Jump to content

User talk:Armbrust/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WikiCup 2013 August newsletter

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

  1. Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
  2. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
  4. Canada Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
  5. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
  6. Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
  7. London Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
  8. Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Poland Piotrus (submissions), Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions), Michigan Dana boomer (submissions), Prince Edward Island Status (submissions), United States Ed! (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), England Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! 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 (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 05:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Because my request was denied in four minutes and because your response had nothing to do with the content of my proposed edit, I'm wondering if you gave no consideration to what I actually said and purely denied my request on the basis of my not having edited wikipedia articles. I also wonder why you think that I am not "used to the challenges of reliable sources". I have posted in the "talk" section like you suggested. I have read the article on wikipedia consensus. How will I receive feedback from my post in the talk section to determine if it has reached a consensus? Kylepeer (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably one of the users, who is watching the page will answer you on the talk page of the article. (If they agree, than it's possible they make the edit for you.) Armbrust The Homunculus 17:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

How to cite?

Hello, How do I message you about some help on a new article creation. I am almost done, but I have reached brain fog on proper citing methods..confused myself.. Rcnet1 (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can find information about this at Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citation templates. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cat work

I haven't done much with cats, so please forgive me if this question is simple-minded, but I see some requests at Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#Pages_in_category and I wanted to help out.
For example I see Category:1830s in Turkey with a notice that can be deleted, but also a notice that it should be renamed.
I know we "rename" articles by moving them to a new name, but there is no "move" option for the cat. So I thought perhaps it was a multi-step process, create the new cat, move the contents, then delete the old one.
However, I note the contents are supposed to be moved, and the target is red linked, so I was initially confused, but I think I see the issue.
The template says the rename is to Category:1830s in Ottoman Empire while the discussion talks about Category:1830s in the Ottoman Empire (With "the")
So maybe the template note is a simple slip?
It looks to me like the merge, at least of this one, is complete, and the old cat can be deleted. Is this correct? No need to do a rename, that has been taken care of, just a delete?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as you say. Categories are moved by creating the new category, recategorising the pages in the new category and than delete the old one. It's not necessary a slip. Maybe the proposal was modified on the daily log, but not on the category itself. The renaming/merging of the categories was already done, and now just the old ones need to be deleted. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "slip" I mean that I expected to see a blue link on the template, where it says:
This category is being considered for renaming to Category:1830s in Ottoman Empire
I think, and now am sure, it should have said:
This category is being considered for renaming to Category:1830s in the Ottoman Empire--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably. Interesting, that they were added with the "the" to daily log in this edit. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That explains it. OK, all cleaned up now, I think, Thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you too, @Sphilbrick:, for helping by the clean-up. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Vincent van Gogh - The Church in Auvers-sur-Oise, View from the Chevet - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while since I've done this. Still, just a matter of following instructions. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing it. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (ANRFC)

Hi Armbrust. Thanks for this edit. I was not aware of the manual archiving. I also previously removed this. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Archived both sections and two more. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Armbrust, Danke erstmal für den Sortierschlüssel. Wahrscheinlich gibt es da noch mehr. Ich bin auf der Suche nach der englischen Vorlage de:Vorlage:NONE, kann sie aber nicht finden. Wo versteckt sie sich? Gruß. --LezFraniak (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ich weiß nicht, ob eine solche Vorlage hier existiert. {{Noflag}} ist die Vorlage, die es am ähnlichsten ist. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, nicht ganz das was ich suchte (CEB_European_Three-cushion_Championship), aber wieder was Neues kennengelernt. Danke. --LezFraniak (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Bot posts redlinked category

In this diff [1] a redlinked category is produced. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Now resolved. Someone else already created the new category. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013



I've noticed that after ArmbrustBot empties a category that needs to be renamed, merged, or deleted, it edits the category to add a deletion notice or to convert it into a category redirect. It seems to me that the bot has a relatively high level of accuracy in identifying the most suitable categories for conversion into category redirects and I've noticed just a few that I considered unnecessary. What criteria does the bot use to decide which categories should be deleted and which should be converted?

Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a recently approved completely manual task. I mostly leave behind a category redirect in the following cases:
  • The new name contains a character (like á, é or –), that are not readily available on every keyboards.
  • The old category contains a former/alternative name of the new category name (like Category:Democratic Republic of Armenia).
If you think some of them are not needed, than feel free delete them. I have no objection against it. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:59, 15 September :2013 (UTC)
Well, that explains it. :) I was surprised that a bot would be able to detect with such high precision when a category redirect is needed (e.g., Category:Democratic Republic of Armenia) and when it is not (e.g., Category:Books about Jack the Ripper).
Thank you for explaining and your continuing work at CFD! -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar (Thanks)

Hi Armbrust. Thanks for Admin's Barnstar! -- Jreferee (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deserved it. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Armbrust, I'm writing to you because you were the last person to edit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) before I nominated Category:Giessen 46ers players for renaming via Twinkle. I think you may have broken some code, otherwise Twinkle wouldn't have added my entry automatically to the "opposed" section. Would you mind having a look? Cheers! Jared Preston (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thanks for pointing it out. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 September 2013


Remember, our role is to help when and where possible. In most malformed cases, the editor simply says "please confirm me" and doesn't even sign. Not worth fixing. In this specific case, they provided very good detail as to who they were, why EXACTLY they felt they needed confirmed status. For the sheer lack of WP:BITE, repairing their submission was the smartest thing to ES&L 08:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you fix one, than I won't removed it again. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bot category replacements

I see that you replace a lot of categories with non-existant categories. Why? And if it is by policy, why not first create the categories? --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the the re-categorisation of the pages is completely automatic, while the creation of the new categories is completely manual and therefore slower. The new categories will be created shortly. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now  Done. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (Godot13)

For the fix on this nomination, it does look better. It appears I have not have gotten enough support. Should I resubmit down the road or in smaller groups? Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a good idea to resubmit these later in smaller groups, as the nomination was unopposed. Probably you should also leave some time between the group nominations. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation at WP:FFU

Hello Armburst! I see you have been active at FFU using the new AFCH and I thought I would stop by and tell you about some upcoming improvements to the script on that page and get some feedback from you for possible extra improvements! First, let me tell you about what is already planned and what is being done:

  1. I went through today and updated {{Ffu‎‎}} to fix a typo with the "on hold - afc" message (https://github.com/WPAFC/afch/issues/180)
  2. I added a new "declined - afc" parameter (https://github.com/WPAFC/afch/issues/181).
  3. Both of these afc related parameters now accept a {{{afc title}}} parameter which will allow https://github.com/WPAFC/afch/issues/182 to easy add a link to the draft that caused the hold (or decline).
  4. External links to internal pages will be automatically ignored in the future (https://github.com/WPAFC/afch/issues/183)

Tomorrow, I intend to add a similar parameter for upload requests for use on articles at XfD to allow linking to the XfD discussion in the "on hold" or "decline" message. So, now I would like a little feedback as to what you might like to see added or fixed in the future for FFU! Technical 13 (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Technical 13: Lately the script doesn't want to work. I have no idea why. I click on "Review request", than it adds "#ffu-review-6" at the end of the url, but the interface won't show up. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Armbrust, it took me a moment to find since it is working in ßeta and Ðevelop scripts... I've mentioned you from the edit request with what it will take to fix. Once that is done, WP:BYPASS and try it again and it should work fine. :) Technical 13 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

ArmbrustBot removed category incorrectly

Your bot removed a category incorrectly. The category was Category:Schools damaged by arson on Thornden School, as seen here. I reverted this edit. If you disagree with this, then please let me know and put a note on my talk page to remind me to return here to respond. Thanks. --Jwikiediting (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Ummm. Jwikiediting, I believe that was correct as that category was deleted... Technical 13 (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Resolved Ahh, I have just seen that the category has been deleted. It was removed this month so I hadn't noticed since last time I looked (which wasn't long ago!) it existed. My mistake. --Jwikiediting (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Armbrust. Thank you for your work at WP:ANRFC in closing discussions and clerking the board.

Thank you especially for reading and assessing the consensus at Talk:Mariah Carey#Request for Comment: Birth Year. I think there's a typo in your close: "bot" should be "both". Would you also indicate in your close whether there is consensus for this series of edits (changing to using both dates in the lead of the article) and this edit (changing to use both dates in the infobox)?

This may seem overly specific. However, I think the specificity would be helpful because of the numerous edits by editors who have disregarded the consensus by reverting the changes to the lead or the infobox or both. Best, Cunard (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Armbrust The Homunculus 17:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I propose to rename the 2013 World Seniors Championship to the 2013 World Seniors Snooker Championship (and main page also). Some refs: [2] [3] There are many seniors championship in other sports. See also the logo [4] with the "snooker" word. What do you think? NickSt (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good idea, most of the sources just use "World Seniors Championship". There are 8,810 hits for "World Seniors Snooker Championship" and 151,000 for "World Seniors Championship" snooker. Thus "World Seniors Championship" is the common name of the event. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Canada Sasata (submissions), Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and New South Wales Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! 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 (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 22:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in Mariah Carey closing

Hello, Armbrust. In case you care, I'm letting you know of this typo ("bot" instead of "both") in your birth year closing at the Mariah Carey article. Though it's clear what you meant/mean, I figured that I might as well bring that typo to your attention in case you are interested in fixing it. I was, for a second, confused when I saw "bot possible birth years" (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Armbrust.

