensive. I'm beginning to not see the wood for the trees.... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Also wondered if you knew how I can bridge the gap between about 1984 and 1999, reference-wise? Do you know of anyone with access to Telegraph or Times archives? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes for The Times: email me what you're after and I'll have a dig round. I'm going on holiday on Friday morning, so you'll need to ping it through ASAP! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Thank you Cat-man! I'm looking for pre- and post-race reports on the Boat Race from 1983 to 1999, preferably including crew listings too. I've got from 1829 to 1982 covered, and the web has me sorted from 2000 onwards, I just have a blind spot for those 17 races..... Anything you can do that doesn't unnecessarily inconvenience you would be marvellous. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do! - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Can you drop me an email - I'll reply with the 1983 articles. - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: done deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:TFLS

I just saw your comments at the TFL submissions page, and they reflect the biggest weakness in the process right now. We simply don't have anybody reviewing the blurbs or related lists, and after a while I just have to pick lists to run or we won't have a twice-weekly TFL. I try to do what I can to fix issues that I see, but there's only so much one editor can do and problems are bound to creep in with the current approach. The list you mentioned on WT:TFL a while back is evidence of that. If you or any of your talk page followers want to help out, I'd be thankful for any assistance that can be provided, from TFL reviews to writing an occasional blurb. It's hard for me to fault Neelix when nobody else before him was writing many blurbs, and I do have other areas of interest here that suck up my editing time, from article maintenance and improvements to occasional big projects and even the odd attempt at an impossible FAR save. That probably isn't helping matters, but it's the way I'm wired. Anyway, I wanted to say that I understand your concerns and hope that more people become active at TFL, though I'm not holding my breath given site-wide trends. I'll say something to Neelix at TFLS as soon as I get a chance. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You have my deep sympathy, as I am in the equivalent position to you and although TFAR is more active than TFLS, I still end up choosing about 55% of the TFAs completely off my own bat, without even the luxury of a uncommented-upon nomination! You are to be commended for your hard work at TFLS - it is a thankless task, so I proffer my thanks to you! That there are so few major issues at TFL is due to your hard work and also that of Neelix, of course, but that doesn't mean the system can't be improved.

TFAR has always had a rule that nominations should be no more than a month in advance, but it has a "pending" list WP:TFARP where dated-related suggestions can be left for the following year. TFARP is non-binding on anyone but at least allows someone to put down a marker that such-and-such a list might be good for next December, and acts as a polite request to people not to nominate/select it before then. I wonder whether either or both points would help.

Having a turnover of nominations is a good thing, I think - if a couple of slots are effectively out of action for months because they're for dates much later in the year, or even next year, then activity slows and the opportunity for people to nominate/comment reduces. I've resisted suggestions that TFAR should allow nominations two months in advance for precisely this reason.

Putting a "congratulations on your FA - how about TFA?" note – {{FA congrats}} – does bring in new suggestions particularly for recent FAs. Would that be something worth doing for FLC?

Would you like me to add a note to the TFA messages about TFLS? Would you like to call for volunteers at WT:TFAR?

Best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 20:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of TFARP in theory, but it requires nominators to get the word out about date-relevant lists. Do we at TFL have enough interested editors for that? I'm not sure. One or two of the future lists are probably going to be scheduled soon, just to get them out of the way. Maybe a TFL pending page that lists approved future blurbs could be a way to go; it's impractical for TFA, but a twice-weekly process probably can get away with it. The note looks like it has some potential, and I might bring that up at FLC/TFL once my current work clears up. Finally, I'd love for a TFLS message to be posted at TFA. There is some crossover in the processes, and even attracting one regular reviewer would be an improvement over the current situation. Perhaps we'll even learn a new trick or two to improve the quality of lists. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Agree about attracting at least one regular reviewer... too many nominations are being closed for a lack of activity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Lil' help

Greetings, user Bencherlite. Some time ago you proved helpful in an edit war involving the article on the German Battleship Bismarck. Even though the ultimate consensus there (following your involvement) was to accept some form of the edit I had originally been trying to make I ended up just walking away because the whole thing had become too frustrating...as I have basically in every single similar situation I've found myself in here as they have come up.

