Archive 41 |
Archive 42 |
Archive 43 |
Archive 44 |
Thanks for dropping by! Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page. Messages here will often be read by a number of people. If you would rather discuss an issue privately, you can email me. I sometimes reply here, sometimes elsewhere. If I reply here, I will typically tag you in the message.
Contents
The section requested is completed.
The section requested by both you and Tim Riley at the featured article nomination for Jane Austen has now been written and added. What is next for the featured article nomination to continue. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nice and useful edits of yours at Jane Austen. It should take 2 or 3 days for me to pull some materials together for some new edits. In the meantime here are my two authorities for the Northanger material one of which is linked and which you might enjoy glancing at.
-
- (1) Tomalin, Claire. Jane Austen: A Life. New York: Vintage, 1997, p. 165.
- (2) [1]. "How Might Jane Austen Have Revised Northanger Abbey?, from Persuasions, a publication of the Jane Austen Society of North America by Aiken in 1985 (link provided).
- It also confirms the writing dates for the manuscripts. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Responses complete now to your comments if you have a chance to look at them. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Fountains-of-Paris: Noted, thanks; I'll aim to find some time to drop by again. If I haven't gotten to you in a week, ping me... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Responses complete now to your comments if you have a chance to look at them. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review
Hey Josh! I opened a Peer Review for Kalki Koechlin, (after a long and exhausting FAC) and I would really appreciate some help. I need some help with the "Media Image" section of the article, so if you find some spare anytime soon could you take a look on just the section and help me arrange it in a better way. I am a little divided on the structure of the section. All the help would be really appreciated. Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 17:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Numerounovedant: Sure, I'll try to find some time. Ping me in a week if I haven't got to this... Josh Milburn (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 02:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hey Josh! As you asked, a reminder of my request. Get back to me whenever you find time. NumerounovedantTalk 20:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 02:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Numerounovedant: I've copyedited the article and left some comments. It's certainly not a bad article, but, based on the prose alone, I'd say a bit of work needs to go into the article before its FAC ready. The key issues are the over-lengthy public image section and the weird way that (some) theatre discussion is split off from the details about the rest of her career. I'm watching the PR page, so feel free to reply there. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you for such an extensive ce. I will take up your comments as well. Also, the only reason I have a separate section for the theatre work is because in India the theatre and film industries are totally unrelated to each other. So, I thought the details would work better in a separate section. Thanks again for all the work that you have put in! NumerounovedantTalk 16:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Numerounovedant: My pleasure. I'm not opposed to keeping film and theatre info separate, but there seems to be at least three problems with the way it's done currently. First, there are some details of her theatre career in the film section; second, the film section is titled as her "career" when, as you say, she has a separate career in the theatre; and third, the details of her early (pre-career) life are included in the film career section. All of this adds up to skewing the article to being about her film career when both should receive coverage (not necessarily the same number of words [I have no view on that], but I hope you can see my concern). Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I totally understand your concerns, do you trimming the first paragraph (that includes bits from the Early Life section) would help? I am all for the "Career" - "Film Career" change. However, I do not see the mention of her work in theatre in the film career section. NumerounovedantTalk 17:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Numerounovedant: I'm sorry, my mistake; I thought the early life section was a part of the film career section. That does mean that some of my concerns were misplaced. Just as a thought (by no means necessary!) you may want to consider splitting the article like this (I self-reverted- it's your call). That's perhaps how I would do it. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- How about this? NumerounovedantTalk 17:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Numerounovedant: I'm sorry, my mistake; I thought the early life section was a part of the film career section. That does mean that some of my concerns were misplaced. Just as a thought (by no means necessary!) you may want to consider splitting the article like this (I self-reverted- it's your call). That's perhaps how I would do it. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I totally understand your concerns, do you trimming the first paragraph (that includes bits from the Early Life section) would help? I am all for the "Career" - "Film Career" change. However, I do not see the mention of her work in theatre in the film career section. NumerounovedantTalk 17:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Numerounovedant: My pleasure. I'm not opposed to keeping film and theatre info separate, but there seems to be at least three problems with the way it's done currently. First, there are some details of her theatre career in the film section; second, the film section is titled as her "career" when, as you say, she has a separate career in the theatre; and third, the details of her early (pre-career) life are included in the film career section. All of this adds up to skewing the article to being about her film career when both should receive coverage (not necessarily the same number of words [I have no view on that], but I hope you can see my concern). Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for such an extensive ce. I will take up your comments as well. Also, the only reason I have a separate section for the theatre work is because in India the theatre and film industries are totally unrelated to each other. So, I thought the details would work better in a separate section. Thanks again for all the work that you have put in! NumerounovedantTalk 16:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Heathenry
