If I start a conversation on your talk page, I'm watching it; reply on your talk page.
If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so make sure you watch this page.
Contents
- 1 The World Before the Flood
- 2 Nazarian Para PMC
- 3 Talk:Battle of Hastings
- 4 Old frivolous nomination
- 5 Nomination of List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com for deletion
- 6 Jaitharia Brahmin
- 7 Nomination of Extended Langton's ant for deletion
- 8 Cemetery/Mass burial at Spitalfields, London
- 9 The "somewhat creepy page"
- 10 DYK for After the Deluge (painting)
- 11 Help me!
The World Before the Flood
Have you simply abandoned this FAC? You have not shown any interest in the comments I left a few days ago. I understand that your main interest has switched to another painting article, but an acknowledgement would have been nice. Brianboulton (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry—I must have slipped over it on the watchlist and not realised anyone else had commented. Will pop over there now. ‑ Iridescent 14:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Nazarian Para PMC
18:13, 11 July 2016 Iridescent (talk | contribs) deleted page Nazarian Para PMC (Expired PROD, concern was: This article is written by the club itself, and it grossly misrepresents the organisation.)
Objection!.. PROD Protocol not Followed by Iridescent.
"To nominate an article, place the {{Proposed deletion/dated |concern = reason for proposed deletion |timestamp = 20160930185522 |help = }} tag on the page. This is automatically converted to a {{proposed deletion/dated}} which lists the article in Category:Proposed deletion. You should notify the article's creator or other significant contributors by adding the == Proposed deletion of Name of Article == [[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|48px|]]
The article Name of Article has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. tag or other appropriate text to contributor talk pages."
Articles creator was not notified. Thous Objection was nt submitted. please restore the article ASAP.
Also submit information you have on how the organisation is misrepresented. which you have absolutely no basis for.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.7.141 (talk)
- I think you're working under a misapprehension about how the proposed deletion process works, and on what the role of a Wikipedia administrator is; this is not a topic about which I have the slightest interest. That I'm the one who enacted the actual deletion doesn't mean I'm the one who proposed it for deletion; it was proposed for deletion on 3 July 2016 by User:37.191.140.144, this nomination was reviewed and seconded on 5 July 2016 by User:Tseung Kwan O, and as no objection was raised for a week it was automatically deleted by myself on 11 July 2016. I'll consider the above a belated contesting and have temporarily restored it for a full discussion, which you can find at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazarian Para PMC. ‑ Iridescent 20:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also notifying Graeme Bartlett who originally accepted this at WP:AFC. ‑ Iridescent 20:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Noted.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.7.141 (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Battle of Hastings
I seem to be not explaining myself well here. If anyone third party might step in, it would be helpful since I don't seem to be expressing myself well enough to get my points across. And I don't wish to continue to explain myself badly and just get accused of ownership for trying to explain myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC
- The Parson's Cat is acting fairly obnoxious, however I'd be reluctant to consider any kind of sanction at this point since this is clearly someone who is trying to be helpful and to fix what they see as a problem of the article stating mainstream opinion as undisputed fact without making it sufficiently clear that there are alternate theories.
- I can see a point to TPC's edits in this case, although not for the reasons TPC gives. The later episodes of Time Team were the epitome of dumbing down (by this time Mick Aston was long gone), and the producers had an obvious interest in promoting fringe theories ("we found xxx exactly where records said it was and there was nothing unexpected about it" doesn't make good television). However, because it's probably received wider circulation among likely readers of this article than all the books on the subject put together, readers will be expecting to see mention of the theory regardless of whether academics support it or not. (You may remember me making similar comments regarding Norman conquest of England stating only that Pevensey was William's landing site and not even mentioning alternative hypotheses, despite the fact that there's also a marker at Bulverhythe marking his purported landing site—even if it's not true, it will be well enough known that it's worth noting why historians dismiss it.)
