Open main menu

Contents

Pinned post: Noticeboard notificationEdit

IBAN in the post. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A new section has been created concerning you at WP:AE. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Now please leave me alone or I will request an IBAN to prevent you from continuing such behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Sustainability InitiativeEdit

Hello The Rambling Man: An invitation for you to check out the Sustainability Initiative, which aims to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia projects. If you're interested, please consider adding your name to the list of supporters, which serves to express and denote the community's support of the initiative. Thanks for your consideration! North America1000 09:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair UseEdit

Interested to know the basis for your claim: "no it is usual to wait for six months at least before using such an image under a claim of fair use"? You can reply here, but you may be interested in viewing Talk:Dan Kneen#Images 'deleted' from article by an editor invoking a bot (twice). Thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You can refer your query to Masem who can usually find the stock answer for this. Frankly, it's common sense to me. I found two images on Flickr, I do wonder if anyone has bothered contacting the owners of the images to apply a looser copyright standard, just as I did for many, many images, several successful, including File:Paul Mariner cropped.jpg. But most people just tend to say "if you couldn't get one when he was alive, you're not going to get one when he's dead" - this is a false assertion. Indeed, more images of the individual will be floating around in the months after his demise, it's just a case of working a little bit harder for it. Cheers now! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The point of "6 months after death" is exactly as TRM says: we expect that a good faith attempt to find a free image to be made, including potentially approaching friends and family, and those that may have taken non-press photos of the person, to get one under a free license. We do want to respect mourning periods, so six months is a reasonable time. --Masem (t) 18:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - is any of this written, as a formal generality? I surmised it was ad-hoc, when and as required, subjective-only; I had participated in a deletion-discussion where I suggested contact with the family - 2013 - I suppose I should do so (?) now. But it was formalised under Files for Deletion. I also arranged for File:Gary with Senior MGP trophy.png from the widow in 2016. In the example above Dan Kneen, I held a vague belief that he or his brother were online-sellers of digital images at 25-30 GBP each, but couldn't easily later prove my supposition. One has to make a decision, informed-or-not, based on whatever is available at the time. I hadn't forgotten about 2013, but clearly is much less of a priority to the other WP editors after the time of sudden accidental death.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for GAN helpEdit

Hello! I was wondering if you could do a GAN review for me. I recently did a quick-fail on the My Love from the Star article as I did not believe the references were properly done for a good article, though the nominator and another editor disagreed. I opened the review up again for a second opinion, and I was wondering if you could pick it up. I feel somewhat bad about the ordeal, and I would like to hopefully get another editor to look through it for them. Also please do not feel influenced by review for the article, as I could be completely wrong. I was only wondering because you are one of only two editors currently doing a television-related GAN review, and you have plenty of experience doing GANs. Apologies for the random message, and I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47 Hey, thanks for your note, I'll take a look. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Closing inEdit

Always a few moment away. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

??? Not sure what this means but hoping you're OK, sir.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979/archive1Edit

I haven't really been around for a little bit, and who knows, might not be around again, but I've nominated Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979 for FA. You completed the GA review some time ago now (May 2017!) and I wondered if you would be interested in having a look at the FAC for me? (Also, I notice that you've got Alf up there too - I'll definitely try and take a look at that.) Harrias talk 11:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Harrias, good to hear from you. I'll take a look. Dweller and I also have Kevin Beattie there, right at the bottom, stalled at the moment... Any comments there would be good too! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't notice that down there (I know, I know, I should really start from the bottom and work my way up!) I'll have a look. Harrias talk 12:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Albert FinneyEdit

 On 9 February 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Albert Finney, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Cadet (rapper)Edit

 On 9 February 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cadet (rapper), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments at WP:ERRORSEdit

I haven't had a chance to reply to your responses on WP:ERRORS before they are removed, so I will do so here. For a page that you call "toxic and unbelievably unhelpful," you sure love to comment there about how "wrong" other people's comments are. And calling my comments "procedural complaints"? From the guy who claims to have identified "more than 1200 errors" when I dare say 25% or more of them are literally procedural complaints ("This blurb isn't wrong, but the article didn't follow Random DYK Rule X") or just WP:IDON'TLIKEIT ("This isn't interesting to me. I don't like X wording. Change it to Y wording.")? Seems a little hypocritical. Modulus12 (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here, and thanks for your critique on my own error-finding motivations, I really appreciate the feedback!! Good luck with your future postings at ERRORS, don't be surprised if some or all of them are ignored as has been the case for the last few months! All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