After while one just ends up walking away, not just from conflicts but Wikipedia. Six years and nearly 17,000 edits in I'd rather not, but am stymied again and ask you for your help. Please see the edits to the Packard V-1650 article and Talk page.

Please also note that contrary to his most recent post at Talk user BilCat did not take the discussion there, resisted engaging there, has ignored repeated indications the content at question has been edited since it was initially excised and relocated, and resorted to derisive edit summaries at the article page prior.

Thanks in advance. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikiuser100, sorry not to reply earlier - I'll try and have a look later. Bencherlite^Talk 05:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Central Coast Mariners FAR

Hello again. We're making some nice progress in addressing the issues that you rightly brought up when you started the FAR. I'm not going to say it's fully ready for you to have another look at it yet, but it's getting there. It still needs a copy-edit run-through, the lead could stand to be expanded, and I haven't yet checked for dead links. However, the article looks quite a bit better than it did when the FAR started. Is it okay if I ping you when I feel the article is ready for a deeper inspection? Keep in mind that I don't regularly work on soccer/football articles, so there might be issues that I'm not factoring in because I lack strong familiarity with how similar pages are supposed to be structured. You're probably more in tune with that than I am. I'd better go now, because England just shanked a corner kick and I don't want you to think I'm jinxing your country's team. :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 23:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Giants2008, no rush on the FAR as far as I'm concerned, although your continuing ability to jinx English football is more of a worry... Bencherlite^Talk 05:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Dan56, jazz albums aren't really my thing but I'll try and have a look at the article even if I don't comment at the FAC. Bencherlite^Talk 05:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Calm after the storm...well, sort of!

Marie escaped with relative ease from the trolls, vagabonds, and filthy vandals on yesterday's main page. In contrast to my other FA's, she had a lot less attention, but received more constructive edits and praise especially from people like John and Profhum, for which I am truly humbled. Let's be honest, if John thinks the article is good, then I must be doing something right! Who knows, maybe I am warming to TFA once again. Hope your well! Cassianto^talk 11:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto, excellent stuff and glad to hear it. Of course, there was a quasi-complaint that it was good to see a woman on the main page but it was the wrong type of woman ("unfortunately today you have a female entertainer who was sexy which is pretty trite... most women in the mainstream limelight are attractive or sexy." You can't win in this game... Bencherlite^Talk 05:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh my lord, the things people complain about! Maybe this would have satisfied her instead, then again... Cassianto^talk 08:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting discussion mentioning the same ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey, I am Rahfat Salman, a new contributor over Wikipedia. Reviewed your user page and I really appreciate the level of works you have done. Don't know much people around here so just sending messages. Hope you don't mind. Keep up the great works. Wishes Rahfat Salman Rahfatsalman (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

City of London Guildall court

Can you help me with a legal question? I am currently researching the career of the notorious swindler and demagogue Horatio Bottomley. In 1908 Bottomley and some associates were, according to my source, "summoned for trial at Guildhall Justice Room on a charge of conspiracy to defraud". The trial went on for 28 days, at the end of which the presiding alderman, Sir James Ritchie, said: "I have come to the conclusion that in this case no jury ought to convict". He then dismissed the summons. Can you tell me what was the status of this Guildhall court? It sounds, from the accounts in the sources, like committal proceedings in a magistrate's court, but the language in the source material makes this far from clear. Was Bottomley "acquitted", as some say, or was the decision simply that there no case to answer? I'd be glad of your opinion if you can spare the time. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I will check in more detail this week. This reminds me that he pops up in the autobiography of Travers Humphreys, a copy of which I picked up in a second-hand shop one day, so I will scan the relevant bits and let you have it. Bencherlite^Talk 18:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

TFA struggle

Thank you for reminding me about nominating St James' for TFA. I have struggled with the templates and I think I have finally got it right. Not entirely sure though, and am worried that I should not have removed some of the code that I did. Could you investigate please?