- I just had a similar issue on Hope; two Well Known Facts are "the Egyptian government distributed copies of it to motivate their troops" and "Nelson Mandela had a copy on the wall of his prison cell". There's not the slightest evidence for either of these being true, but if the article doesn't mention the claims and explain that they're discredited, well-intentioned editors will keep finding reference to them elsewhere and keep trying to 'correct' Wikipedia's omission. You can find similar examples of "a fringe claim has gained wide circulation, so it needs to be mentioned to dismiss it" all over Wikipedia (medical articles, especially nutrition, are a particularly rich seam). You could probably resolve this just by inserting a brief summary of the Time Team theory as a footnote. ‑ Iridescent 08:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'm always amenable to being presented with sources that back up the information - but nothing I'm seeing yet supports the first part of the edit. The source being presented singularly fails to support most of the sentence it's being sourced to. We have to have sources for the information before we can insert it... It's an overview article and we really shouldn't get bogged down in the minutiae of the various scholarly disputes over how long the shield wall was or if Billy the Bastard brought along so many horses or if they did this or that before the battle. That sort of minutiae is just beyond most readers (and rightly so). Nor do I think the whole "Time Team" survey is at all relevant - to include it I'd want to see some evidence that they actually aren't just recentism, but actually reached enough people that we're into a "vikings wore horns on their helms" or "medieval people thought the earth was flat" type of thing. For example - see this scathing review of an episode of Ancient Aliens. Trust me - this show probably has a larger viewership in the US than Time Team does in the UK - so does that mean that we need to cover their theories on Nefertiti in our article on Nefertiti just because a lot of people saw it? I'd want to see evidence that the Time Team show actually generated enough press/buzz to impact on the public's consciousness. (And before you ask, no, I don't think the blog posts by the guy given above are enough to insist that we cover Ancient Aliens' outlandish theories on the respective articles.) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- My thinking as regards Time Team is that to a significant number of readers, the line of thought will be "Time Team is based on 'proper' archaeology rather than purely enthusiastic amateurs so anything they mention is likely to be significant; → Time Team mentioned this; → this isn't mentioned in the article; → I'll be helpful and add it", so if it's not mentioned at all there will be a never-ending of people either trying to add it to the article and getting confused and upset when they're reverted, or raising it on the talkpage and getting confused and upset when they get some variant of "not this shit again, go away" in response. In my view, even if something is obviously bullshit it's worth mentioning in passing if a significant number of people believe it, even if no credible source takes it seriously. (I have no problem with our mentioning "the rocks of Stonehenge were brought from Africa", "Christopher Marlowe ghost-wrote Shakespeare's plays for him", "Bush arranged 9/11 to create a pretext to invade the Middle East", "Joan of Arc was actually the leader of a band of witches trying to overthrow the Catholic Church whose memory was coopted by the French" etc etc etc in their respective articles provided we don't give them undue weight,* and make it clear that credible historians don't believe them.) Paging JzG, who's far more experienced in me in handling crank theories. ‑ Iridescent 14:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
*All of these except "Bush did 9/11" are in fact currently mentioned on their respective articles.
- My thinking as regards Time Team is that to a significant number of readers, the line of thought will be "Time Team is based on 'proper' archaeology rather than purely enthusiastic amateurs so anything they mention is likely to be significant; → Time Team mentioned this; → this isn't mentioned in the article; → I'll be helpful and add it", so if it's not mentioned at all there will be a never-ending of people either trying to add it to the article and getting confused and upset when they're reverted, or raising it on the talkpage and getting confused and upset when they get some variant of "not this shit again, go away" in response. In my view, even if something is obviously bullshit it's worth mentioning in passing if a significant number of people believe it, even if no credible source takes it seriously. (I have no problem with our mentioning "the rocks of Stonehenge were brought from Africa", "Christopher Marlowe ghost-wrote Shakespeare's plays for him", "Bush arranged 9/11 to create a pretext to invade the Middle East", "Joan of Arc was actually the leader of a band of witches trying to overthrow the Catholic Church whose memory was coopted by the French" etc etc etc in their respective articles provided we don't give them undue weight,* and make it clear that credible historians don't believe them.) Paging JzG, who's far more experienced in me in handling crank theories. ‑ Iridescent 14:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
-
TPStalking - for a fringe theory to gain inclusion into an article it has to be notable fringe - otherwise its just random people spouting stuff. If not notable, it falls foul of WP:UNDUE. The Time Team theory was put forward by Time Team - for it to merit inclusion as a notable fringe theory, reliable secondary sources would have had to comment on it, or it be addressed by relevant experts in the subject etc. 'TV show does episode where they think something happened somewhere else' absent anyone taking it seriously does not qualify as notable fringe. There is a similar issue atm regarding Aquatic Apes and David Attentborough, the key difference with that is Attenborough is addressing an already existing notable fringe theory, rather than advancing his own. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Time Team was supported by Wessex Archaeology who would write full reports on each excavation. The reports cover background (site history and archaeology), methodology, results of any trenches and geophys, and some conclusions. These reports are standard for professional excavation work (even watching briefs). The reports are sometimes the basis of peer reviewed journal articles, but the time and effort required means that most reports never make it past the grey literature stage. They are still useful (and constitute reliable sources for Wikipedia); I use some of the reports in my own research.