I think we should ask for temporary PP on that page because of the IP-hopping POV people; Alt-Right and a few others got temp PP for this exact reason. I'm not sure if it's a single person or coincidence but the Racialists are restless. I wanted a second opinion, though... Ogress 21:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ogress (also tagging Midnightblueowl): I'm inclined to agree. I considered protecting it myself, but I didn't think it was appropriate as I have been somewhat involved in the article and this is not so much vandalism as a content dispute (though, of course, one side in the dispute is currently not providing sources). Josh Milburn (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- IPs removing cited content and obscuring blatant racism isn't a "content dispute" though. Like, there's a debate with racialists on Alt-Right right now and also IPs deleting things the same way they are on this page. The two are not the same. Ogress 01:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- From the outside, I think this would look like a content dispute; there's a disagreement about how to present information, what information should be presented and precisely what the facts of the matter are. That's not to say that I think the IPs are going about this in the right way (they certainly aren't), but it does limit the actions I feel I can take as someone vaguely "involved" in the article. (I don't know what "Alt-Right" is; I guessed a Usenet board, but Googling suggests that you may be talking about the discussions going on at Talk:Alt-right?) In any case, please do consider making a request at RPP, and I'll keep an eye on things and perhaps step in further myself if the problems continue. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with the idea of getting a PP on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ogress J Milburn although perhaps semi-protection is best given that we are mostly dealing with anonymous IPs? Either way they are being very persistent. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, they just reverted again and I'll all out of reverts. Ogress 20:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- IPs removing cited content and obscuring blatant racism isn't a "content dispute" though. Like, there's a debate with racialists on Alt-Right right now and also IPs deleting things the same way they are on this page. The two are not the same. Ogress 01:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Ivy – Disappointed (Video image)
Hello J Milburn, I noticed your recent nomination of the aforementioned image for deletion. I would like to say that I disagree with your explanation. Without the inclusion of the image, the article honestly looks bland and plain. I have created a better caption for the image in hopes that it will stay; I hope you can reconsider your decision or perhaps help me out otherwise. I would appreciate it, thank you. Carbrera (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Carbrera: We do not and cannot use non-free images to stop articles from looking "bland and plain", we use them only when they add significantly to reader understanding. If you wish to use an image for decorative purposes, use a freely-licensed one. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Knight Lore/archive1
Per your comment on the peer review, would you have a moment to leave a quick review of this one? czar 02:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Czar: If I haven't gotten to this in a week, ping me again... Josh Milburn (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Unarchiving... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Title TK/archive1
Hi Josh, how are you? I hope all is well with you. I was wondering whether you might possibly have time to look at this Peer Review. If you do, I would be very happy to help you out with anything now or in the future to return the favour. :-) Of course, if you don't happen to have time, no worries at all! Have a good day. Moisejp (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Moisejp: Hi, good to hear from you- I'll see if I can find some time, but I'm afraid I can't make any promises! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Unarchiving... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
The Signpost: 24 April 2016
- Special report: Update on EranBot, our new copyright violation detection bot
- Featured content: The double-sized edition
- Traffic report: Two for the price of one
- Arbitration report: Amendments made to the Race and intelligence case
Women in photography
You are invited... | |
---|---|
Women in Photography
|
--Ipigott (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
Samples
Not sure how familiar you are with audio sample usage, but two or three audio samples on an album isn't unusual. It's on other good articles like Nevermind and In Utero. I've had albums promoted to GA with four samples (Come to the Well) and three samples (Thrive, Lifesong) although I've not gotten a FA, on two good articles I nominated (Casting Crowns and Revelation) I had three samples and it was never raised as an issue in the nomination process. The album cover might be a concern. Is there a way to fix that? Toa Nidhiki05 17:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is what is at File:Bless Me Indeed.ogg now a better rationale? Toa Nidhiki05 17:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Toa Nidhiki05: Agreed- multiple samples on an album article aren't unheard of. That doesn't mean, of course, that one/two/many samples are justified in every case, or this case. The sample I removed lacked a rationale, so I stand by its removal. I've no strong opinion right now on whether the samples (either individually or together) are justified, but three does strike me as a little heavy. (As a side issue, I am concerned that non-free content issues are often only looked at in passing if at all in GA reviews. I'd like to see them get a little more attention, but I realise that this is unlikely to happen for a number of reasons.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Bizounce
Thank you for your comments for the article I am expanding and nominating for GAN. I have reduced the size of the image and removed the audio sample (I was on the fence about adding anyway as it did not add much to the actual article. I might add an audio sample of the rap portion of the song identified in a few of the reviews, but I will be more cautious with that).
I was wondering if you could look through the article again to see if there is any other instances of excessive or improper use of non-free material. Since you added the tag, I didn't want to remove it until you approved the changes. Thank you again. I always appreciate feedback. I apologize for any inconvenience. Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: Thanks; that solves the issue nicely. Best of luck with the GAR process. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your help! I make a lot of mistakes on here so I greatly appreciate the support. Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments also on No Time for It. I didn't realize how large the image was and the screenshot was really not necessary so I removed it. This is probably a really stupid question but how do you reduce the size of an audio sample to an acceptable size? I would prefer to keep the audio sample as I think it is always informative to have the audio sample for a page devoted to a song, but I am not sure on how to go about correcting it. You can also let me know if you think the audio sample should just be removed completely. Aoba47 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I compressed the audio for No Time for It so if possible, can you let me know if this avoids any issues with non-free material? Aoba47 (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: The rationales still seem incomplete; the "NA"s are not ideal. {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} may be helpful for the cover. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I compressed the audio for No Time for It so if possible, can you let me know if this avoids any issues with non-free material? Aoba47 (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments also on No Time for It. I didn't realize how large the image was and the screenshot was really not necessary so I removed it. This is probably a really stupid question but how do you reduce the size of an audio sample to an acceptable size? I would prefer to keep the audio sample as I think it is always informative to have the audio sample for a page devoted to a song, but I am not sure on how to go about correcting it. You can also let me know if you think the audio sample should just be removed completely. Aoba47 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your help! I make a lot of mistakes on here so I greatly appreciate the support. Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)