User talk:Rambo's Revenge/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Rambo's Revenge. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28 →

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter

The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – White Shadows (submissions), William S. Saturn (submissions), Staxringold (submissions) and ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of UK charts and number-one singles (1952–1969)

On 3 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of UK charts and number-one singles (1952–1969), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Sorry for cluttering up your talk page, but I wanted you to know that I appreciate your help with the footnotes! Thanks again! Location (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of number-one EPs (UK)

Hello! Your submission of List of number-one EPs (UK) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 28bytes (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Good to go now. As a side note, you may want to clarify in the Hits article why Rhonda/Ronda has two different spellings. I almost "fixed" it until I read the "Help Me, Rhonda" article and learned that the two different spellings were legitimate. Once the article hits the front page, readers may make the same mistake I almost did. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, good spot. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries by future HDI projections of UN/archive1

Redundant conversation, move on please

Hello,

The article List of countries by future HDI projections of UN was nominated by its author for FLC, but this article was deleted by its author. Please delete also the page Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries by future HDI projections of UN/archive1. Cohneli (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but "G7. Author requests deletion." did not apply as you were not the only substantial author to the page. However, I've removed and processed the nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Athaenara deleted the page List of countries by future HDI projections of UN, because I, who asked for deleting it, was the only substantial author to the page! Do you know of any other substantial author? Cohneli (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the article (which I haven't touched, mentioned or undeleted), I'm talking about the featured list candidacy to which Ucucha, Laser Brain, and Matthewedwards all made substantial contributions. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My requst for deleting the page List of countries by future HDI projections of UN, was not rejected! On the contrary! It was approved by User:Athaenara, who really deleted the page! Note that I was the author of the substantial content of the page, and that's why User:Athaenara deleted it! I also explained why it should be deleted although I didn't have to, because I'm the author of the of the substantial content of the page! Cohneli (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are now referring to my more recent edit here, it was deleted, restored with the CSD tag, and rejected by another uninvolved admin here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My request was approved but the page was restored again. Anyways, rejected or approved, you still don't refer to my main claim: I created the page, and everybody can realize that I'm the only substantial author, and nobody has succeeded to refute my claim that I'm the only substantial author! Which another substantial author does anybody know of? Cohneli (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Would you like to do me a favor? To follow the following description of the sequence of events, which proves (by clear diffs) that I was the only editor who contributed the substantial content of the page?

2. After having read this description, do you agree that I was the only editor who contributed the substantial content of the page?

Here is the sequence of events, which proves that User:Cohneli, who is asking for a speedy deletion by a {{db-g7}} request, was the only editor who contributed the substantial content of the page.

On 19:24, 24 October 2010: User:Cohneli created the page.

19:24, 24 October 2010, and 19:39, 24 October 2010: Two identical versions.

After 19:39, 24 October 2010, until 21:46, 24 October 2010: All edits made during this period were of User:Cohneli's.

21:46, 24 October, and 22:45, 24 October 2010: The only difference between these two versions was the change of the dashes "-" to the dashes "–".

After 22:45, 24 October 2010, until 08:44, 26 October 2010: All edits made during this period were of User:Cohneli's.

08:44, 26 October 2010, and 14:46, 29 October 2010: Two identical versions.

14:46, 29 October 2010, until 17:40, 30 October 2010: All edits made during this period were of User:Cohneli's.

17:40, 30 October 2010, and 16:14, 9 november 2010: The only differences between these two versions are: 1. Deleting blank lines. 2. Changing the word "HDI" to the word "UN".

After 16:14, 9 november 2010, until 16:44, 9 November 2010: The only difference between these two versions, is the addition of a Db-g7 request.

16:44, 9 november, until 20:39, 10, November, 2010: The only differences between these two versions are the following: 1. Replacing a {{deletion}} template by an {{update}} template. 2. Addding a very short section which states that the data contained in the article were calculated by using a methodology no longer valid. 3. Shortening the footnotes. 4. Some punctuation grammar and syntax. 5. Unifying the chapters "External links" and "References". 6. Separating between "General" references and "Special" references. 7. Unbolding some words. 8. Deleting a few words. 9. Moving a sentence about Japan to another place. 10. Changing "didn't" to "did not". 11. Deleting a link, from the chapter "See also". 12. Adding quotation marks. 13. Contracting phrases by their acronyms. 14. Replacing the phrase "half a year" by "six months". 15. Chnaging an "R" to an "r". 16. Deleting links.