The full report should always be given primacy over the television episode where conclusions are developed on the fly. In less controversial articles a reference to the episode might be sufficient, but in this case at the very least the professional report should be referred to. If that cannot be found, the fact it is not a mainstream theory means it shouldn't be included. There are two types of Time Team episode: the regular series and specials. Reports for the series are available through Wessex Archaeology but I can't see the reports for the specials. Nev1 (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing anything on that page for a report for Hastings. I'm not adverse to adding information if it can be shown that it's a notable fringe theory. I'm always open to being persuaded but it takes sources... and we're still lacking those. I'll note that the hubub has meant that Hastings won't run on the Main Page on its 950th anniversary, which isn't a problem for me, but probably is a shame. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's certainly sourceable that the Time Team theory has drawn the attention of the pop-history press. I wouldn't get too cut up that Battle of Hastings isn't running on the anniversary, given that its replacement is Norman conquest of England which has at least as good a claim to the date. (FWIW, the anniversary doesn't seem to be getting very much attention, certainly when compared with the WW1 centenary—Battle itself is hosting a couple of low-key events, English Heritage is holding a mini-reenactment, and Bayeux is having an event in the Cathedral, but there are no big commemorations in London or Caen and no state events to mark the occasion. In light of recent events, I'd imagine "they came from the Continent to try to take over the English government and to grab anything of value that wasn't nailed down" is not a fire the governments on either side of the Channel feel needs stoking.) ‑ Iridescent 16:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'll be 97 at the 1000th anniversary. I already told my son he's taking me there for it... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- If I felt inclined to place a bet despite being statistically likely to be dead by the time it came to collect it and inflation rendering any winnings worthless, I'd bet on the final dissolution of whatever's left of the UK and the proclamation of the Republic of England on Christmas Day 2066. You heard it here first. ‑ Iridescent 17:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ooh, I have to jump in here with that mention of the WWI centenary. The commemoration events surrounding that are fully justified (much more being done than was done for the 50th anniversaries - quite a bit has been written about the reasons for that, and I have several articles or sections of articles planned just on commemoration events), but it did make me wonder about the 'right' times in history for anniversaries and commemorations. I am guessing the 100th anniversary of the Norman Conquest didn't exactly result in a party (or maybe there was something to mark it?). I am guessing commemorations and 'history' was not such a big thing back then. It did also make me wonder what will happen in 2914 (the 1000th anniversary of the outbreak of WWI. Maybe 100 years isn't enough time to get a proper perspective on such events. Or rather, the perspective is still malleable and changing. Less so for events 1000 years ago (compare the commemorations of the Battle of Waterloo and maybe also Agincourt). Iridescent, you missed this (or maybe ignored it?). And for the perspective from 1866, see here. Maybe the trend for modern commemorations started with things like the World's Columbian Exposition. Are there examples of pre-modern societies going to town on (non-religious) anniversary celebrations/commemorations? Briefly, this is relevant. Carcharoth (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Last bit: Columbus Quincentenary: this if anyone is interested. Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I may be wrong, but it seems the anniversary thing will finally take a bit of a break for some 20 years after 2018, with not all that much to go on about (in the UK anyway), apart from the Reformation. I don't think there will be street parties for that. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- 1519 was the start of the Spanish conquest of the New World (or at least, the defeat of the Aztecs which turned the colonial presence from an outpost into a conquest), so I imagine the pendulum will swing across the Atlantic for a bit. (There's probably a thesis to be written on which anniversaries catch the public interest and which don't. To the best of my knowledge, there were no commemorations in 1953 of the 500th anniversary of the fall of Constantinople, which—discounting the Nativity and the Crucifixion—has a decent claim to be the most significant turning point in history.) Depending on how elections and negotiations pan out, there's a decent chance that the formal exit of Britain from the EU will fall on the 500th anniversary of the Field of the Cloth of Gold.
