User talk:StringTheory11

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup

Hello, StringTheory11, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:

• The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
• Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
• If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
• Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
• Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Your colour scheme for your work table

Could you pass through yellow rather than dark orange? Your current scheme is hard for me to read. Double sharp (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the color scheme. I actually liked the old one better, but enough people have told me to change it that it now runs through yellow instead of brown. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Lambda Pavonis

There is some interesting material on this star out there...I keep thinking some of these stars are going to be expandable for DYK....possibly this one? Maybe...maybe not....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll expand some of these notable star articles later, but first I'm going to create all the articles on stars above magnitude 5. After this, I'm planning to do a sweep of all stars over magnitude 5, to try to bring the important stub articles (such as Lambda Pavonis) to at least start-class. This way, I can also get the articles that I didn't create, but still are stubs. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually this one was/is pretty hard work...anyway, it's bigger than a one-line stub though nowhere near DYK....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to play a little game...how many stars designated "R" are long period mira variables.....R Leonis...R Andromedae...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha, now that I think about it, there are a disproportionate number. Maybe that will be my next task :). StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Click on this list - List_of_variable_stars - and make it alphabetical...come to think of it, alot of the 'S's are too......Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Letters from R onwards are variable star designations and not Bayer designation, which appears to explain this phenomenon. Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Even for variable stars, there seem to be a lot.... Coincidences are funny sometimes. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, R, S, T, ... are variable star designations, and the effect you're noting is all well-known selection effect. Large-amplitude variables are the first stars to be noticed as variable. Aside from things like supernovae (which don't repeat at all) and novae (which repeat only on timescales much larger than a human lifetime), there are no greater amplitude variables in the visible band than Miras. And, their luminosity is high enough that there's a fair number of them to see through modest-size refracting telescopes. Combine all that, and of course lots of the variable stars designated R, S, T in many constellations will be Mira variables. BSVulturis (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Alkali metal

I added more content, much of which can also be used for alkaline earth metal. Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve HD 26961

Hi, I'm Puffin. StringTheory11, thanks for creating HD 26961!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This page has some references, but insufficient in-text citations.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey StringTheory11 - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 9 February 2013 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Perseus (constellation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capella (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) 11:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey StringTheory11; 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) 21:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Cosmic ray GAC

I've improved the article on cosmic rays and thus I think that at this stage you can begin reviewing in earnest. Wer900 • talk 03:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Great! I'll be busy for about the next week, but I'll take a look again after that. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare ( Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus ( Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John ( Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Latin script in Unicode, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ḥ (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) 12:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber (submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 15:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"tone" tag

Vague tags like Tone, which you added to Betty and Barney Hill, are *vastly* more effective if you also add a few sentences into the Talk page saying exactly what aspects of the tone need to be changed. Otherwise, I have found over the years, they are ignored. That is also an article with a very dedicated single editor who's tenacious, so it's worth the effort to overcome him/her/it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've explained on the talk page now. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Bright stars ... at some point are no longer notable

This is response to your de-prodding LP Aquarii, which sent me off to reconsider. After thinking about it, I have come to disagree, somewhat vehemently, that every naked-eye star deserves a Wikipedia page simply because it's naked-eye bright. There's 9000 stars in the HR catalog, most of which have nothing notable about them at all by WP:NASTRO other than apparent magnitude. This is true in particular for K and M giants, which are pretty thoroughly unremarkable as well as being rather numerous in any sample selected by apparent brightness. When the only bibliographic references including a 5th-magnitude star are big survey catalogs, then there is nothing notable about that star, and I think Wikipedia is better off letting SIMBAD do its job better than Wikipedia ever can. Perhaps this discussion belongs in (or has already transpired in) WP:AST? BSVulturis (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we have the guidelines at WP:NASTRO that say whether it's notable or not. However, I personally feel that we should keep the clause, as since the stars are visible to the naked eye, they will be frequent targets for amateur astronomers who don't know much about the topic, and an amateur may not know about SIMBAD. Therefore, someone who wants to learn about the star and the very basic info about it could come here and get the info. In addition, the article really isn't doing any harm just by sitting there, (unlike articles about completely random stars that just show that Wikipedia is not willing to delete anything) so I don't think it should be deleted. If you disagree, feel free to start a deletion discussion for the article, or bring it up at WT:AST, and if consensus goes against me, so be it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

After cooling off and thinking overnight, it probably isn't worth a crusade on my (or anyone else's) part to delete items like LP Aquarii, things that aren't wrong but have subjects which are devoid of notability ... but I think it's misguided to create entries for such things also, and I say that as a professional astronomer. (I recognize you did not create the article in question.) At some point creating entries for undistinguished apparently-bright stars leads to the reductio ad absurdum state of creating pages about stars merely for their being the brightest star not to be the subject of its own Wikipedia article, if in fact we aren't there yet already. However, I also don't want to end up being in the position of starting discussions titled like What's the BFD about BF Delphini? I'll continue to propose deletion for such things when I blunder across them, but I won't combat the de-prodding if it happens. Cheers ... BSVulturis (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most luminous stars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Var B (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) 00:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)