WatchingEdit

Uh ohEdit

Looks like we're going to be busy again...  — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I am prohibited from commenting on that, I’m afraid, but thanks for letting me know! “The Humanity!!!”. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognitionEdit

 On 15 February 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 Pulwama attack, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

LAUREUSEdit

UPDATE time! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

BBC. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Vonn (Spirit) and the overall article left to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

JazzmesseEdit

Not to blow up ERRORS further, some musing about foreign titles in the English Wikipedia. Christmas Oratorio: primary topic for Bach's work, but a name as a compound of a generic name (oratorio) and a specific addition, here the occasion. We have Christmas Oratorio (disambiguation). In German, it's Weihnachtsoratorium OR Weihnachts-Oratorium, both correct, as Johannespassion AND Johannes-Passion are both correct, and used in serious publications. Now we don't have Jazz Mass in English, so I thought the German title would be next best, and better showing the compoundness by the hyphen that some publications use. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

BriscanEdit

Hi Rambling Man. As you rightly say, the plural of parenthesis is parentheses. So it is definitely not parantheses, which is what you've written three times now. I'll let you correct it, but I'm still curious as to why you think Wikipedia prefers parentheses to brackets. For a start it's easier to spell! Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No need to be curious, we just need to use the correct terminology. Cheers for letting me to fix the typo, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

RamseyEdit

Seen your notes. Thanks. Very very tired all the time. Not sleeping for a variety of reasons, none related to Wikipedia. Haven't the head for quality content work just now. I'll get to it when I can. Maybe as soon as tomorrow afternoon but can't promise. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries dude. I'm full-on with the kids tomorrow then leave for Oz at 5.30am Saturday. Unknown from then on how/when I'll be around for a couple of weeks, but we mustn't let the quality drop!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Safe travels. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Why doesn't double amputee, Everest climber, and Laureus recipient Xia Boyu have an article?Edit

Shurely some mistake? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

WTAFEdit

CitevarEdit

I am sorry, I will not go into the war zone. Needless to say, I prefer templated full citations, and use them in Bach cantata articles I write. But I know that when I give them to other Bach cantata articles, I am reminded of the supremacy of the editor who came to an article first, by Citevar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but incorrect claims of CITEVAR and abuse of rollback and contravening 3RR means time for them doing nothing for quite a while and loss of tools and trust. Shouldn't be a major issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Sneaky overnight "various" edit now clearly surpasses the 3RR threshold, so ANEW done. Rollback abuse next. And then the personal attacks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Just wanted to say that please understand that I won't go near that (third party invited, and I felt I am). I got my (un)fair share of "don't touch certain editors' articles" when missing reverted infoboxes, - takes too much time. Funeral day today, and I can't go (so wrote an article). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Of course, no need, the facts speak for themselves. I don't care who writes articles (they're not, after all "owned" by anyone), but I do focus on making sure the items that are heading to the main page are in good order. In this case, the article needed a lot of work, and it was all done in good faith, but once I've been called ignorant, a troll (twice) and edit warred against for actively working to improve the article, it's game over and the various visits to AN boards have to start. One down, at least two to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
For some reason, the editors I think of are those crying loudest when you use the word ownership, seems worse than 4-letter-words. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Johnbod and The Rambling Man Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd hardly call "closing and ignoring multiple violations" as "sorting out" that report, but YMMV. No doubt this will become another TRM witch-hunt, for which I thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
And you've met him a few times? I see... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Is it too late to suggest a nice cup of tea and a sit down? My point was simply that you are both good editors and I'd hate to see either of you templated, let alone blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Sure but only one of us resorted to personal attacks, rollback abuse, 3RR violations and more. Wikipedia protecting its own. If it’d been the other way round? What do you reckon??! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven’t got time for this now, just popped into Abu Dhabi for an hour, but just a quick thanks to Ritchie for what is going on at ANi now. As predicted this has become the usual witch hunt and Johnbod is getting away with every single violation. Bravo. Thanks, thanks a million. And all because I improved the fucking article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

