User talk:Tony1

Archive 1 – Archive 2 – Archive 3 – Archive 4 – Archive 5 – Archive 6 – Archive 7 – Archive 8 – Archive 9 – Archive 10 – Archive 11

This user is proud to be a financial member of Wikimedia Australia.

Useful links

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

FACs and FARCs needing review

FACs needing feedback view •
Operation Matterhorn logistics	Review it now
Tesla Model S	Review it now
How You Get the Girl	Review it now

Featured article removal candidates
Boogeyman 2	Review now
Shoshone National Forest	Review now
Northrop YF-23	Review now
Emmy Noether	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now

Pre-automated archives (4 August 2005 – 25 June 2008)

• Archive 1 (4 August – 14 October 2005):
• Archive 2 (15 October 2005 – 5 March 2006):
• Archive 3 (6 March – 15 June 2006):
• Archive 4 (16 June – 6 September 2006):
• Archive 5 (6 September – 29 December 2006):
• Archive 6 (30 December 2006 – 6 April 2007):
• Archive 7 (7 April – 29 July 2007):
• Archive 8 (30 July – 7 September 2007):
• Archive 9 (7 September – 16 December 2007):
• Archive 10 (17 December – 18 January 2008):
• Archive 11 (19 January – 30 March 2008):
• Archive 12 (31 March – 28 April 2008):
• Archive 13 (29 April – 7 June 2008):
• Archive 14 (7 June – 25 June 2008):

Limited connectivity until Friday 13 August: skiing

• 1 = no work pressure
• 5 = middling
• > 5 = please don't expect much
• 10 = frenzied

Please note that I don't normally (1) copy-edit articles or (2) review articles that are not already candidates for promotion to featured status.

Current listening obsession: BWV11, last movement: Wann soll es doch geschehen (JS Bach). Here's the Harnoncourt version, which is great in many ways, but the flutes needed separate miking—they're drowned out in the tutti passages.

