User talk:AirshipJungleman29

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Your GA nomination of Oghul Qaimish

The article Oghul Qaimish you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Oghul Qaimish and Talk:Oghul Qaimish/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Oghul Qaimish you nominated as a good article has passed

; see Talk:Oghul Qaimish for comments about the article, and Talk:Oghul Qaimish/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed DYK image

Why did you remove that DYK image? I don't see how it violated WP:DYKIMG, because it is crop of an image used in the second bolded article and I'm not sure how it is violating WP:DYKVAR either, because there was only one other sports-related hook in the set, but maybe I am missing something here. – Editør (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYKIMG: "Try to avoid images that divert readers from the bolded article into a side article – for example, taking a hook about a fictional character and picturing the character's also-linked portrayer." An image depicting Bol would have diverted a massive amount of attention away from the articles the hook was created to showcase.

WP:DYKVAR: "try to avoid having two images of people in adjacent sets." There was also an image of a person in the previous set. Given the DYKIMG problem, I chose to adjust this one.

Hope that helps Editør. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. – Editør (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my understanding, isn't today's DYK image (10 August) doing what you prevented for the earlier athlete image, divert attention from the bolded article? – Editør (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I wouldn't have promoted it and didn't notice it. The editor who did promote it is rather new to DYK prepping, so it's understandable that they didn't know that part of the guidelines (but FYI CSJJ104). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. Hopefully my future promotions will prove less controversial :) CSJJ104 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore your edit on Donald Bochkay

AirshipJungleman29

Your edit was reverted for lack of a reference. It is on page 54 of Yeager's eponymous book. Here are the words from the book:

    Don Bochkay was the old man. He was about twenty-five, a Californian who loved to tinker with cars. Silk panties or nylons were impossible to get in wartime London, and he had his mother send him some to use as bait. One night, five of us were in a West End pub getting drunk, while Ol' Boch made a play for one of the barmaids by giving her a pair of fancy silk panties. "Honey, "Boch said to her, "you stick with me and you'll be fartin' through silk." That line became famous throughout the entire Eighth Air Force.

I think that story and quote is an important part of anything about Donald Bochkay, especially since it was soon widely quoted in the Eighth Air Force.

Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tupelo the typo fixer, not entirely sure what you're talking about. I have made one edit to Donald H. Bochkay, which was adding the words "propeller-driven" to a sentence. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, I assumed that you had made the entry that was reverted right after you made your edit. Turns out that the that Toadboy123, who did the revert, was reverting his own edit!!

Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latin tenses referencing

Can you please advise on how the referencing of Latin tenses could be brought up to a higher standard? Thanks. Kanjuzi (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kanjuzi, see UndercoverClassicist's comments in the GA review. Essentially, every bit that analyses, explains, or interprets the Latin language must be cited to a modern secondary source. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll accept your judgement. Of course the great majority of statements, certainly those which are the least likely to be challenged, are referenced to standard reference books such as Gildersleeve & Lodge. Other statements, which are common ground and well known to all students of Latin, it seems to me don't need a reference. However, it seems to me that a rating of "C" is rather low if we compare this article to the criteria in Wikipedia:Content assessment for grade C. Descriptions for class C such as "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study" seem far wide of the mark in this case. Kanjuzi (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanjuzi, C-class is defined at Wikipedia:Content assessment as failing "one or more of the criteria for B-Class." One of the B-class criteria is "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations." A Wikipedia article is not meant just for students of Latin—it is meant for readers of all experience. A "moderately detailed study" requires the article to satisfy the verifiability policy properly; at the moment, the article doesn't do that, but it shouldn't be much work at all to get it up to standard. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patterson DYK

Thanks for your comment on the 'First person to do hooks' on Mary Jane Patterson. Good point. Where should I leave my ideas for alternative hooks? Balance person (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balance person, on the nomination is best. See e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/David Fishwick for an example of how to format the alternative hooks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK I hope I have done it correctly. I have changed the main hook and explained why. Have left ALT1 hook and explained why. If something else is, needed do let me know? Thanks for your help. Balance person (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have done it correctly for me. Thank you. I couldn't see how to add a new improved hook. I usually use visual editor and find the other editor hard to do! Could you tell me what happens next? Does an administrator have to decide now? Balance person (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August music

Today I have three "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, like 22 July but with interview and the music to be played today -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Gibson hook should have been edited for "unlikely to change". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was for all time zones, - would you have a better option? - Congratulations to the GA (below)! Thank you for watching over my silly mistakes like in the FAC. Before going to bed last night, I found another source with more detail about the sad story of the Gotteslob version, a missed chance for ecumenism. Should I add that or rather let readers draw their own conclusion? - Today I'll be busy expanding BWV 113 (great music, I just listened), and enjoy summer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the elucidation over at the composer's DYK! - On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. You know that I don't like remembering the calendar date much but this happens to a private celebration also ;) - find a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvb for multi source and inline

Yo

Playing around with a way to consolidate citations when there is an inline reference that we don't want to add to the bibliography. It works, but it's complicated and not consistant with the rest of the article we are working on so wanted to get your perspective if doing this occasionally is ok or not worth it. I can see doing this for a lot in the specialist sections to reduce undue issues.