As I said over on ANI, this started because I closed an AN3 report as "stale", and you refused to accept the result. I have closed quite a few other AN3 disputes as "no action", and all except this one have been taken with good grace and the result respected. But you repeatedly challenged everything I had to say, and so I felt drop-kicking it to ANI was the only choice.
I also format citations when editing articles. If somebody reverts them, I ignore it and move onto something else. For all your complaints that "this is making Wikipedia worse for the reader" - come off it. Something that is badly written or factually incorrect should be fixed, and if WP:ERRORS2 is the place to do that, then fine. But I cannot accept that the formatting of citations is a major blocker for anyone trying to find out accurate information on Wikipedia.
I'm afraid your insistence on repeating the same points over and over (you said Johnbod violated 3RR how many times on ANI? About 6, I think, without looking back and checking) means you alienate yourself from people. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and we have to work with people we don't like. You've seen me and Fram explode at each other several times, but ultimately we are both here to improve the encyclopedia and end up getting on for the sake of the project. You've seen me dragged to ANI more than a few times, just like you have, but you've managed to lose your admin tools and get Arbcom sanctioned, while every time I've been yanked there it closes as "no action". I'd like to think it's because I try and respect other people's views, see where they're coming from, and calm things down. I notice that that's what Johnbod is doing, which is why he's getting an easier ride of it on ANI.
I don't know what else to say - I fear (note: fear, not hope, wish or want) that there will come a time when the community says "enough is enough" and decides to kick you out. And it will be done through a profound sense of exhaustion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
(watching:) I looked at that ANI thread, and felt an urge to tell almost everybody who commented what I said once: when someone improves my references, I click "thank you". But I resisted ;) - I found the accusation of TRM "following" Johnbod particularly amusing. Everybody watching the scene knows that TRM follows everybody who wants articles on the Main page, and Johnbod is no exception. The header of the thread was wrong from the beginning, naming two editors. If we could clarify in general that citevar is one of most superflous assets of Wikipedia because it cements ownership, - that might be progress. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
As you know, I have occasionally got frustrated with you Gerda (though I forget what about now), but when I have I have tried to find time to do a GA review for one of your Bach cantatas. Seems the right thing to do if you ask me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I asked for an Advent cantata nom, but that seems not the season now ;) - On my user page, there's a section Quality, with GA noms, + the article on top has a peer review. I'd prefer if you'd let me know right away when you get frustrated with me, and we could sort it out. - Do you roll back when someone tries to improve your article? - Today, I received the news of the sudden unexpected death of a nice person who was younger than I am. These games - citevar and others - seem so utterly unimportant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for absolutely nothing Ritchie. Job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Personal ledgerEdit

  • "... that larvae of the red tube worm do not settle on bull kelp, probably because that seaweed inflates its float chambers with carbon monoxide?"
  • Appalling closure. So the whole "did he or didn't he" violate CITEVAR remains unaddressed, the personal attacks including calling me a troll and a vandal remain unaddressed, the abuse of rollback remains unaddressed... Well done admnins, you've excelled once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"I don't think I used..." defenceEdit

Note to self, The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It is done and personal attacks, 3RR and rollback violations are just dandy if you're a "special editor". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Personal interactions. Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

My FACs aren't as good as your FACsEdit

Fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Hurricane (2018 film) has a new commentEdit

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Hurricane (2018 film). Thanks! Atlantic306 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

InterferenceEdit

If you are going to interfere at AFC you should become a reviewer. Articles that go through AFC are subject to more scrutiny so it is best practice to try to get them to a high standard before publishing. For example I recently approved a film article that easily passes GNG but it was taken straight to AFD,regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe stating that a "reactions" section is or should be considered "interference". This article is self-evidently suitable for moving into the main space, clearly passes WP:N. Also, there's no obligation for me to become a reviewer at all. It would be better if you didn't try to come here, tell me I'm "interfering" and then making false propositions. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hurricane (2018 film) has been acceptedEdit

Hurricane (2018 film), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DannyS712 (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious?Edit

Hi, do you find these recent edits, by a user who hasn't been active since 2015, to be suspicious, in particular this one? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly comment. As Arbcom, in its "wisdom", has decided that I can't comment on the motivations of other users, I think responding to this, regardless of my comments, would fall squarely against that sanction. Sorry I can't help with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019Edit