I do hope it can be TFA on 25 July, as I am going to make a presentation to the parish about Wikipedia in general and this article in particular on the following day (26th). Cheers, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes that looks fine. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 10:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought about making the change to "It is the oldest extant church building in the city's inner region" (edit conflict), but dropped it because the subject (which "It" would refer to) was introduced as the parish, not only the building. Help? - Could we say "inner city", to shorten? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It's fine as it is, thanks. If you need an explanation, then: "It" refers to the church as described in the previous sentence - the previous sentence does not describe a parish. And "it is the oldest extant church building in the city's inner region" follows the lead, flows nicely and works better than "it is the oldest extant church building in the inner city", because one's left slightly hanging as to which inner city, whereas "the city" clearly refers back to Sydney. Bencherlite^Talk 10:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, learning. - In "my" articles, I will keep writing about building and parish, as the St. James' article also does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Use of photographs

Hi again. I have opened a discussion of my use of my uploaded Commons photographs to augment architectural text detail in churches here. I didn't want to carry on with this kind of stuff if I'm running onto sticky ground. As you have an interest in church articles, I thought therefore you might have a point of view to offer. This discussion is promoted entirely by me, not by any criticisms - there have been none. Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Ping

I think Wikipedia:Featured article review/Central Coast Mariners FC/archive1 is ready for a second look whenever you're ready. The article isn't in perfect shape yet, but it's a lot better than it was when the FAR started. Since I've finished substantial editing (for now) on another project I was working on, I have more time to devote to the remaining work that will be needed. Thanks for being willing to look at it again. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Eubule Thelwall

Just a note of thanks for your recent edits to the Eubule Thelwall mess. I discovered these three pages recently and created the disambiguation page. Last night I requested a review in the Admin channel of IRC for comments and suggestions in case more changes were needed. After those edits I marked my request for admin help closed. If something was left undone or improper I just wanted to let you know it was not without considerable effort on my part to request help and learn from the advice. Thanks again! Kyle^(talk) 19:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Geistliche Chormusik

When I wrote Psalmen Davids I was asked if it shouldn't be disambiguated. I hesitated because those by Schütz are obviously the most notable ones. Geistliche Chormusik is even more general, meaning no more than sacred chorale music. So far my thoughts. I accept your move, however, thinking that again his is the most notable ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a search now, most articles meant Schütz, indeed, but several are general and two for other composers (including Hugo Distler's op. 12). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, when we have other articles on other composers' works with the same name, someone can decide whether we need to disambiguate all of them with a dab page at the main title, or whether we just need to disambiguate the lesser-known ones with Schutz at the primary title. It makes no sense, though, to have a disambiguated title without a main article from which it needs disambiguating (save in limited circumstances) - see WP:PRECISE. Bencherlite^Talk 10:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I said I accepted. I just remember that Marktkirche was made a disamb page (instead of now Hanover) while on the Main page and with many links to fix, and would not like such a thing again. But I agree, there will not be as many links, and we can disamb Distler if that piece ever gets an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I know you said you accepted. But you then decided to come back and tell me about other articles, so I thought I'd explain what the position is so the situation doesn't arise again, and you in turn can explain it to others if you're asked in the future. I thought you liked learning ...;-) Bencherlite^Talk 11:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I like learning, and nothing of the first reply was new ;) - I changed it to "your name" where it matters, including my user page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Horatio Bottomley

My Bottomley project has now reached peer review. There's a lot of law in it – the old brute was scarcely ever out of one court or another. One particular court that he was involved with interests me particularly; in 1908 he was summoned to the London Guildhall, to answer charges of fraud. The court apparently consisted of aldermen, and so far as I can gather functioned as a magistrate's court, in that they decided to dismiss the case rather than send Bottomley for trial. Are you familiar with the status of this court? The sources are not informative on this point, but I'd like to add an explanatory note if possible. Any help will be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton, scan coming your way - your instinct is correct. Bencherlite^Talk 19:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Halsbury scan received, footnote & ref incorporated into article. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Second scan likewise. A couple of points incorporated into the Final years section. Much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Marvellous, Brianboulton, although I think you need to add Humphreys to the sources section too (that may be in hand even as I speak - dodgy wifi on the train home!) Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I was called in for mi tea before I'd finished – done now. Brianboulton (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