- Incidentally, if you want a bit of Original Research, the Shard is definitely visible from the Air Forces Memorial on the hill above Runnymede. ‑ Iridescent 16:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- The Fall of Constantinople was certainly a very significant event, but given the state of the Byzantine Empire by then, it was surely an inevitability, rather than a turning point? As turning points go, I would have put forward the Battle of Lepanto as the prime candidate for 'most significant turning point' of the last millennium. Others may have their own favourites, of course ... --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- There's probably (another) thesis to be written on whether it was inevitable; one can certainly imagine the situation which had pertained for the previous century, of an Ottoman Empire surrounding an independent Byzantine rump which wasn't worth either the military expense or the diplomatic repercussions of conquering, going on virtually indefinitely as an eastern analogue of the Papal States or Orange. (I can certainly provide a citation for reputable historians claiming that Mehmet II had no intention of attacking Constantinople and only took the city to reassert his authority after his defeats to Skanderbeg.) Had they clung on another 50 years or so, one can easily see a set of circumstances in which the rump Empire gets drawn into the Hapsburg orbit and the Spanish military gets pointed east in the 16th century rather than west. ("Colonisation of the new world", "invention of the multi-tube steam engine", and "Battle of Plassey" must be up there as well in terms of long-term impact.) ‑ Iridescent 22:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- The Battle of Manzikert (1071) at the other end of the arc of Turkish power really did change things. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- On current matters, I was reading this, which has two quotes from researchers and historians:
Michael Stephens (Royal United Services Institute) believes this will be the "defining conflict" up to the middle of this century, adding: "It may well be as important as World War One was."
I think allowing thousands of men, women and children to drown in the Mediterranean Sea will be seen as one of the great crimes of the early 21st century - Professor Tim Jacoby, University of Manchester
- Second-guessing history is always a fool's errand—who, from the viewpoint of circa 1988, would have predicted that the worst consequence of a NATO invasion of Yugoslavia would be the emergence of James Blunt? For all you or I know, a thousand years from now people might be telling folktales about the semi-mythical hero Nigel who saved Airstrip One from being swamped by the evil forces of Eurasia and allowed the sturdy yeomen of England to finally cast off the Norman yoke and build the New Jerusalem. Yes, there really are still people who think in "Men of England, heirs of glory" terms, and they're not all confined to the lunatic fringes of the right and left. Dig out The Last English King—or virtually anything else by Julian Rathbone—for a particularly ripe example of the "the Battle of Hastings was just the first installment in the European/Papist plot to destroy English culture which continues to this day because they're jealous that the English culture is so much more advanced than their own" mindset. ‑ Iridescent 15:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- That would require a lot of intervening history to be lost (some sort of digital dark age and massive loss of records in a Mad Max sort of scenario). Though 1000 years is enough time for that to happen. Scary mental picture though: I will never see Nigel Farage in the same light again after reading what you wrote... Carcharoth (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC) PS. If you want a really strange, mid-war perspective (WWI) see 'The War In Latin', The Times, Thursday, Jun 28, 1917; pg. 9; Issue 41516. You'll see what I mean when you read it. Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Second-guessing history is always a fool's errand—who, from the viewpoint of circa 1988, would have predicted that the worst consequence of a NATO invasion of Yugoslavia would be the emergence of James Blunt? For all you or I know, a thousand years from now people might be telling folktales about the semi-mythical hero Nigel who saved Airstrip One from being swamped by the evil forces of Eurasia and allowed the sturdy yeomen of England to finally cast off the Norman yoke and build the New Jerusalem. Yes, there really are still people who think in "Men of England, heirs of glory" terms, and they're not all confined to the lunatic fringes of the right and left. Dig out The Last English King—or virtually anything else by Julian Rathbone—for a particularly ripe example of the "the Battle of Hastings was just the first installment in the European/Papist plot to destroy English culture which continues to this day because they're jealous that the English culture is so much more advanced than their own" mindset. ‑ Iridescent 15:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- On current matters, I was reading this, which has two quotes from researchers and historians:
- You know, the impression I had is that the Battle of Lepanto did not really affect history all that much since the Ottomans did rebuild their fleet afterwards and could still perform some conquests. I agree about Manzikert, though - if Romanos had escaped the battle alive, or even won, history would have been different. Neither his capture nor the subsequent civil war were a given outcome. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- I certainly agree Manzikert was a point in history where completely different courses could have resulted - a good definition of a 'turning point'. But the Ottomans' loss at Lepanto was far more than the ships - the irreplaceable loss of trained manpower, especially archers, was crucial, and the Ottoman Empire was never again such an imminent threat to the West. I still think that makes it a very good fit for turning point. --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Battle of Manzikert (1071) at the other end of the arc of Turkish power really did change things. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- There's probably (another) thesis to be written on whether it was inevitable; one can certainly imagine the situation which had pertained for the previous century, of an Ottoman Empire surrounding an independent Byzantine rump which wasn't worth either the military expense or the diplomatic repercussions of conquering, going on virtually indefinitely as an eastern analogue of the Papal States or Orange. (I can certainly provide a citation for reputable historians claiming that Mehmet II had no intention of attacking Constantinople and only took the city to reassert his authority after his defeats to Skanderbeg.) Had they clung on another 50 years or so, one can easily see a set of circumstances in which the rump Empire gets drawn into the Hapsburg orbit and the Spanish military gets pointed east in the 16th century rather than west. ("Colonisation of the new world", "invention of the multi-tube steam engine", and "Battle of Plassey" must be up there as well in terms of long-term impact.) ‑ Iridescent 22:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Fall of Constantinople was certainly a very significant event, but given the state of the Byzantine Empire by then, it was surely an inevitability, rather than a turning point? As turning points go, I would have put forward the Battle of Lepanto as the prime candidate for 'most significant turning point' of the last millennium. Others may have their own favourites, of course ... --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'll be 97 at the 1000th anniversary. I already told my son he's taking me there for it... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's certainly sourceable that the Time Team theory has drawn the attention of the pop-history press. I wouldn't get too cut up that Battle of Hastings isn't running on the anniversary, given that its replacement is Norman conquest of England which has at least as good a claim to the date. (FWIW, the anniversary doesn't seem to be getting very much attention, certainly when compared with the WW1 centenary—Battle itself is hosting a couple of low-key events, English Heritage is holding a mini-reenactment, and Bayeux is having an event in the Cathedral, but there are no big commemorations in London or Caen and no state events to mark the occasion. In light of recent events, I'd imagine "they came from the Continent to try to take over the English government and to grab anything of value that wasn't nailed down" is not a fire the governments on either side of the Channel feel needs stoking.) ‑ Iridescent 16:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Old frivolous nomination
I was rather surprised that this old frivolous nomination for deletion is still standing. The nominator seemed to be trying to be funny, but was blocked for it and admitted they made it in bad faith. Would you be able to delete the unfunny nomination? I believe it falls under G6, but I'm not sure. Hammill Ten (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, of course I'm not going to delete it—we don't delete the records of discussions unless there's a good reason to do so, even if the nomination itself was an obvious attempt at disruption. At the time of writing, we're up to WP:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia (8th nomination) and WP:Articles for deletion/Earth (8th nomination) so far. ‑ Iridescent 15:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com for deletion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20161011062305im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- My sole involvement with this article was to revert an attempt by an IP to replace it with a redirect and then nominate the redirect for deletion. I find it hard to think of a topic about which I care less. ‑ Iridescent 16:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Snakes in Iceland. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Challenge accepted Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'll see you those, and raise you Religious and mythological references in Battlestar Galactica (which is one of the three entries on my "worst Wikipedia articles I have ever seen that would nonetheless result in a certain keep at AFD" list, along with Safire (illusionists) and Radcliffe & Maconie). ‑ Iridescent 17:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'll cover your raise, and see you with Rail transport in Rwanda, which has the best opening in all Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Noodling- the "dangerous craft" of sticking your arm in a hole. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- That's at least potentially interesting. Raise you List of New York City manhole cover abbreviations, which according to an esteemed member of our much-admired Arbitration Committee is "notable & just the thing to have here". (I'd like to think that the best opening paragraph in Wikipedia is that of Tarrare?) ‑ Iridescent 18:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- No, the theme of Tarrare is. It sounds almost like a fantastic thing. Also, I knew that watchlisting this talk page would bring all of Wikipedia's interesting stuff out... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
-