André PrevinEdit

Shouldn't you be on holiday? To be clear, in that discussion at ITN, I'm not singling you out in any way, or questioning your motives or competence. I don't even know if you're allowed to respond to this. Cheers. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm allowed to talk about ITN. And no, it's not holiday, it's work. And yes, I'm at work. But in Australia instead of my natural habitat. And no, I don't think you're taking a shot at me. And yes, I think it's a clear case of looking more seriously at this enthusiastic admin who has made a number of postings which have been removed. Now I did the job for several years and struggle to think of even one that was pulled. Others may have had "a half dozen" (your vernacular) pulled in the last few months. I've already given some advice, but perhaps it's not enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You reverted two of my edits claiming they were "completely unnecessary"Edit

Hi, those user pages say those users are administrators, but they no longer are.--Myrtonos (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but they're not your user pages. Why are you so keen to edit other peoples' user pages? You've got a basically new account, what's the deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
They do not own any pages on this site, including their user pages, and others do reserve the right to remove untrue statements about their user rights.--Myrtonos (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I reserved the right to restore those pages to the state that they wished. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not permissible to say on one's userpage that one is an administrator if one is not.--Myrtonos (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, sure. Why are you so bothered? Pardon me for asking, but wouldn't it be better to improve Wikipedia for our readers rather than do what you're doing? Because what you're doing makes no difference to pretty much anyone, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with TRM. You can't change a sentence beginning with "I" if you are not that person. Also, who cares if a user who isn't active is an admin or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I’ve asked on RFPP for someone to look at the whole pattern of Myrtonos’ edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad Cheers Brad, I'm not bothered at all. When I see someone editing a page vacated by a sorely missed admin who left years and years ago, it seems utterly unnecessary. Ho hum. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
There’s another, bigger problem which I’ve referenced in my RFPP post. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad I'm sure. None of my business I guess, but thanks for keeping an eye out for this kind of nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • So out of the blue I got direct email at a spam collecting address (not via Special:Email) about this - so just FYI: While I make minor edits to former admins (such as this) when actually desysoping, it is only to remove them from categorizations. Otherwise, I usually leave their pages alone, and don't see any reason to go through the rest of their text. If anyone needs me on this for anything else, please ping or reply at my talk. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 21:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Discography of Keith FlintEdit

Hello. You've added some The Prodigy releases into Flint's list, but he is not mentioned as a participator of these records in credits. I propose to remove them and to separate discographies of musician and his group. Thanks. —Rave (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Rave no, I didn't add any releases into Flint's list. What I did do was to add some sources from Discogs. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
... and some won't take Discogs as reliable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Re:Schneyder, probably didn't get to it quickly as I've just been in the air for 14.5 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Dua LipaEdit

Other delegates are refusing to promote this list because they think you’re gonna leave more comments, what’s the status on that??—NØ 06:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, when I get a chance. I've been very busy in real life. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

My First FAEdit

Hi! Further to our conversation at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles, I'd like anything you could help me with to get 2018 World Snooker Championship to be ready for an FA review. I've passed a few articles into GA, so I have some knowledge of these principles, and what sorts of things reviewers are looking for, but FA seems like a bit of a wall, that I'm hoping you can help with.

I've added a slight explanation on what the world championship is to the article. (under overview), but I do understand it will need some explanation as to what Snooker is, however I'm having trouble wording it. So far, I've stated it's a cue sport, and that the tournament is a single elimination bracket, but otherwise I'm at a loss.