To see what I mean: user:Biz/sandbox Biz (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we have specialist sections Biz? This is a general purpose article, meant to be accessible by all, not Slavery in the Byzantine Empire or similar. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a sentence just so you can see the difference in citation, not the content. Society, Government and military, etc and all their sub-sections. That what I mean specialist, because unlike our narrative historians, their are historians who specialise in these areas and often we only need them once. There are nuggets of knowledge in single sources that we can put inline, but it gets cluttered. Biz (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside whether choosing which specialist historians not to cite is WP:OR, the WP:FACR require consistent citation formatting, which this is not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, adding more published historians, not less, is the goal. Your clarification WP:FACR would not accept this is appreciated. I'm pausing indefinitely my work on reviewing new sections, or until at least, I've gone back and re-reviewed previous sections I worked on to a better standard and now that I have more experience as a reviewer, library researcher, and knowledge of the Byzantists. Biz (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"adding more published historians, not less, is the goal" this seems far too simplistic. Featured articles require "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The reason narrative histories and edited collections are so valuable is that they are expected to have already done the thorough and representative survey, and will have weighed them appropriately. There have been thousands of Byzantine historians—adding them willy-nilly just as a goal in itself falls well outside the purview of editorial discretion. It will be a good idea to re-review previously-written sections, but remember to question why the content of specialist sources meets WP:PROPORTION if it isn't mentioned in the narrative histories or edited collections. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I hope you don't construe my attempts at critical thinking with original research. Please correct my thinking in interpreting this requirement with the below:

As principles

Build on the current article by scanning scholarship for the latest to include, rewrite if needed due to neutrality, concision, comprehensiveness, CLOP and remove sources if assessed as not appropriate.
if Kaldellis (2023) or Treadgold (1997) or the several edited collections of Oxford and Cambridge mention it, that's a good baseline of a survey. If citations support the points of ideas in a paragraph that are made by the above, then that's a valid inclusion. (Due to the age gap between the sources, expecting consensus on all the above is too conservative as it cuts out the latest thinking like the very credible Beard and Kaldellis who in different specialties agree on the impact of 212.)
2-3 citations per sentence, 3 if practical
At minimum, three different sources per section for diversity of views

This discussion would be more fruitful on a section by section or topic basis but maybe that's for another day. I can at least justify it if asked, and would be open to suggestions. Biz (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "latest thinking", unless known for certain to be high-quality like Kaldellis's narrative, should probably play a lesser role than you think. Wikipedia is by design meant to be conservative, or "behind the curve" of scholarship (WP:RGW). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok if that's the only comment then we are aligned then.

Howard-Johnston just published in July a new book that I've recently added, who along with Treadgold and Kaldellis are considered the experts in the middle period. My yard stick of latest is certainly yard-sticked with people of their calibre. The Roman Empire article was using Gibbon's view until this week for its end dating (and also puts to an end a decade plus of talk debates), so I appreciate conservative but there's a point.... Biz (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse

Recent research: STORM: AI agents role-play as "Wikipedia editors" and "experts" to create Wikipedia-like articles, a more sophisticated effort than previous auto-generation systems

In focus: Twitter marks the spot

News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded.

Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?

Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing

Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird

Humour: I'm proud to be a template

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AN response

Hi AirshipJungleman29, I don't think it is productive to psychoanalyse why another editor does X or Y in a manner as you have done on the AN page. There are probably better ways to make your point, it weakens after the first sentence. CMD (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The psychoanalysis (as you put it) was my point, and I disagree, it has been productive in the past. On a completely different note, do you ever intend to run for the mop Chipmunkdavis? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least it's based on past experience. I'm always open to the idea my incivility sensor is poorly tuned. On the different note, I have never intended to run for a mop, and I don't think it has really come up. CMD (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame, I think you'd do well with it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that means a lot. They do say that intending to get the mop is a sure way to not get it, so perhaps I've cleared one hurdle already. CMD (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I'm sorry for how I acted towards you on the ERRORS page. You're a good editor, and I appreciate that you are an active DYK promoter. SL93 (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings here, SL93. Thanks for your work at DYK too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a picture of this and put it on my fridge. So much of what I see is negativity, so this is a welcome respite. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]