TFA(s)

Hullo mate, chuffed to have two of "my" FAs on main page in the space of a week or so but, just FYI, I didn't receive pending notices on my talk page -- are those still meant to go out? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and sorry for the inconvenience. UcuchaBot (talk · contribs) sometimes misses them but I don't know why and I don't always spot the missing ones. This note went unanswered, I think, unfortunately. I think the bot still adds the maindate= to the article history correctly, though, and the protection bot still kicks in, so at least it's not all doom and gloom! Bencherlite^Talk 10:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Central Coast Mariners FAR

Hi Bencherlite, I was wondering if you could pop by Wikipedia:Featured article review/Central Coast Mariners FC/archive1 and clarify if the issues you raised have been addressed? The FAR has been open a while now and a fair bit of work done to it. I asked Nikkimaria what the next step was, and their response was that they would like you to swing back past when you have a spare couple of moments.

Thanks in advance!
Daniel (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Daniel: I'll try and get to it this week. The last couple of weeks at work have been very hectic, and I go on holiday soon, so time is short... Bencherlite^Talk 07:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

TFA request

Hi. I was thinking of nominating New York Dolls (album) for Today's Featured Article (for July 27, since that's the album's release date), but I don't remember where the page is explaining the factors that help its nomination. I remember there being a page that mentioned things like how long it's been an FA or relevance to the date, all of which are tied to some point system. Dan56 (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56: You want WP:TFAR. There's no points system anymore - just follow the instructions on that page. However, as July 27 was scheduled ages ago, you can nominate it in the non-specific date slots and unless anything arises it'll run at the next suitable opportunity. Bencherlite^Talk 07:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Bottomley again

I am advising all contributors to the recent peer review that the Bottomley article is now at FAC, awaiting any additional comments. Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

In case you miss it...

..."ERRORS" report on TFA. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

...Zzzzz. Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 21:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

TFA

Hi Bencherlite! I have a question for you relatively to TFA. I'm starting an FAC this week, and it's my first one. I'm not expecting to have the article passed right on its first FAC, but in case I do (and if so, that would probably happen on the end of August). That being said, could I still request for it to appear as September 3, 2014's TFA? Thank you in advance pedro | talk 22:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Prism: if nobody has anything in particular lined up for 3rd September, and it's not too bad a clash with other articles running in late August / early September, I'll see what I can do to help. What's the article you have in mind? Bencherlite^Talk 22:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. It's Trouble (Natalia Kills album), and the date chosen is the first anniversary of its release. pedro | talk 23:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck at FAC. Bencherlite^Talk 23:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Mahusha

I came to know that you select featured article on wikipedia. please if you can American Civil War is is good for tommorrow's featured article. User Talk:Mahusha 8:31 26 July 2014

As you've been told by someone else already, I see, the "Today's featured article" slot is for featured articles only; as the American Civil War article is not a Featured Article, it is ineligible. Bencherlite^Talk 10:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Holiday

The lengths people will go to to avoid joining in a peer review! ;) Have a fun time and see you in a few weeks. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

When you've finished with him, send him round sharpish to clean my windows, please! Thanks and hope you have a good summer. Bencherlite^Talk 11:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Note

Hey Bencherlite, just alerting you to this change I made... there's no option in the {{TFATOPIC}} template to include more than one topic. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There is now... Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 06:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I would have done it myself, but I have very little coding ability. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