Anything you could help me out with would be appreciated. :). I'm not sure how familiar you are with the game, so any help in general would be fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've watched snooker since the days of Ray Reardon, Bill Waubernik, Alex Higgins etc. I have clue...! I'll see what I can do in due course. In the meantime, you could take a look at The Boat Race 2018 where you'll see a Background section which kind of covers at a top level the history of the event, its significance, and some statistics for the tournament since it started. That's probably where you should start with your background section... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Good, glad you are a fan! - Sorry didn't mean to offend, it's difficult to know what people already know, so I always jump in at zero knowledge and work up. I'll take a look! I did read through the 2016 article, and tried to add my own spin to it, but it needs work. I wasn't sure if a total history of the world championships is relevant, as anything prior to 1969 is basically considered to be non-canon.
I know you are very busy, so feel free to leave comments whenever you are less so, and I'll attempt to build something from the articles you've mentioned. Thanks again, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski No issue at all, no offence given or taken. I would include the following to the background:
  1. Very brief overview of snooker, i.e. it's a cue sport, the history of which traces back to .... played predominantly in Europe/US but more recently Southeast Asia etc... (assuming you can find some sources).
  2. The year and venue of the first ever championship.
  3. How people qualify for the tournament.
  4. (Total/winner) prize money/trophy.
  5. Media coverage (e.g. broadcasters, viewing figures etc).
  6. Individual player who has won the tournament the most times.
  7. Brief synopsis of the previous year's tournament, perhaps just the final, the score and any stats about multiple wins should the previous year's winner be a multiple winner.
That should be a good starting point as a template for all World Championship articles. But let's focus on getting this one right! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree, thanks for your help. I'll do a bit of work on it, and take it to FA eventually. These things seem like a lot of things that can be copy-pasted across to other articles in the series (say to the upcoming 2019 World Snooker Championship, which I'll no doubt work up to GA after the event). The broadcasters is actually covered in it's own section at the bottom of the article, but I can never find information on the viewing figures for events. Outside of the black ball final, there's very little information in the searches I know how to run - no doubt I'm looking in the wrong place (it's public data, isn't it?). Thank you once again for your help. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there some kind of snooker equivalent to the Rothmans Football Yearbook or Wisden? Despite the ever-growing sprawl of online sources, whatever the topic if there's a definitive print reference work it's almost always the best place to start. ‑ Iridescent 16:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Always used to be Rothmans funnily enough. Can't remember the last time I saw one mind you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
A few from the late 80s/early 90s on Amazon, e.g. this one. Can't find anything more recent... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I know Mac has some paper sources, so I'll check with him. It's a bit of a shame these stopped. 1992 was the last one I could find too. I'll check it out. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi The Rambling Man, I've done a bit of a expansion with the above information provided, thanks again. Below is a first draft of this. I can see it needs work, but I'm not quite sure what to do. The broadcasters are in it's own section, which also needs expansion. Do you think this needs a major expansion or just a tweek and copyedit? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
First draft

The World Snooker Championship is an annual cue sport tournament and is the official world championship of the game of snooker.[1] The sport of snooker was founded in the late 19th century by British Army soldiers stationed in India.[2] The sport originated by players from the United Kingdom, and later players from Europe and the Commonwealth. In more modern times, the sport has transferred to being played worldwide, specifically in Southeast Asia, such as in China, Thialand and Hong Kong.[3]

The world championship sees 32 professional players compete in one-on-one snooker matches in a single elimination format, each played over several frames. The first world championship in 1927 held in Camkin's Hall, Birmingham, England and was won by Joe Davis.[4][5] Since 1977, the event has been held in the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England.[6]

Stephen Hendry is the most successful player in the modern era, having won the championship 7 times.[7] The previous year's championship was won by England's Mark Selby, who won the event defeating Scotland's John Higgins in the final 18-15. This was Selby's third championship, having won in 2014, 2016 and 2017.[8] The winner of the 2018 event earns prize money of £425,000, from a total pool of £1,968,000.[9]

References

  1. ^ "Snooker championship". Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer. 11 May 1927. Retrieved 12 March 2019 – via British Newspaper Archive. (Subscription required (help)).
  2. ^ Clare, Peter (2008). "Origins of Snooker". Snooker Heritage. Archived from the original on 3 January 2017. Retrieved 8 February 2017.
  3. ^ "The Rise Of China - World Snooker". World Snooker. Archived from the original on 19 April 2018. Retrieved 13 March 2019.
  4. ^ Turner, Chris. "World Professional Championship". cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk. Chris Turner's Snooker Archive. Archived from the original on 24 July 2011. Retrieved 9 February 2011.
  5. ^ "1927 World Professional Championship". globalsnookercentre.co.uk. Global Snooker Centre. Archived from the original on 10 October 2004. Retrieved 29 February 2012.
  6. ^ Historic England. "The Crucible Theatre (1392311)". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 3 December 2013.
  7. ^ "World Championship – Roll of Honour". Global Snooker. Archived from the original on 22 February 2012. Retrieved 18 March 2013.
  8. ^ Hafez, Shamoon (1 May 2017). "Mark Selby beats John Higgins to retain his World Championship title". BBC Sport. Archived from the original on 1 May 2017. Retrieved 13 March 2019.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Prize was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