Self-help writing tutorials: Exercises in weeding out fluff from article text Advanced editing exercises Spot the ambiguity Build your linking skills Using hyphens and dashes Copy-editing essentials, part of the Military History Academy edit Sir Quick question, forgive me if the answer is buried in MOS somewhere, Which is more correct; ...the naturalist Sir David Attenborough. ie ...the naturalist Sir [[David Attenborough]]. ...the naturalist Sir David Attenborough. ie ...the naturalist [[David Attenborough|Sir David Attenborough]].  Chzz  ►  09:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC) The title isn't mandatory, and I would suggest leaving it out. No piping considerations required. It's a cheat answer, I know. ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC) It's mentioned Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorifics. Lightmouse (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC) My own socio-political instincts are to leave it out as an anachronism (falling to one's knees before the Queen?). If you do keep it, it should be part of the pipe. Tony (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks, everyone.  Chzz  ►  14:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Out of interest, Tony1, I may be old-fashioned, but I rather like the anachronism of that epithet on first mention of a name; I think the BBC and suchlike always use "Sir", even when shortening "Sir Bob", "Sir Terry", "Lord Sugar", "Sir Wogan", and so forth. But that might be me, being anachronistic - I suppose it depends how much we care about the honours system, whether it has any meaning - which is debatable, but certainly it doesn't mean much when it's really a list-of-celebs+token-traffic-warden. I agree it should be wikilinked if used. I'm grateful for the input (from all) - it's a future-FA. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC) (coming a bit late, having just noticed this discussion but being too interested not to comment) The BBC and other news outlets have no choice but to use it in the short form: they habitually use social titles such as Mr, but Mr Attenborough would be erroneous for a knight. I, too, believe that Sir, Dame, Lady and other such honorifics ought to be included in the link, being part of the respective person's name for all intents and purposes (in contrast to, say, military ranks). Waltham, The Duke of 18:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC) DYK Under your new system, is it compulsory to review another article?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Dr Blofeld, I guess the template closely follows the community-endorsed RfC text I wrote and launched, but I wouldn't call it "my" system; in fact, it almost entirely mirrors text I got from the DYK rules and criteria. I suppose you could say the template is under trial, since people are still getting used to it—including me—and it seems to link DYK with other forums in meeting challenges of auditing/spot-checking for plagiarism. Perhaps a review of the way it's working is required at some stage at DYK. Here are a few issues, one of which you've raised here: Should there be an expectation that a single person review every aspect of a nom? And specifically, now that the expectations of DYK have risen—both in explicit scope and intensity—if the QPQ reviewing system is to continue should it be modified to recognise that an entire review to promotion or rejection by a single (QPQ) reviewer is impractical, given the goals of DYK? Is an explicit set of aspects the way to go for QPQ reviewing? What is the role of the pre-existing system of icons? Should another system be developed? Is the watchlisting system working well? Do the instructions need to be revised in the light of 1–3? Should the template—or an equivalent template that does justice to the community-endorsed RfC result—be integrated into the automatic nomination template at DYK? Has the role of the queuing admins changed? Who should shoulder the responsibility of ensuring policy compliance and quality on main-page hooks? Should this be shared among the admins, the reviewers, and the nominators? Should anyone still be permitted to load noms onto the prep pages? Should there be a normal limit on the number of DYKs in a single hook? It seems that each DYK article in these noms needs to be examined separately. Does DYK have a role to play in encouraging further work on articles, after main-page exposure? Should there be more official support for a trajectory from DYK to GA to FA/FL? Should there be a directorate? What would be the disadvantages and advantages of having one? If the community decided the latter outweigh the former, presumably it should be elected; how big? What roles? For example, should the directors number four (my guess) and be admins (almost certainly). Should their role be: (a) to keep all aspects of DYK running well, including nominations, reviewing, archiving, promotion/rejection, transfer to prep rooms, queuing, exposure, and archiving? (b) to liaise as necessary with other editors who run the main page and its forums to ensure that the needs of the main page remain the primary driving force? (c) to encourage article improvement after DYK main-page exposure? (d) to advise if ever necessary on programs in which DYK might participate that benefit the project, whether prompted by WP editors, the WMF, or Foundation chapters? I wonder whether any of these questions should be raised on the DYK talk page? I spell them out without prejudice: the community needs to consider them. Tony (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC) (Relocated here for wider discussion. Tony (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC) The short answer to Dr. Blofeld's question is yes. Nothing about the review requirement has changed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC) DYK checklist If you have a moment, please review and comment on WT:DYK#Review checklist templates or WT:DYK#The review checklist, redux. The issue of whether or not signatures are necessary within the checklist has come up (along with suggestions from NuclearWarfare and myself about how to get by without them), and as far as I remember you were the editor who wanted signatures. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at Template talk:DYKrev's talk page. News and Notes I have attempt to rectify your queries. Maybe you could have another look? I was trying very hard to give a balanced presentation -- if there's still a problem, could you suggest in which direction the writeup is skewed so I can adjust? Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 11:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Well, I can't say I agree: but we don't really have time for a debate over it, so I've accepted your changes. There was an odd quotation choice included though, which I have changed. How does it read to you now? Which sentence is the one needing clarification? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 15:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 08 August 2011 Wikimania: Seventh annual Wikimedia conference concluded in Haifa, Israel News and notes: Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay In the news: Israeli news focuses on Wikimania; worldwide coverage of contributor decline and gender gap; brief news WikiProject report: Shooting the breeze with WikiProject Firearms Featured content: The best of the week Arbitration report: Manipulation of BLPs case opened; one case comes to a close Technology report: Wikimania technology roundup; brief news Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC) My DYK proposal I nominated HMS Phoenix (N96) for DYK about a week ago. I have made changes based on the feedback I have received but editors have stopped commenting. Could you take a look at Template talk:Did you know/HMS Phoenix (N96) please? Thanks, Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Watch your attributions please I didn't make the statement you're objecting to on WT:DYK#Opposed to the new templates and instruction creep. Did you mean to refer to Piotrus instead? Prioryman (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Ah, sorry, I'll fix that. I'm only now back onto a proper connection. Tony (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Thoughts after using the review template I recently used that DYK review template, and I did find it rather easy to get sucked into a long review. It was partly due to a rubbish internet connection at the time, but I took well over an hour to do Template talk:Did you know/Wacław Gluth-Nowowiejski. I could help but compare that to where someone reviewed by nomination at Template talk:Did you know/Ramsay Heatley Traquair. I have no way of knowing how long that review took, or how thorough it was (I would need to ask MelanieN), but it certainly took less time to type. I was thinking it might be an idea to raise at WT:DYK how long people take to do such reviews, and whether any balance should be struck between reviewing each nomination for as long as needed (ideal) and reducing expectations of reviewing to a certain amount of time (less quality but less time-intensive and possibly more efficient). Going back to Template talk:Did you know/Wacław Gluth-Nowowiejski, there are a couple of issues surrounding how hook changes are proposed. I had commented at length on the hook there, proposing an alternative wording for the hook and pointing out issues with overlinking and one incorrect word. The promotor (Crisco 1492) didn't incorporate all the changes (one link to World War II was removed and the book title was capitalised), but you later removed the overlinking here (comic book) and I made the other change here (adopted vs adapted). What I was wondering was whether my change was correct (seeing as you didn't make the change, I want to double-check that as some online guides I checked didn't seem 100% clear on this, though Googling "adopted into a book" versus "adapted into a book" seems pretty clear), and whether there should have been more discussion of the hook wording and formatting before promotion. I've raised this at Crisco 1492's talk page (see here]), and I'm also going to ask Volunteer Marek (the article nominator) to comment (as the nomination subpage is now closed), as they might have some thoughts on the matter. Carcharoth (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC) This is exactly why a proper and more careful review is required. I note that MelanieN just put the usual DYK "good to go" stamp on yours after mentioning none of the explicit criteria required to be in a checklist by the RfC; this is a breach of the RfC consensus. I had a look at the article and it does check out fine (please note no em dash at the top), even though I couldn't check some sources for duplication, CP, etc (but you're a known quantity, so I'd be doing a quick spot-check only). In your review of the Wacław Gluth-Nowowiejski nomination, I think you wrote too much and took too long; the thoroughness is great, but there are ways of checking through that don't take an hour (on a good connection). I'd hope for 5–10 mins per review, and these reviews can be shared, or should be, as part of the QPQ requirement. It's galling that Crisco treated your work with casual neglect, it seems. And did the nominator engage with the issues? That is one of the points of properly reviewing. I'll be raising this at the DYK discussion page. Tony (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC) To be fair, Crisco did de-link World War II and capitalise the book title, so it wasn't casual neglect. I failed to ping Volunteer Marek (the nominator) initially, and (after I pinged him later) he said he had wanted to engage with the issues, but found the nomination closed. As I've said, the fact the nomination got closed was largely my fault for using the wrong symbol (a tick one instead of one of the other ones). As for reviews that might be too cursory, it is difficult to tell, though as you say some of the explicit RFC criteria are being ignored. Someone somewhere at WT:DYK pointed that out. Yes, it is here. I would concentrate on ensuring that reviewers explicitly mention all the criteria and the result of their review of those criteria, regardless of whether they use a checklist. You could also just reject reviews that fail to say whether all the criteria have been checked or not. About dashes, it would be good if when you hover over them in the wiki-markup window, you are told what they are... This '–' is an en-dash, right? And this '—' is an em dash, right? One more thing, was the adopt/adapt thing correct? I only spotted that on the second reading - it is surprisingly easy to miss. Carcharoth (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC) The adopt/adapt thing (your correction) was correct. "Adopt" - to make one's own. "Adapt" - to change, in this case to a new medium (comic book). That was my mistake.