| Revision as of 13:59, 26 June 2017 view sourceForza bruta (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users597 edits →Serious: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:52, 26 June 2017 view source Forza bruta (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users597 edits →SeriousNext edit → | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
| == Serious == | == Serious == | ||
| If you have intention to edit ] in serious manner, we can close the point between two us: no discussion needed neither dispute. You can to see valid sources in my sandbox--] (]) 13:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC) | If you have intention to edit ] in serious manner, we can close the point between two us: no discussion needed neither dispute. You can to see valid sources in my sandbox. My sources are in Italian language but translation is simple with Google translator; other important source in Italian language --] (]) 13:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:52, 26 June 2017
G'day. If you have got something to say, pull up a pew and say it (but please be civil).
 My Talk Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
TFA
Thank you for June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina, introducing: "It was a significant revolt that preceded the communist-led uprising that occurred in Yugoslavia post the launching of Operation Barbarossa, and was in direct response to massacres of Serbs in eastern Herzegovina carried out by the fascist Ustaše regime in the Axis puppet state—the Independent State of Croatia."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks again Gerda! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Image
restored image, it was considered ok when the TFA was nominated
Where, on this page, was the matter considered? The TFA coordinators prefer not to make such decisions, which is why Dank asked me to handle them.
Typically, a tentative image (often whatever accompanied the TFA request, particularly when Mike does the scheduling) is included. More often than not, it requires resizing, reformatting, replacement or removal.
To be clear, while I perform this task regularly, I don't mean to suggest that I possess any special authority. I'm addressing the statement quoted above, which seems to reflect an impression that Mike evaluated the image and deemed it suitable for use at TFA.
As you can see, I haven't undone your reversion. Instead, I've increased the thumbnail's size (though its subject remains difficult to discern) and added a caption (because the relevance of said subject is too narrow to mention in the blurb). The caption is far longer than usual, but without knowing whether the actual weapon shown (as opposed to others of its type) was used during the uprising, I don't see a good way to shorten it.
Incidentally, when reverting a Commons image's removal from the main page, please upload a local copy first or list it at WP:CMP and wait for KrinkleBot to transclude it at Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en. Otherwise, it might be unprotected (and vulnerable to replacement by a vandal) until KrinkleBot detects its use on Misplaced Pages's main page. (It took about three minutes in this instance, but it sometimes takes much longer and occasionally fails to occur altogether.) Thanks. —David Levy 08:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Not that it's my jurisdiction anymore, but I would have taken the view that the image wasn't suitable for the main page, since a reference to it can't be made in the blurb text, which is generally the rule of thumb for the relevancy of an image. Bencherlite 08:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. I've never had an image deleted from a TFA before, so I found it very strange. I wasn't aware that a reference to the image had to be made in the blurb text, otherwise I would have made one or not used the image. Can you point to where that is a requirement? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- It isn't a formal requirement. As Bencherlite noted, it's a rule of thumb.
- Information shouldn't be included in a TFA blurb solely to justify an image's inclusion. That turns the logic on its head. (In determining whether something is sufficiently relevant to the article's subject to serve as an appropriate illustration thereof, we look to the blurb to see whether it warrants a mention for that reason.) We can include an image caption, so there's no benefit to forcing a minor detail into the blurb. Its absence is an indication that the image probably isn't suitable, not a shortcoming in its own right. —David Levy 12:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, as David says I don't make changes to the TFA suggested image when scheduling from a request, or at least I haven't so far -- if an obviously unsuitable one were proposed I might do so. If there's a problem, others (usually David) address it as the TFA date approaches. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I'll keep it in mind for future TFAs. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, as David says I don't make changes to the TFA suggested image when scheduling from a request, or at least I haven't so far -- if an obviously unsuitable one were proposed I might do so. If there's a problem, others (usually David) address it as the TFA date approaches. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. I've never had an image deleted from a TFA before, so I found it very strange. I wasn't aware that a reference to the image had to be made in the blurb text, otherwise I would have made one or not used the image. Can you point to where that is a requirement? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Maurice Wilder-Neligan
The article Maurice Wilder-Neligan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Maurice Wilder-Neligan for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
GA
It would be nice to wait for a response before failing the article, I would have worked on it this week if you'd put it on hold. I don't think it is that far off from passing? I guess I can work on it and renominate it but I would appreciate it if you could do the review. During the last round, I worked off another editors comments and then they declined to do the full review when it was renominated - to answer your question, I think it is part of military history because in addition to what were most likely minor skirmishes, it is more significant as part of the background for the Wars of Roses. The Wars of Roses is a huge topic, I've worked on the article and it is very difficult because there is so much background leading up to it. These early disputes with the Nevilles (and also the Percys) are part of the larger Wars of Roses (and it's background, though it spills over into that conflict which the article discusses briefly)—in fact, it might be fair to include them as part of a series on the Wars of the Roses, if someone wanted to make an infobox. I came to the article myself while I was working on the main Wars of the Roses article, so I could better understand the underlying issues o what is a very complex war. Seraphim System 12:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- On another note about the Wars of the Roses, Joan and the House of Beaufort were descended from John of Gaunt's second wife, Katherine Swynford. Henry of Bolingbroke (King Henry IV) was descended from John's first wife, Blanche of Lancaster. Henry IV actually barred the Beauforts from the succession because they were originally illegitimate—they were legitimized after birth. Interestingly, during the Wars of the Roses, Westmorlands's full brother fought and died at the Battle of Towtown with the Lancaster king (Henry IV's grandson). The Beaufort-Nevilles