TFA for 1 September

Hi there. You'll have noted that there are two TFA proposals for 1 September: mine (Hilda Rix Nicholas) and Toa Nidhiki's 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game. I'm happy for the community to sort it out, but i can see reasons in favour of both. Just one idea in case it is of use to you: a primary audience for Rix Nicholas is likely to be Australian, and if the articles go up on the US servers at midnight US time (i'm assuming), then actually a lot of the time that a 1 September TFA is online is actually 2 September in Australia. I guess if Rix Nicholas was posted on 31 August, then it would (for most of the time) be 1 September here. Dunno if you want to make use of that, it was just a thought... hamiltonstone (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hamiltonstone: they go up at midnight UTC. If Hilda ran on 31 August, she'd appear starting at 10 a.m. in Sydney and 8 a.m. in Perth on 31 August and run the morning of 1 September. Here in the US. we're about 4 hours behind UTC on the East Coast and 7 hours behind on the West Coast at the moment, so the 31 August article debuts at 8 p.m. on 30 August in New York and 5 p.m. in Los Angeles. Imzadi 1979 → 06:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone, Imzadi1979: Thanks for the notes, guys. As Hilda had lots of support for 1st September and a stronger date relevance, I gave that the 1st September slot, then gave the 2007 football game the 29th August slot: the 30th (which is the date of the 2014 game) was already taken by a date request, and at least on the 29th the article will be featured in the build-up to the rematch, which is the best I can do, I think. Bencherlite^Talk 08:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Questing regard TFA

I noticed that you closed the TFAR request for GTAV as not scheduled however it is currently listed on the archive for the 17th of September as the TFA for that date. Unless that decision wws overturned it needs to be corrected since it could affect the current request for System Shock, another video game, on the 22nd. --67.68.22.129 (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What September archive? Can you give me a link, please? Bencherlite^Talk 13:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Here Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2014.If you look at the entry for the 17th GTAV is listed.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The page was created by the TFA/R nominator before he or she nominated the article at TFA/R using the normal process. I've tagged the page for deletion, which will resolve the issue. Imzadi 1979 → 15:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks it's been fixed.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I think I would have noticed in due course anyway, but best to tidy up to avoid confusion! Bencherlite^Talk 20:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Floq's talk

Sorry I had to delete your revision; just showed the IP address in question. Thanks for your help. Go Phightins! 15:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

We were both doing the same thing at the same time - I think between us it's OK now. Bencherlite^Talk 15:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks. Go Phightins! 15:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Floq just has too many people rushing to meet his every need :-) Go Phightins! 15:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

FAR

Hey Bencherlite, do you have any more concerns about Central Coast Mariners FC? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

History of a Six Weeks' Tour

I just looked at History of a Six Weeks' Tour again, a bit too late. The six weeks of 1814 were from 28 July to 13 September. 1816 was wet and unpleasant. Should we wait for 2017, publishing year anniversary? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I don't think we need to wait that long but I have no strong feelings either way. It can probably run on any open date. Bencherlite^Talk 09:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Will you just consider scheduling it when there is enough distance to other literature? Or should it be discussed again? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No need to renominate this, I'll just run it at some point. (Sorry I missed this message earlier.) Bencherlite^Talk 10:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, - September would be best, I think, still around their time of travel, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

TFA notifications

I'm a bit worried that the bot that posts TFA notifications on main editors' talkpages has stopped working. This is mainly because I am naturally forgetful, can't remember what I've nominated and am rather reliant on the notification. I was totally surprised when Profumo came up earlier this month – I had entirely forgotten I'd nominated it. I hate to think what would happen if you picked one of my FAs outside the TFAR process.

There may be other dreamyheads around, so I have a suggestion to make. If when you schedule a batch of articles, you give me a buzz, I will send a short message to each of the main editors advising them of the scheduling. It will be a standard notification, not as detailed as the one the bot used to send, but sufficient to act as an alert. I'll be happy to do this until the bot resumes. Let me know if you want me to do this – I wouldn't want to cut across any alternative system you have in mind. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk · contribs) that would be very helpful. I've done the last few but not the ones at the start of September (and I've not bothered when the primary author is inactive). I have left the botop a talk page message, with no success, and sent an email (ditto). I will send another email but if there's no response soon I will try and find another botop to take over. I've been adding |maindate= to the article history; WP:FA has been partially updated to mark TFAs (by me and others) but WP:FANMP is getting increasingly out of date because I'm only taking away TFAs, not adding new promotions. (Fortunately I have my own list and don't depend on FANMP!) But the most tedious task is finding the primary editors(s) and leaving them a message. The bot uses User:UcuchaBot/TFA notice, by the way, which you may find of use. Many thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 09:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I will send a simple message to the article's FAC nominator(s). It will read: "This is to inform you that (article name), which you nominated at FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on (date). The proposed main page blurb is (link). Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date." I will deal with the first batch tomorrow, and thereafter when you notify me of your selections. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have posted notifications to nominators up to 12 September. Unless I hear otherwise, I will do them from 13th onwards, except where the nominator has clearly retired. All you need do is to ping me when you select a batch. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