I just had to watchlist Jigglypuff in case someone reinstates a BLP violation. Admittedly a funny one, but sigh. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Because those Pokemon articles are so inherently ridiculous it's easy to forget that this is a multi-billion-dollar industry - Pokemon Go alone generates $3 million a day in in-app purchases alone and a projected $16 billion this year in ad sales, before you take into account merchandising, cartoon spin-offs, data mining of users etc. The intellectual property value of Jigglypuff alone is probably higher than that of Strawberry Fields Forever. – iridescent 2 09:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a Pokemon master ;) But I also dont go anywhere near pokemon pages on wikipedia due to my hobby. Too much opportunity for engaging with fanboy editwarriors. Personally I have always thought wikipedia should just redirect off-wiki to something like bulbapedia, serebii or pokemondb. (Ditto for other subject specialist areas). Currently I have enough Nintendo hardware and software to transfer pokemon from four revisions back into the current games. Requires the use of a Gamecube, GBA, GBA transfer cable, and a 1st revision DS (where you can have the old carts in at the same time as the new carts) though. Thankfully the wife is understanding. To clean up the pokemon articles would require a lot of fighting over WP:UNDUE which is just tiring. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- On the other hand, I am feeling suicidal today so removed an inappropriate external link (to wikia) from Pokemon. I await the fallout. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I quite like the idea of quasi-independent sub-wikipedias under the WMF banner, with Wikipedia's requirements regarding sourcing and licensing but able to go into more detail than would be appropriate on Wikipedia itself. It would allow us to hive the technically notable but totally pointless cruft like 7 & 9 Bounds Green Road and Robon off to the incubator subprojects where people might conceivably actually be interested in them, and they can be moved back when they're actually of vaguely adequate quality. It will never happen. ‑ Iridescent 21:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- On the other hand, I am feeling suicidal today so removed an inappropriate external link (to wikia) from Pokemon. I await the fallout. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a Pokemon master ;) But I also dont go anywhere near pokemon pages on wikipedia due to my hobby. Too much opportunity for engaging with fanboy editwarriors. Personally I have always thought wikipedia should just redirect off-wiki to something like bulbapedia, serebii or pokemondb. (Ditto for other subject specialist areas). Currently I have enough Nintendo hardware and software to transfer pokemon from four revisions back into the current games. Requires the use of a Gamecube, GBA, GBA transfer cable, and a 1st revision DS (where you can have the old carts in at the same time as the new carts) though. Thankfully the wife is understanding. To clean up the pokemon articles would require a lot of fighting over WP:UNDUE which is just tiring. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Jaitharia Brahmin
(Jaitharia Brahmin ) please go through restoration process , Bettiah Raj of Bihar in India was the one of the popular and largest zamindari system , they were popularly known as the Jaithariya zamindar or now known as Bhumihar Brahmin family. Pandit9999 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandit9999 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Assuming you mean Jaitharia, it read in full Jaithariya or jaitharia are the Brahmins community of Bettiah raj , Sir Gangeswar Deo are the descendent from this clan. Who got land's from the ancient Kings in the form of Alms and Became Landlords or Zamindar . They are very popular for Ayurveda knowledge from ancient times . According to Hindu Mythology , they got land's from the Parashuram because at that time , Kashyap Rishi was the head priest of the Brahmins . These people's come from Kashyap Gotra Brahmins . I'm not going to restore that, since there's no possible way it will survive a deletion debate and there's no point wasting peoples' time with a week-long discussion. ‑ Iridescent 20:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Extended Langton's ant for deletion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20161011062305im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extended Langton's ant until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- When I said "I find it hard to think of a topic about which I care less", I clearly hadn't thought hard enough. – iridescent 2 08:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Actually… I organised the framing and display of computer art back in 1986 which used (it seems to me) a more sophisticated version of the ant. I wasn't responsible for its development (not a programmer). The algorithm produced (amongst other patterns) realistic depictions of impact craters. I had to go to Radlett to buy the paper for printing- the firm supplied the carpet industry with inkjet printers and supplies, Southend for the extra RAM, and Church Gresley for a replacement ROM for the Canon printer. The ink used faded within a day if exposed to sunlight and oxygen. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- I have an early childhood memory of being absolutely hypnotised watching a computer plot a Sierpinski curve on-screen, back in the days when a mini-computer was the size of a wheelybin and "computer graphics" was just another word for ascii art. – iridescent 2 10:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Cemetery/Mass burial at Spitalfields, London
So, a question from me now, seeing as you seem to have a bit of knowledge on this topic - is there an article on Wikipedia 'bout a cemetery or mass grave in Spitalfields, London? A source on User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/1257 Samalas eruption says that mass burials took place there in the years around 1257 but I don't know if we have an article on the place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- We have Osteology#Crossrail Project, but to the best of my knowledge not individual articles on each site. (Don't take anything that can ultimately be traced back to a Crossrail or Transport for London press release remotely seriously—TfL would announce that they'd tunnelled into the Lost World of Pellucidar if they thought it would boost their chances of more government money.)
