Archives |
---|
|
Contents
- 1 R100 weights
- 2 Talkback
- 3 List of Zeppelins
- 4 Season's tidings!
- 5 David McConaghie
- 6 Article for deletion - Jerusalem Road 21
- 7 EasySky Flight 735
- 8 Johnny Miller
- 9 DYK for Bland Mayfly
- 10 Hubert Le Blon
- 11 A barnstar for you!
- 12 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
- 13 Article Feedback deployment
- 14 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
- 15 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
- 16 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
- 17 Proposed Deletions of Porridge Episode pages
- 18 About Oberoi splendor grande
- 19 Disambiguation link notification for July 18
R100 weights
Just had a read of R100. I spot that a number of weights in the prose are given in Short tons. eg gross lift around 156 short tons (142 t) uncited. The Flight article of 1929 gives an estimate of 156 tons which assuming Long tons is more like 170 short tons. Whatever the value is, it probably ought to be given in long tons. what do you think? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree 100%... I'm not quite sure what a short ton is, but the usual UK measur is the long ton,no? (not to be confused with the LongTone) I've got Masefield to hand, so have all the data more or less to hand. I'm giving R100 a go, as you've noticed, but got sidelined by the Imperial Airship Scheme article, which seems to me where a comparison of the two ships belongs.
Btw is there a consensus on the gender of these things? The R101 article uses 'it', but r100 uses she at least once....she was used at the time, but I think modern use is it...any thoughts?TheLongTone (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
-
- A short ton is also 20 hundredweight but using the US hundredweight which is only 100 pounds. I don't think either the R100 or R101 article can be entirely free of comparison because both have the same specification and were built at the same time under the glare of public interest. Regarding she/it - if I recall from the various Milhist/and Ships projects discussions either is acceptable, though the less romantic may prefer "it". When working on articles I worry more about the definite article with HMS Whatever to avoid saying "the His Majesty's Ship Whatever..." GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks...definately long tons in that case, not only is iy a UK topic but all primary sources will be long tons. I agee that it i impossible to avd some comprisons betweenthe airships in th individual articles, but I don't think that a detailed comparison belongs in either or both: the Airship scheme seems the best place to put it. Gender wise, I'm easy, but internal onsistency within articles is important, and I'd say desirable across the variety of articles on airships.TheLongTone (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Mayflower, 9r, R36, R31 class, R33 class and R23 class are all currently using the feminine and, R100 and R101 excluding, they constitute most of the article space on British pre-war airships. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks...definately long tons in that case, not only is iy a UK topic but all primary sources will be long tons. I agee that it i impossible to avd some comprisons betweenthe airships in th individual articles, but I don't think that a detailed comparison belongs in either or both: the Airship scheme seems the best place to put it. Gender wise, I'm easy, but internal onsistency within articles is important, and I'd say desirable across the variety of articles on airships.TheLongTone (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- The figures are most certanly Long Tons. Where it all gets sticky is that the weights vary, according to exactly when taken, and lift depends on how full &c. I'm coming to loathe Masefield. Have you read it? If you have not, it's exhaustively reserched but very poorly organised. There are dozens of tables of weights &c, but they are very poorly collated. And its stucture is appalling, written like novel with flashbacks. It's as bad as Cloud Atlas. No, worse. But it seems to be the only serious print source. I am getting so pissed off I am thinking about writing a book on the subject myself.TheLongTone (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If the weights are so variable, your options (save writing the definitive work on the subject) are limited to:
- Giving a range of values - "50 to 52 tons"
- Specifying the exact circumstance "52 tons, at 1,000 ft, on a summer's day, with the wind in the east."
- Using "aprox." and "about" a fair bit.
- Perhaps I should look out for a copy of Masefield then, forewarned is forearmed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- If the weights are so variable, your options (save writing the definitive work on the subject) are limited to:
-
-
-
-
-
You won't find it in Oxfam. Current price on Abebooks is £81 upwards...a copy with an inscrition to Else Cave-Brown-Cave from author a snip at £95. I think Kimber are a semi-vanity publishing house & probably not many were printed. A proper publisher might have employed an editor to cut about 25% of the book's length to advantage. Masefield could easily sustain a wkipedia biog btw: look him up in the DNB if you have online access. From memory, he also wrote the DNB entry on Burney. R100-wise, I'll stick in the figures at the lift & trim trials. & I'd like to semi-undo your change to the table in the Airhip scheme article: tonnes are fine, but repeating the units imo simply enlarges the table, and in a way the units don't matter; its about a comparison of numbers.