St Johns Church, Manchester

Hi, have you done GA reviews yourself? Could really use a church editor to review it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, yes but not for a while. If no-one else has picked it up, I'll try to get to it next week. Bencherlite^Talk 16:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Man the pumps

In the aftermath of the collapse of automatic systems, I see Bad Sir Brian B is sending out FAC messages in your name, and if I too can be of any use in any capacity however humdrum I am at your service. Tim riley talk 23:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The bot wot did this was run from the Toolserver, which finally departed this life on 1st July. The noble Ucucha has told me by email that the hunt is on for a new home for the bot, but I don't know how long this might take. Until we get the bot back, or a look-a-like, perhaps you could help Sir Brian from time to time? You needn't bother with messages to the terminally absent (or, indeed, to the dead, alas) but otherwise even the most observant editor can overlook an entry on their watchlist. Thank you, kind sir. Bencherlite^Talk 23:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Tim riley, if you have a spare five minutes, pick half-a-dozen articles from the "to check" section of User:Bencherlite/TFA dates to check, see whether there's an obvious date connection for TFA (birthday, anniversary of the event itself, date ship was launched or whatever) and if there is, remove it from there while adding it to WP:FADC. If there isn't an obvious date (which is generally the case for wildlife, towns, rivers, fossils etc) then add it to the "no obvious dates" section at the bottom of the page. My aim is to have every FA that's yet to be on the main page either listed at WP:FADC or in the "no obvious dates" section. Every little helps, etc. Bencherlite^Talk 13:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Crackerjack

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your ITN closure reasoning.Lihaas (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Lihaas, glad you liked it. But I knew that already, of course... Bencherlite^Talk 13:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Joanna

Thank you for approving the Joanna Yeates article that I nominated. Will be nice to see it on the TFA section on the 18th. :) I was wondering if it is possible to add a photo to the nom. If not then that is ok too. Thanks again!--BabbaQ (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

BabbaQ, I had already tried to find one to use but the photo of her in the infobox is fair-use and so it can't be used on the main page, and none of the other photos in the article seem relevant to the blurb. Bencherlite^Talk 22:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid as requested TFA, October 4

G'day Bencherlite

I just listed Metalloid at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, for October 4. The accompanying image of a periodic table extract is hard to make out and I'm wondering if the image can be made a little larger if I take out some words from the blurb. I'm also seeing if the image can be done in svg format, rather than png, as that may help. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps better yet, since there are six elements commonly recognised as metalloids, could the image be rotated amongst these, as per what happened with Middle Ages? Sandbh (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination. I'll have a look and see what's best for the image, but I don't think the periodic table is the answer here. Any photo with small bits and pieces of detail (maps, charts, landscape shots of a battle scene etc) doesn't really work for TFA - simple images are best. Bencherlite^Talk 22:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

TFAR update

Hello Bencherlite,

I've noticed that for the past few days, the list has been accepting TFA requests from September 23rd through October 23rd. Just curious, when will nominations for October 25th start being accepted. I'd like to have my TFA then.