sided with the Yorkist king. So, there were a lot of family rivaries and longstanding issues at play in the Wars of the Roses. I don't want to get too off-track in this article discussing it because it is extremely complicated - for example Joan's brother, Edmund, also fought with the Lancasters against the Yorkists. He was killed in the Battle of St. Albans, and his son blamed the Yorkists and Warwick (Warwick was Joan's grandson, Salisbury's son). Edmund originally became Duke of Somerset after his two older brothers died, but after his own death and his son's death (fighting against John Neville at the Battle of Hexham, Salisbury's younger son, who was given the hereditary Percy earldom of Northumberland as a reward) — well, long story short the surviving daughter of Edmund's older brother gave birth to the new king, Henry Tudor - and the war was over! My point here is the Wars of Roses is a conflict that goes on and on in it's details — As the article says, Lander has written that if the Neville family had been united behind York their power would have been overwhelming. I don't want to get into too much in this article both because it is not the main article for the War or the Battles, but we have linked to those from this article. The main article fir the Wars is already a beast and it still doesn't cover everything. I think breaking it up and developing the ongoing side-conflicts, background articles and biographies is easily part of WPMILHIST. Thanks Seraphim System 14:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
One more issue, I am pinging Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi to comment on this because it was raised during the review and I was not involved in the discussion, but I think I remember we decided to not refer to Ralph, 2nd earl as the heir because technically he was not the heir - the property transfers were done legally so we have followed the WP:RS and called it "disinheritence" Seraphim System 16:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping Seraphim System. It's an interesting experience to be told by a message at the top of the page to remain civil, when the editor whose page it is seems to identify as a baddass out of the Phoenix Project and / or Platoon :) all part, as they say, of life's rich tapestry. I'll only make a couple of comments here as SS has made a full justification (and unnecessarilly so IMHO) for the article's inclusion at WP:MILHIST; and its inclusion will remain unquestioned. There was in fact an heir to the earldom of Westmorland, it was John Neville d.1420 (predeceased his father, leaving a minor); it is the former who B36 correctly identifies as acquiesing to a certin degree in his own disinheritance. The main thing that has really driven me to comment at these proceedings here is the fact that you failed it immediately, without any regard to the benefit that merely putting it on hold may bring. Per WP:GA?, an immediate fail does not apply in any sense. I suggest this was a hasty move which should be undone, as both premature and unnecessary. Even so, on a closing note, it was certainly a quality review, in broad parts, and we do thank you for that. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday, both! — O Fortuna 17:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- The personal crack about my user page is obtuse and unnecessary. Don't make an inane comment because you are disappointed that an article you're working on isn't yet ready for GA. I'm a retired soldier so I put on a picture of myself in my younger days. That's all there is to it. Just so you're in the picture, I've GAN reviewed over 150 articles in my five years on en WP, on a wide range of subjects, and as far as I know there is only one active Milhist editor with more GAN reviews under their belt. I know a GA when I see one, as I also have nearly 60 GAs as well as 25 FAs that went through GAN. Neville-Neville feud currently isn't a GA. To clarify, when I first lightly read the article, seeing that it only lacked one citation and seemed to have a sensible top-level structure, I thought it might be close to GA, and that it was just a subject I know little about and would take a few readings to understand. On reflection and after several close readings, I decided it isn't. It needs a lot of work, not just tweaks here and there. It doesn't flow, is almost impossible to follow and some parts (the actual fighting or military action taken to seize lands etc) are apparently not even covered in the article. And even after that the lead will need to be rewritten. In those circumstances, I would not place an article on hold. It wasn't done in haste, or a quick fail, which I do very rarely, as I always like to give nominators some ideas for improvement, and I've given you a reasonable amount of things to get on with to improve it up to the required standard. But with this sort of over-reaction, you're headed straight to my list of editors whose articles I don't review. So well done on that, it's a short list. Good luck with improving the Neville-Neville feud and the other related articles, and best wishes for finding experienced editors willing to help you get them there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- I do apologise. It was merely intended to be a ligthearted quip, not a crushing personal attack: honestly no insult was intended (I was, for instance, toying with the examples of Apocalypse Now and Private Hudson- not sure they would have been any better!). And I certainly wasn't implying that because of an image, inWP:CIVILity should be tolerated. Take care! — O Fortuna 12:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping Seraphim System. It's an interesting experience to be told by a message at the top of the page to remain civil, when the editor whose page it is seems to identify as a baddass out of the Phoenix Project and / or Platoon :) all part, as they say, of life's rich tapestry. I'll only make a couple of comments here as SS has made a full justification (and unnecessarilly so IMHO) for the article's inclusion at WP:MILHIST; and its inclusion will remain unquestioned. There was in fact an heir to the earldom of Westmorland, it was John Neville d.1420 (predeceased his father, leaving a minor); it is the former who B36 correctly identifies as acquiesing to a certin degree in his own disinheritance. The main thing that has really driven me to comment at these proceedings here is the fact that you failed it immediately, without any regard to the benefit that merely putting it on hold may bring. Per WP:GA?, an immediate fail does not apply in any sense. I suggest this was a hasty move which should be undone, as both premature and unnecessary. Even so, on a closing note, it was certainly a quality review, in broad parts, and we do thank you for that. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday, both! — O Fortuna 17:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:
Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.
The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
- 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".
The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
- 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.
The result of that RfC was that the "in all Misplaced Pages articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".
Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Serious
If you have intention to edit Josip Broz Tito in serious manner, we can close the point between two us: no discussion needed neither dispute. You can to see valid sources in my sandbox. My sources are in Italian language but translation is simple with Google translator; other important source in Italian language --Forza bruta (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)