Cohneli (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I never made an assessment about the article you speak of. My only assessment was about the FLC. Anyway, the CSD was rejected (right or wrong) but that is meaningless and irrelevent as substantial edits have now been made. Your only course of action now for deletion is WP:AFD. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No "substantial" content. Just read the description given above for the last diff. Anyway, I see that you don't want to do me a favor as I asked you. OK. Legitimate. Cohneli (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, the last diff shows significant changes by me. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, significant changes, e.g. rephrasings, punctuations, acronyms, and likewise, as I described above. However, all of those syntactic changes, that were made today by one author after I made my {{db-g7}} request, do not constitute the very "substantial" content, although they were intended to show that I was not the only author who has contributed the substantial content. Cohneli (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

NZ singles

I'll have another go at FLC with List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand). Before I re-nom it, would you be able to tell me if a Hung Medien page to verify each song would be acceptable by you (eg [1]). Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I must of missed this. Here is my opinion on the references. Hung Median is, as far as I know, a reliable source, but if it is a straight choice between RIANZ and Hung Median use RIANZ. However, at >150k bytes you will get objections over size, especially as that would increase further if the Sept 06 onwards refs were formatted with a cite template (which is something that an FLCer would point out). Basically, I think you need to reduce the number of references. Perhaps you were suggesting Hung Media to have one reference per song, not one ref per week. ~~Unfortunately that won't work because it doesn't specify which weeks. e.g. Bleeding Love had 5 weeks at #1 but non-consecutively.~~ (Retracted as I see it does in the next "Track" section, but my further reduction point remains.) Not sure exactly how the Scapolo book works but covering 40 years worth it must have multiple #1s on a page and would greatly reduce the references up to 2006 (the first 300 odd). Outside referencing I still thing you are missing functionality by using rowspans and not making it sortable too, however that is just my opinion. Rambo's Revenge (talk)

Thanks for your feedback, I do plan to sort the table/remove spans, but I need to sort the refs out. Scapolo's book gives only peaks, not which weeks a song was actually at number one. So would 171 references be few enough, do you think? Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot say for definate but would think so. This list has 150 refs but the size isn't to bad. The drastic reduction from 519 to 170–180 refs would greatly reduce the size and should sort that issue out I think. Good luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Mail back atcha

Hey dude, I think I replied in brief to you this morning (although my phone was playing up so who knows). Anyway... there might be an email in your inbox. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of number-one EPs (UK)

On 13 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of number-one EPs (UK), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the extended play Hits by The Beach Boys spent 34 weeks at number-one in the EP chart? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hits (The Beach Boys EP)

On 13 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hits (The Beach Boys EP), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the extended play Hits by The Beach Boys spent 34 weeks at number-one in the EP chart? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"Teenage Dream (Glee Cast Version)"

Thanks for the archival of the IRMA page, but I was actually going to use it until the Hung Medien page got updated, which should be in a couple of days. But thanks, anyway! :) Yves (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, could you do a final check for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Buso Renkin episodes/archive1? Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Rambo, can you take a look here when you get the chance? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just added the primary sources for the episodes. Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, after confirming the English transliteration of the names I have sourced them with the DVDs and I think I have addressed your concerns. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Abu Graib images

I think you are mistaken. This has been discussed month ago, it is helpful and there isn't any policy or community consensus not to do so. IQinn (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Shadows (EP)

On 16 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Shadows (EP), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the eponymous extended play by The Shadows, The Shadows to the Fore, Spotlight on The Shadows and The Boys all were number-one EPs in the UK? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Shadows to the Fore

On 16 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Shadows to the Fore, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the eponymous extended play by The Shadows, The Shadows to the Fore, Spotlight on The Shadows and The Boys all were number-one EPs in the UK? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Spotlight on The Shadows

On 16 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spotlight on The Shadows, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the eponymous extended play by The Shadows, The Shadows to the Fore, Spotlight on The Shadows and The Boys all were number-one EPs in the UK? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Boys (The Shadows EP)

On 16 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Boys (The Shadows EP), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the eponymous extended play by The Shadows, The Shadows to the Fore, Spotlight on The Shadows and The Boys all were number-one EPs in the UK? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: FTRC

You can just put up the FTRC when that gets delisted. Thanks for the heads up. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of singles which have sold more than one million copies in the UK

On 19 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of singles which have sold more than one million copies in the UK, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Leona Lewis's "Bleeding Love" is the most recent of 103 million-selling singles in the UK? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Lead Section