- If you're talking about Don Walker's report, that was published by the Museum of London Archaeology Service and I believe my opinions of MoLAS methodology are on record (and probably a violation of WP:BLP). As with Time Team (see a few threads up) their researchers have a remarkable ability to discover 'previously-unknown facts' that generate publicity for their museum, and rarely if ever does their research find that the accepted theory for any given thing was right all along or any other conclusion that doesn't generate appearances on London Tonight. As best I can tell, he's taken a paragraph from this page of the Chronicles of the Mayors and Sheriffs (the one beginning "In this year, there was a failure of the crops"), picked that ball up and run with it; it's worth noting that famine in this period was a very regular event (see the "Background" section of Great Famine of 1315–17) and Walker seems to be the only one trying to link the famine cycle to volcanism. ‑ Iridescent 21:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- TPS: it was the cemetery of St. Mary Spital, but we don't have a separate article yet, and there is nothing directly on point in Spitalfields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.159 (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- (PL, is that you?) You'll struggle to write anything on St Mary Spital—you'll be better off looking for sources on Bethlem Royal Hospital which was next door and is far better documented. ‑ Iridescent 21:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Tracing this back a little it seems like the source statement ultimately relies on http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/features/londons-volcanic-winter.htm, which I presume is the dubious publication you are thinking of. Regarding Great Famine of 1315–17 I agree that linking that to a volcanic event is fishy - I haven't seen any academic source that analyzes volcanism or ice cores making that claim and it's a little implausible anyhow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- (PL, is that you?) You'll struggle to write anything on St Mary Spital—you'll be better off looking for sources on Bethlem Royal Hospital which was next door and is far better documented. ‑ Iridescent 21:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- TPS: it was the cemetery of St. Mary Spital, but we don't have a separate article yet, and there is nothing directly on point in Spitalfields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.159 (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Seems like a number of other sources mention famines and lethality in 1257, c.f the St Albans monk and/or chronicist, not sure which. So that bit is probably worth including. I am guessing that back then, such climate events could be caused either by extraordinary but normal bad weather and by volcanic winter conditions, but talking about volcanoes attracts more interest than about "the weather". Offtopic: Paging @Volcanoguy and GeoWriter: for the volcanology aspects. And now I am really interested in the Lost World of Pellucidar. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- If by "the St Albans monk and/or chronicist" you mean Matthew Paris, take him with a pinch of salt—his MSS are immensely valuable historical documents for describing day-to-day life in the High Middle Ages and what the people of the time considered significant, but they're fairly dubious as histories per se. Ealdgyth and Johnbod might be better placed to advise on whether his records for this particular period are credible. ‑ Iridescent 13:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ya'll know, 1250s are getting a bit late and modern for my taste. I am only vaguely familiar with Paris as a source, he really is late for my main interests. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that Matthew Par(r)is. Wonder what the preferred number of "r"s is, as an aside. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've never seen it as "Parris" in anything I've got from my library. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just the one R ("Matthæus Parisiensis" was how he styled himself, e.g. Matthew from Paris). Matthew Parris is someone very different. ‑ Iridescent 14:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ya'll know, 1250s are getting a bit late and modern for my taste. I am only vaguely familiar with Paris as a source, he really is late for my main interests. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The "somewhat creepy page"