- I was thinking more inter-library loan, but thanks for the warning. I'm not wedded to the table so there's no problem. I think I'd try the table with volume as the first row since it is largely that which determines the weights. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong, its a valuable work & very interesting in parts. An example of what I mentioned above is a pair of tables, two pages apart. Which more or less agree, but give two sets of weights for R100 (taken five days apart), which differ. It's a small difference, one quotes 18 LT as the servic load and the other 20 LT, but fewer better collatd tables would be much more useful.TheLongTone (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
-
- And, changing the subject, why is it R100, not R.100. I know its the convention on Bitish airship articles, but most sources seem to use R.100 &c - was there some lengthy & acrid discussion long aWhtgo about this?TheLongTone (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is probably a passionate discussion somewhere in the talkpages of either the Aviation or Milhist projects or both. Generally I think it follows from the wikipedia style going away from abbreviations/contractions using full stops. (UK, USSR not U.K. and U.S.S.R. - though U.S. and USN just to be awkward) And this carries over into other designations though historicals do abound alongside the cleaner form of other period aircraft: Spitfire LF.IX, Saunders-Roe SR.53 and de Havilland DH 108. It can be a touchy subject (though not as bad as hyphens in ship class article titles). Generally "R100" has a more modern look to my eye. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- And, changing the subject, why is it R100, not R.100. I know its the convention on Bitish airship articles, but most sources seem to use R.100 &c - was there some lengthy & acrid discussion long aWhtgo about this?TheLongTone (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I like my worms in the can: much better things to worry about...like article content or cooking dinner, but I do prefer the full stop because it separates letters & numbers: (a Spit LFIX?).
-
-
Talkback
Message added 22:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It is obviously notable, and certainly doesn't fall under "A7" for "speedy deletion"! TBrandley 22:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- replied on article talk page.TheLongTone (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
List of Zeppelins
Hi, at List of Zeppelins, I see that you have amended a lot of HTML code from e.g. <div id=LZ16>
to <div id=LZ 16>
. Please note that this will break any inbound links, since the id=
attribute cannot contain spaces unless it's quoted, as in <div id="LZ 16">
. Try clicking on List of Zeppelins#LZ and List of Zeppelins#LZ 16 or a redirect like Zeppelin LZ16 to see where you end up. It also creates invalid HTML, since every id=
must be unique, but you've set up 60+ identical IDs. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll go back & fix it...problem was that the naming convention for Zeppelins was wrong. I didn't know that the coding woud not accept spaces: I imagine the best solution would be to use the quotes, since the correct name format has the space. Any guidance would be most welcome, code is not my forteTheLongTone (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, after this fix it works fine. Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Done 'em al now. Although its not very useful unless one is familiar with the mechanism: I've just back-checked one of the links to the page in question, & the link w simply to the article rather than the airships in question.TheLongTone (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, can't win 'em all, attention wanders during these repetitive tasks.TheLongTone (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
David McConaghie
Although I didn't agree with you, I appreciated your interest in this topic after experiencing some frustration with one other editor's constant objections to absolutely any mention of the subject. Could I ask you to revisit the AfD [1] page when you have a moment, and think about whether the added material, and talk page discussion, changes your mind about whether the whole article should be deleted? Even if you're still of the same view, I'd still be grateful for more than the couple of lines you've given us to date. Thanks. Brocach (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Article for deletion - Jerusalem Road 21
Greetings, Long Tone. You tagged my newly created article Jerusalem Road 21 for speedy deletion because of lack of notability. I strongly disagree. Think about it: A new road is being created in East Jerusalem between Arab neighborhoods and Jewish neighborhoods (which the international community considers illegal and calls settlements). Notable? Left-wing groups claim this is an effort to solidify Israel's hold on East Jerusalem. Notable? Milions of dollars are being spent on this endeavor which Israeli authorities claim will improve transportation in the city. Notable? I fully expect new sections to be added to the article detailing these various points of view. The article is only a stub right now, but its notability will increase as other editors add their two cents. I implore you to remove the speedy deletion tag and allow the roots to sprout. Also, please note that the article already exists on Hebrew Wikipedia. In my opinion, the English article (which includes references) is already far more comprehnsive than the Hebrew one. Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent reason for considering this road notable, just add it to the article lead & remove the PROD notice if you have not already done so.TheLongTone (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, Long Tone. I want to gather some reputable references first. Right now, however, I've gotta run. I will get to work in the next couple of days. You're really pushing me hard to do good work, huh? lol Take care, --@Efrat (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- No worries, I'll remove the PROD.TheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ooops, I'm afraid you made a minor mistake. Thanks for trying to help out with the ref, but the ref refers to a completely different highway. Furthermore, the ref is from Haaretz Premium which means it's not always available except to paid subscribers. It will take some time for me to get the proper refs for this highway, because it's so new and the media hasn't caught on!!! But I'm on it. Now that you removed the speedy deletion tag, the pressure is on to prove myself. lol Regards, --@Efrat (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK, so I expanded the article with another reference and gleaned more facts from existing refs. Unfortunately, most of the refs are not in English, but this is true with many English Wikipedia articles about other countries. Hopefully, the English media will soon catch on to this subject. Intersetingly, I could only find one Palestinian reference that mentions the road. --@Efrat (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- You've convinced me, and the article is relativly safe now since articles tend to get afd or PROD notices slapped on them when newly created since people keep an eye on the new article page to weed out the rubbish. Good luck with finding English language sources, my guess is that this will only get coverage as an inclusion in an article on whats going on generally. Since in essence this story has been going on since 1967 there's a certain amount of media fatigue.TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you ever come across any info, feel free to forward it to me. --@Efrat (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sure thingTheLongTone (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you ever come across any info, feel free to forward it to me. --@Efrat (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- You've convinced me, and the article is relativly safe now since articles tend to get afd or PROD notices slapped on them when newly created since people keep an eye on the new article page to weed out the rubbish. Good luck with finding English language sources, my guess is that this will only get coverage as an inclusion in an article on whats going on generally. Since in essence this story has been going on since 1967 there's a certain amount of media fatigue.TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK, so I expanded the article with another reference and gleaned more facts from existing refs. Unfortunately, most of the refs are not in English, but this is true with many English Wikipedia articles about other countries. Hopefully, the English media will soon catch on to this subject. Intersetingly, I could only find one Palestinian reference that mentions the road. --@Efrat (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ooops, I'm afraid you made a minor mistake. Thanks for trying to help out with the ref, but the ref refers to a completely different highway. Furthermore, the ref is from Haaretz Premium which means it's not always available except to paid subscribers. It will take some time for me to get the proper refs for this highway, because it's so new and the media hasn't caught on!!! But I'm on it. Now that you removed the speedy deletion tag, the pressure is on to prove myself. lol Regards, --@Efrat (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- No worries, I'll remove the PROD.TheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, Long Tone. I want to gather some reputable references first. Right now, however, I've gotta run. I will get to work in the next couple of days. You're really pushing me hard to do good work, huh? lol Take care, --@Efrat (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
EasySky Flight 735
I seconded your WP:PROD but I suspect someone will take the prod down before its 7-day expiration is up. When or if that happens, I'll AFD it. This is not a notable incident at all....William 17:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would have speedied it, but I don't think there's an appropriate tag? TheLongTone (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Crashes like this are never speedied. An AFD might close as delete more rapidly than a prod. Look here[2], here[3] and here[4] for examples. AFDs can be unpredictable too if its a recent incident. LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016, a belly landing 767 which was videoed and therefore played over and over again. Fails WP:AIRCRASH but recentism prevailed at its AFD[5]. I'm thinking of proposing it for AFD once again. That can be done. Anyway I predict AFD will be where EasySky's ultimate fate and I think the result will be delete. It didn't happen in the US or Australia and wasn't videoed, so the recentism crowd are unlikely to participate....William 19:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Right you are, I'll do that the next time I come across a similar thing. Agree about the Polish incident, pilot must have greased it in though.TheLongTone (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Crashes like this are never speedied. An AFD might close as delete more rapidly than a prod. Look here[2], here[3] and here[4] for examples. AFDs can be unpredictable too if its a recent incident. LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016, a belly landing 767 which was videoed and therefore played over and over again. Fails WP:AIRCRASH but recentism prevailed at its AFD[5]. I'm thinking of proposing it for AFD once again. That can be done. Anyway I predict AFD will be where EasySky's ultimate fate and I think the result will be delete. It didn't happen in the US or Australia and wasn't videoed, so the recentism crowd are unlikely to participate....William 19:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Johnny Miller