Thanks Rambo. Also, in a discography of an artist, the song did not chart in the Hot 100 (US) but Bubbling Under Hot 100 (US). should that be included in the lead? Similarly, if singles from an album did not chart at all, what are we supposed to do? I know it sounds like I don't know a thing, but I wish to create very neat and precise articles, so that readers get the whole image of the artist. Thank You! Novice7 Talk 07:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends. You must put in context of the artist. Obviously a single that just made positions 100–125 would be completely insignificant to a successful artist e.g. Beyonce (of course it might be notable as a flop) but might be important for an artist crossing over from another genre or from some obscure country with little American exposure. For your second point I think you would need a reference to show they were released (not just some track from the album) and then have —s for where it didn't chart. My best advice is to take a look at some of the discographies at WP:FL (if possible choose a recent one, as they should reflect current standards better) and see what they do. Good luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Best selling UK FLC

"I hope I'm right in sensing you are not actually opposing on notability but playing devil's advocate in that perhaps the notability can be made clearer in the prose – please tell me if I'm wrong". This is pretty much it. I like asking the hard questions about things that are taken for granted. For the benefits of the FLC, it's best to keep all discussion on the FLC page, so that other editors may view it. I can provide feedback on your progressing efforts, but I can't personally help right now with tracking down sources, as I have an FARC to deal with at the moment that's my main priority. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria/List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners

Thank you for your corrections to Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria/List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire/archive1

I've replied to you there :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Spanish chart

OMG, thank you for the signalation. I was confused with Stranger in Moscow. Sorry for the error. They Don't Care About Us peaked #11 not #1 in 1996 and peaked the #2 in 2006, in fact when i posted the Spanish chart positions months ago in the singles discography page i written #2. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Michael_Jackson_singles_discography Sorry again for the error. It can happen. SJ (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

""Heroes"" (song)

Regarding your recent move, I'm just wondering what punctuation rules are regarding this, since the actual song title is curiously "Heroes" in quotation marks, and songs are to be in quotation marks, so would we have double quotation marks (""Heroes"" is a song by...) or single, similar to how double end punctuation marks aren't used (MOS:CONSECUTIVE)? Yves (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The policy for article titles says Do not enclose titles in quotes: Article titles which are quotes (or song titles, etc.) are not enclosed in quotation marks (e.g. To be, or not to be is the article title, while "To be, or not to be" is a redirect to that article). That seems explicit whether it be single quotes like the majority of songs or otherwise. In this case people may argue that the "Heroes" is a quote in the song title giving ""Heroes"". However the guideline says neither song titles or quotes go in quotation marks in the title. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So in the article, would it go like this?

“

""Heroes"" is a song by David Bowie...

”

Yves (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. However I'm not sure that WP:COMMONNAME wouldn't mean we would drop the extra quotes as the artwork in the infobox doesn't give it quotes and neither does the OCC (song & album), Billboard (album) or all music (song & album). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Major League Baseball pinch hitters

On Nov. 7 you deleted Category:Major League Baseball pinch hitters based on this discussion. I think this deletion was problematic for several reasons. Two reasons for deletion were given in the nom, with one editor agreeing "per nom":

"This is in Category:Major League Baseball players by position. Being a pinch hitter is not really a "position", it's just an occurrence in the game where a batter is inserted to hit in the place of another person." - That seems to be an argument to point the category differently (e.g., to Category:Major League Baseball players), rather than to delete it.
"It's definitely not defining, as most non-pitchers have pinch hit at some time in their careers." - In many cases this is true. However, there have been many baseball players who have been only pinch hitters, and never played a position in the field. This category may also be appropriate for players who were particularly notable as pinch hitters.

There is some further discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Category:Major League Baseball pinch hitters. I am hoping you will reconsider the decision to delete this. Rlendog (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My deletion was based on the second point and no-one had made the point that there (what appears to be historically) were pitch hitters without other positions. I have no objection in this being recreated if consensus seems to think that it should (let's face it a lot of CfDs, like this one, are closed with little commentary). As a non-baseballer does that consensus exist and seem valid? If so do you want me to undelete it? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Would need to go to WP:DRV at this point. I would have agreed with the deletion had I seen the discussion. So its definitely not a clear cut restore. -DJSasso (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, go to WP:DRV with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Not really sure what I meant to be doing exactly but hopefully this will suffice as a DRV nom. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I meant that Rlendog should have suggested DRV, but good on you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

SPOTY noms

So Jessica Ennis is it then? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Assuming Swanny doesn't take a couple of fifers at the Adelaide Oval and/or WACCA I reckon Lee Westwood. However, SPOTY throws up some unusual winners (e.g. Giggsy) and I'd take an outside punt on Phil Taylor becoming the first darts SPOTY winner. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)