Hi Iridescent. Having seen your comment on Elen's talk page and then checking that page out, I must say I agree with you entirely. (I didn't want to clutter up Elen's page with further discussion there.) The earliest versions of it, e.g. this from 2003 are even creepier. So much for the "good old days" of Wikipedia. I note that there have been 3 unsuccessful attempts to have it deleted but apparently WikiProject Editor Retention "wants and needs" the information on it. At which point I can only say . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- The 2003 version, I can make a case for; back then Wikipedia was small enough that everyone knew each other, so it could be explained as people legitimately wanting to honor their absent buddies (in the same way that I could nowadays imagine one of the small-but-active Wikiprojects hosting a list of retired users who'd given particular service to that project). The new incarnation, with its creepy and intrusive not-so-subtle "if you've chosen to leave, you no longer have any say on how we treat you" undertones, not so much. (I'd have no issue if it were a list to which retired users could choose to add themselves with a brief statement of their reason for leaving; that might actually be quite useful.) ‑ Iridescent 17:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ottawahitech, replying here to avoid cluttering Elen's talkpage.
- AFAIK the last time the question was seriously raised was at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 155#Privacy and Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Normally in the case of meta pages like this, someone with concerns would start a deletion debate, but in this instance it would be pointless. As with a lot of the pages like this that were salvaged from the wreckage of Esperanza, it's virtually undeletable and unchangeable because of Wikipedia's inbuilt social inertia. The small tag-team which WP:OWNs it (four editors are responsible for over 50% of the added text to that page, and for almost all recent activity, and 64% of the last 100 edits at the time of writing were by you or Graham) will turn up to vote "keep" in lockstep so no discussion could ever close as anything other than "keep" or "no consensus"; in this particular case, the WR/WO contingent will likely also turn out en masse to keep it as they have their own reasons for wanting a public and easily-searchable Mark of Cain page listing all the former editors and what their reasons for quitting were that serves as a reminder that frustration at having work removed prompts many people to abandon the project. (Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians is a good example of how to handle this kind of list with some kind of dignity and respect. The "you left Wikipedia so fuck you if you don't like it, we'll say whatever we like about you" mentality of Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians, not so much.) ‑ Iridescent 16:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
DYK for After the Deluge (painting)
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Help me!
Can you please help me with a list of articles where I can contribute efficiently to gain experience as well as make WIKIPEDIA a better place. With thanks. Cheers! Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 03:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, I can't. Wikipedia has 5,258,572 articles—without knowing what your area of expertise is, there's no possible way I can advise which of them you can usefully add to. If there's a particular topic that interests you, the often-overlooked category trees might be useful; just type Category:whatever topic interests you into the search box and navigate through the categories from there (so if you have a particular interest in cheese, Category:Cheese will take you to all our cheese-related articles). For some topics, there might be a particular WikiProject whose members might be able to help you further—the relevant projects are generally listed at the top of each article's talkpage.
- What I will do is (yet again) advise you to listen to the assorted people trying to give you advice on your talk page, rather than just blanking their comments; Kudpung, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Peridon are three highly experienced Wikipedia editors, and they're trying to prevent you from ending up in the situation that transpired here. It's obvious that your knowledge of English spelling and grammar is very limited, so I'll add my name to those telling you that you shouldn't be attempting to correct other people's writing (and please stop strewing exclamation points, bolding and allcaps everywhere). Likewise, please don't attempt to patrol new pages or enforce Wikipedia policies unless and until you actually understand what Wikipedia's policies say. (I'd also suggest—and this is explicitly a suggestion, not an order—that you delete your userpage and start again from scratch; if you put {{U1}} at the top of it, it will be deleted very quickly. The gibberish you currently have there looks astonishingly unprofessional, and is going to mean that anyone encountering you has a negative impression from the start and won't be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.) ‑ Iridescent 14:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- I will certainly try my best to adhere to your generous advice.Already followed your proposal on my user Page! Also (previously in a conversation) has admitted to refrain from patrolling new pages.Thanks!Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 17:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)