Cheers, Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, I tend to schedule about 2 to 3 weeks ahead - at the moment, there's a 19-day buffer (23rd September is the next TFA date currently unscheduled), so I'll probably schedule a batch early next week. For every day that I schedule, the templates automatically bump the date range back by one day. So, in other words, when I've scheduled 24th September, the list will accept nominations for 25th September to 25th October. At the moment, I don't see anything standing in the way of Katy Perry for that date, if that helps! Let me know if I can assist further - and do let me know what you think of the nomination process, and whether you find any of the instructions confusing etc, as feedback is always welcome. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 08:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much :3! In the meantime, I'm trying to configure a good blurb for her TFA. Could use assistance, as I see these tend to have different phrasings than the actual article's lead (article length and lead length not withstanding). Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, something like this, perhaps? This is 1,134 characters of visible text and the limit is 1,200. Bencherlite^Talk 13:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Katy Perry (born 1984) is an American singer, songwriter, and actress. She pursued a career in gospel music as a teenager, releasing her debut album in 2001, then moved to Los Angeles to venture into secular music. After signing to Capitol Records in 2007, she rose to fame in 2008 with the release of the single "I Kissed a Girl" from her second album, One of the Boys. Perry's third album, Teenage Dream (2010), became the first by a female artist to produce five number-one Billboard Hot 100 songs. Her fourth album, Prism, was released in 2013 and included the number-one singles "Roar" and "Dark Horse". Perry has received many awards and nominations, and been included in the Forbes list of "Top-Earning Women In Music" for 2011, 2012, and 2013. She has sold 11 million albums and 81 million singles worldwide, making her one of the best-selling artists of all time. She made her film debut voicing Smurfette in The Smurfs in 2011, and released a documentary film in 2012, which concentrated on her life as a touring artist and the dissolution of her brief marriage to English actor and comedian Russell Brand in the early 2010s. (Full article...)

Looks very nice :D! Might wanna give the names of Teenage Dream #1 singles and mention the name of her Katy Hudson album, though. I added italics to "Billboard". Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is that you can't list all those singles without leaving out more interesting stuff. Similarly, if you mention the name of the first album directly, you then have to waste characters explaining that one is her real name and one is her stage name. The blurb needs to be sharp, punchy and interesting, to entice people to click through to read the article's lead (where all these extra facts you want are mentioned) and then the rest of the article. Speaking of which, can you think of a better way for the lead to mention her perfumes than "released fragrances"? It sounds like a euphemism for passing wind... Bencherlite^Talk 20:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

XD that was too damn funny with regards to euphemisms..... Anyway, thanks for explaining how it would eat up space. I'm happy either way, just thought it would be useful. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again for helping with everything :). Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

relevant dates for F and metalloid

(Replying here because the discussion was closed.) Hi Bencherlite. Yes, I agree with you that the date relevance is weak. The main thing I was concerned about is that the date relevance makes the majority of the involved editors happy (and no, I'm not one of them, I'm just in the same WikiProject), and that's why I stuck up for it. But it doesn't matter anymore: the majority of the involved editors changed their minds re the date, you closed the discussion in a way that I believe would make nearly everyone happy, and I'm totally fine with that. So, if I have offended you in any way (I hope not!), I sincerely apologize. Double sharp (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely no problems at all with anything as far as I'm concerned. It certainly makes a change to have discussions about how close together TFA should run chemistry articles(!) - what has WP:ELEM got planned next?! Bencherlite^Talk 13:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The next articles I know we plan to get to FA are astatine (main: R8R Gtrs), ununseptium (R8R and me), alkali metal (me), thorium (me), and neptunium (me and Thingg). In the slightly longer term, we are thinking of making gold an FA – that's one huge project and will take much more time, but it will be really worth it for our readers! (It is our second-most viewed article after all – our most-viewed one is already an FA!) Double sharp (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Mmm

Delicious, your scheduling of MM and MMM articles for TFA ;) - Mucho Macho Man - the answer to an arb case request? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been waiting to schedule that series of MM and MMM articles for ages, and I've finally found a space for them. Incidentally, Gerda Arendt, have you seen that there's a conversation at WT:TFAR about Halloween? It's a shame that Peter Warlock wasn't born a day later! Bencherlite^Talk 13:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I try not to think of Halloween. The witch of Pungo was all too real for it, her honour restored 300 years later. Warlock is also too real. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

How clever! (FYI, a CC is going to be put in the pending queue for the first Saturday in May, 2015!). Montanabw^(talk) 22:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Glad you liked it! Bencherlite^Talk 22:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)