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks. I was going to say it was obvious (per Tony's checklist), but then I realised it wasn't obvious as I missed it first time round and only just noticed it. Also, Tony missed it so it can't have been that obvious. :-) (That's a joke, Tony!). Carcharoth (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC) (e.c.) Cartharoth, quoting a few fragments from your post, in turn: "I failed to ping Volunteer Marek (the nominator) initially, and (after I pinged him later) he said he had wanted to engage with the issues, but found the nomination closed."—It's gobsmacking. The reason Shubunator was coaxed into making the nom pages watchlistable, and kindly did so in collaboration with one or two others, was so reviewers and nominators can watchlist their nom page. Why, I wonder, is it not explicit in the instructions that they do so? And why, ever, were nominators somehow obliged to ping nominators if they had an issue? It's the quick and dirty mentality in which nominators assume they can fling whatever they've whipped up onto that page and leave: dump and run, and certainly don't learn. "but found the nomination closed"—that sounds as though Crisco is entirely at fault, so I'm unsure why it's a matter of being "fair" to him. They're obsessed with filling up this waterfall of crap that goes out on our main page. That's what is behind this abject failure to check things properly. "I would concentrate on ensuring that reviewers explicitly mention all the criteria and the result of their review of those criteria, regardless of whether they use a checklist." Indeed, but isn't it easier if there's a bulleted list? Just sign with four tildes to approve, it says (in effect). "You could also just reject reviews that fail to say whether all the criteria have been checked or not." Well, yes. That is what should be happening. "Adapt" is correct, sorry not to have mentioned that last time. "This '–' is an en-dash, right? And this '—' is an em dash, right?" Yep. And for full dates, the en dash needs to be spaced on both sides. That is established in millions of examples on en.WP. I fixed it in the article. I see Rjanag has referred to me as "stupid", in effect. One rule for admins, another rule for everyone else, I see. Pity about WP:CIVIL. Tony (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC) I have to go soon, so forgive me if I don't get involved until later with any arguments today (I think Volunteer Marek did watchlist the page, but found it closed). About adapt, there may be a slight quibble in that it is not entirely clear if the comic artist adapted the storyline, or followed it exactly (with permission from the original author, and credit to the original author). I suspect the comic artist did a storyboard, which was approved by the author. Anyway, adapt can be used to refer to the change in medium which necessitates some change in the storyline (usually compression). Which reminds me of a comic book I read about Yuri Gagarin, but I digress. Dashes and stuff I leave until later if I'm not sure, though one day I will spend the time fixing them before a script comes along to do it for me... Carcharoth (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC) (ec) @ Tony: ::::::Just regarding your first two points in the message above. About watchlisting nom pages: it's not required (and I don't think there would be any way to enforce that if there were--as long as people pay attention to the page it's not our business whether it's on their watchlist, and if they don't pay attention then that's their problem), although step II of T:TDYK#How to list a new nomination does recommend nominators watchlist the page. About pinging: It has never been required that reviewers ping nominators. {{DYKproblem}} and other methods of pinging exist as a courtesy, but there has never been a rule or even an expectation that people must use them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC) I think I have to ask you to keep off my talk page until you apologise for your insult. Tony (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Broken link In your article Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing the link http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=673919 (near "The Economist style guide on unnecessary words gives excellent advice.") seems to be broken: "Sorry… We are unable to find the page you’re looking for. Try exploring the navigation links above to locate what you’re after, or use the search box at the top of the page." Thanks for picking this up. Down for two weeks now, promise of reinstatement: here. Weird. I've removed the sentence. Tony (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC) NSDTR Hi Tony1, I noticed that when you ran what I assume to be a script on Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever, a hyphen was added to the breed name (Duck-Tolling) throughout, including in reference titles and interwiki links. As far as I know, this isn't appropriate and doesn't match the article title either, so I removed the hyphens. I'm leaving you this message because I also edited the Signpost featured content page to remove the hyphen there. Since authorities including the Nova Scotia Legislature and the Canadian Kennel Club all refer to it without the hyphen, as well as the American Kennel Club/Australian National Kennel Council/Kennel Club (UK) and books, I don't think it should be included. I suppose there might be some ambiguity there but it seems minimal and the description removes all doubt. Anna (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC) It might not have occurred to you that there's no script for adding a hyphen between "Duck" and "Trolling". I added it manually, of course, because it's illiterate not to have a hyphen there. And I found the hyphen had previously been in the article, and some hyphen-hater had removed it and moved the title to one without the necessary punctuation. And it's used in an authoritative website towards the start of the google search I did. No, do not edit The Signpost to remove necessary punctuation. Tony (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Dog Breed Info is not an authoritative website (none of those sites are) -- there's an RFC right now with unanimous consensus that it is not reliable. Regardless, I'll leave it. I assumed it was some sort of script because several interwikis were broken and the actual titles of some references were altered. I apologize for editing The Signpost and won't do so again. Anna (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)