I like it. The one thing that stands out to me is the lack of a description of how the 32 are selected. That would be most instructive. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The next two sections go to this in extreme depth, and are subsections of the same section. Specifically with the paragraphs starting "The top 16 players..." and "All 16 non-seeded spots in the main draw...", however, I could put a one sentence line on the bottom of this section that says "The 32 players for the event are selected through a mix of the world snooker rankings, and a pre-tournament qualification round." Which I think explains the situation well, and could fit into the later subsections. This is very helpful advice. Do you think I should be over-zelous and place as a FA nomination (After a copyedit), or hold off and expand further? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the one sentence synopsis of qualification for the tournament is suitable for the background section. I'd be happy to give it a quick pre-FAC-review if you like, if you're happy with it as it stands? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
That would be phenomenal if you don't mind! Thank you so much for your time! :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

Hi, The Rambling Man. I have noticed you are an active admin who quite often edit pages related with soccer. I have question to you relatedd with page List of association football players considered the greatest of all time - this page require better security. I also recently reported it to Edit wars. Could you give our opinion about this page at these section? Is this right when whoever can edit this page and interpretate it in a free way? I think this page should be seriously reviewed. And all next vandalism here should be controlled by pagewatchers and all biased edit discouraged on this page. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help you, I'm no admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc.Edit

Hello The Rambling Man,

You've been identified either as a previous member of the project, an active editor on Apple related pages, a bearer of Apple related userboxes, or just a hoopy frood.

WikiProject Apple Inc. has unexpectedly quit, because an error type "unknown" occured. Editors must restart it! If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch.

See the full welcome message on the talk page, or join the new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net named #wikipedia-en-appleinc connect. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.

Please spread the word, and join or unsubscribe at the subscription page.

RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) and Smuckola on behalf of WikiProject Apple Inc. - Delivered 15:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Boat race participantsEdit

I noticed two boat race participants this year have articles: James Cracknell and Natan Węgrzycki-Szymczyk (neither of their articles mention their impending participation in this year's Boat Race, but that is a separate issue). How common is it for boat race participants to have articles (either at the time of the race, or later)? Is there a way of finding all the ones with articles? Ah, I've found List of Cambridge University Boat Race crews and List of Oxford University Boat Race crews and I see the last four years are redlinked and some of these either turn blue (as some rowers turn professional or win Olympic medals and so on) or not. I see someone is keeping that all in very good shape. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Carcharoth, yes, it's quite unusual for individuals in the Boat Race to have their own article, Cracknell is a true outlier in that sense, with such a stellar career, while Węgrzycki-Szymczyk's article is pretty much a stub with no detail, allowable under WP:NOLYMPICS (no medal required, just appearing in the games), but unlikely to ever get much beyond that. I do check each entrant to see if they have an article, and if I get time, I'll check to see if they qualify. But we're all up to date on the 2019 article, with a couple of weeks to go... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The Polish rower is feeling left out... On a quick browse through, the years where there is a full house of articles for a crew seem to be related to the Olympics and stubs relating to Olympians. It is noticeable that the Oxford crew of 2005 is a full house. Some of the more interesting people I came across were: Matthew Pinsent, Dan Snow, William Grenfell, 1st Baron Desborough, Oliver Russell, 2nd Baron Ampthill, David Rendel, Boris Rankov, Jim Rogers and Peregrine Moncreiffe of that Ilk. Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
"Peterhouse College". I nearly died. And yes, there are some interesting people in there. Rankov is a legend, but you missed Hugh Laurie (and his dad) of course....! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
On the subject of the 2005 Oxford crew, I used to know Acer Nethercott back when I was a student. He didn't get to have his own article until 2008 though, considerably after his two boat races. Very sad to hear of his death.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Some irony here: I was friends with Kevin Whyman... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
   — Amakuru (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Boat Race photosEdit

I don't know yet. I missed 2017 due to football, and at the moment it's looking like that may happen again. I'll have to see if anything changes or if they can go without me at football. Would had been nice if they hosted the race on Saturday like they did last year! -- KTC (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "The Rambling Man".