I've seen your message. He's obviously notable, but my impression was that it was pretty pov. I'll have another look tomorrow to see whether to restore or sandbox for you, too tired at present. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Author obviously picked a couple of nice quotes to make him seem notable, but one does not start an article because somebody couldn't keep time & always showed up drunk. if you decide to dump it in my lap I'd rather you made it a userpage rather than put it in my sandbox, which has quite enough sand in it at the moment.TheLongTone (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I take that point, but most of the article is just a string of highly pov quotes from reviews. I wondered in fact if an article with so much of the content taken from elsewhere didn't come close to plagiarism, even if the sources were were acknowledged. Even the few bits that are not quotes or their sources are on the lines of Another one of Miller’s great accompaniments.... Not sure what you intend by userfy (yours, the original creator's) but he's posted the text on my talk page, so you can take it from there. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'd favor putting the article as edited into the creator's user space if possible: I added nome wikilinks, formatting & a picture, but I've no sources whatsover (I listen to music rather than read about it) & have no idea what makes a reliable source for adding cites.TheLongTone (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- I take that point, but most of the article is just a string of highly pov quotes from reviews. I wondered in fact if an article with so much of the content taken from elsewhere didn't come close to plagiarism, even if the sources were were acknowledged. Even the few bits that are not quotes or their sources are on the lines of Another one of Miller’s great accompaniments.... Not sure what you intend by userfy (yours, the original creator's) but he's posted the text on my talk page, so you can take it from there. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Bland Mayfly
The DYK project (nominate) 02:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hubert Le Blon
Hello TheLonTone, I have compiled a page on Hubert Le Blon, and have thus mentioned the 1910 Olympia Show and the Humber (le Blon type) aircraft. But I am unsure what the official name ofthe 1910 show was, so could I ask you to check HLB and comment/fix it. Many thanks. Chienlit (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
p.s. What do you intend to call your article, I would like to link it from HLB.
- Seems to have been called the Aero Exhibition. I'm afrid the article in my userpages is stalled at the moment, needs something other than a list of aircraft. 'm not very good at finishing things...TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. I'll go with that. Neither am I, that's why I publish and DYK immediately and let others do the rest. :) Chienlit (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- The LeBlon article looks pretty complete to me...that cite needed tag should be fixable, I'll have a look at the Flight archive.TheLongTone (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll go with that. Neither am I, that's why I publish and DYK immediately and let others do the rest. :) Chienlit (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Technical Barnstar | |
Excellent work! I don't know how and why I created the page in mainspace (i.e. missed "User" in the URL)! Great work! Best, Tito Dutta (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC) |
easy mistake to make...Thanks!TheLongTone (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Article Feedback deployment
Hey TheLongTone; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Proposed Deletions of Porridge Episode pages
Hi,
I got your messages about the proposed deletion of pages I made for Porridge episodes. I have every intention of editing them to the standard of other episode type pages. You see, I was in a rush this morning, and I thought it would be good to get the basics first. I hope you understand.
Eddie655321 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
About Oberoi splendor grande
Hi, I got your messages about the proposed deletion of pages I made for Oberoi splendor grande. I have edited the page accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberoirealty0 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Like fun you have.TheLongTone (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Hi,
I got your messages about the proposed deletion of pages I made for Oberoi splendor grande. I have edited the page accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberoirealty0 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sommer 1910 biplane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chalons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for your help. It is the second time I write the article Legiotex. I modified and removed parts that were promotional. But I see no way to make it more encyclopedic than promotional. It is need to write an article in Wikipedia for the realization of a European project. I would appreciate any advice for changing and modifying the page. To see if the third time's charm. Thank you again. Rubendesign (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)