I'd just like to notify you that the above category became empty as en effect of me changing the userbox User:Oren neu dag/my userboxes/User AH. So your bot nominated the category for deletion instead of renaming. Maybe I should've waited, and instead put a note in the speedy request to chance the userbox. But I guess it doesn't matter now, as there are no articles to recategorize.

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bot nominated the category for deletion, because it was speedily merged to Category:Wikipedians interested in alternate history. BTW at the time it processed the request, there were 3 pages in the category (Category:Wikipedians who read alternate history fiction, User:Neilckr & User:Imperator331.) Armbrust The Homunculus 18:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realized, after a couple of other categories that I had nominated were changed the same way, that that is the way it works.
Cheers.HandsomeFella (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, this one's passing, because one of the opposes is only to Alt 1. Am I correct? I'm trying to get the urgents suitably populated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By my count the original has 5 supports and 2 opposes, and with circa 71% support it's passing. IMO @Crisco 1492: only opposes the Alt 1. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming this. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Thank you both. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Mosconi Cup; when only two teams compete and one is declared the winner, won't it be redundant to list the loser? Regardless, I should have made separate edits, because the link density should still be reduced as per MOS — Deon Steyn (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which MOS? AFAIK overlinking doesn't apply to tables. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


professional players
Thank you, "serious cat", for quality articles on professional snooker players such as Ronnie O'Sullivan and pool players such as Jasmin Ouschan, for your helpful bot, for living through retirement and returning, for encouraging others, for diligent work on infoboxes including your own, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

I've fixed this so it behaves more sensibly, while still allowing the old format. #ifexist is one of those things you don't to use too much, but is fine for a one-a-page thing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then I realised that, since it's subst:'d anyway, there's absolutely no reason not to allow the same File: or no File: in FPC noms, and updated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that template isn't subst'ed, but the #ifexist thing was a very good idea. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About your revert

I've already read the WP:NOTNEWS, but there is nothing about the partial results... Csák (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. It says "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information", and by making partial results italicized you violate the policy. Without that however it would be misleading, therefore they should be omitted altogether. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, this is your opinion, my point is partial result is such as important fact as the others, the policy relates to breaking news, when not clear informations are confusing. Second I remembering you to the three-revert rule you have already 2, don't test the rule! Csák (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just my opinion, Eternal Triangle (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked for it. If you want to be blocked too, than feel free to continue. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. No argument, no discussion, no intelligence, just the force. Thanks! Csák (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss this, than you initiate it at WT:NOT. Until you either follow the policies the community agreed upon or make yourself blocked. Your choice. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can not follow the policies the community agreed upon because there is no agree about this very example. But you have the force and wickedness to kick me out of the project, so I go away with pleasure. You win, I dont want to work on a project with arbitrary co-workers. Bye. Csák (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar (Obiwankenobi)

Thanks. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edge of Seventeen (song)

Just a small heads up, not that important. Unfortunately your good faith and helpful non-admin close of Talk:Edge of Seventeen (song) RM seems to have picked up a sock vote. , but seeing as you didn't give weight to the sock's comment, I personally don't think it changes anything or justifies a relist, I'm just letting you know. Cheers and thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. To be honest, his argument doesn't make any sense to me. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Was the edit not enough to claim credit? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little bit tricky. If you had cropped the image File:Whistlejacket by George Stubbs edit.jpg, than you wouldn't, but I'm not sure in this case. I mean the change is very minimal, but if you want it, than I can add it to your talk page. (The edit is mentioned on Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings BTW.) Armbrust The Homunculus 13:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have previously received creator credits from crops (User talk:Crisco 1492/Archive 8#Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Marrus orthocanna), though to be honest I didn't think it was worth it. For this, since it took about 15 to 20 minutes (rather than under 30 seconds like crops; had to get the textures lined up correctly), the ability to claim credit would be appreciated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in the similar case File:Shun Lee Crisco edit.jpg I received credit (although since that one was a couple hundred pixels, it was a bit more obvious what the changes were) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. BTW what does "moi" mean on your userpage? Armbrust The Homunculus 13:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot. Think Miss Piggy (i.e. gratuitous French; means "me") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Giorgione - Sleeping Venus - Google Art Project 2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for closing it. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker Draw layout

Hello, i was wondering where you find the draw layout for past snooker tournaments, before you add them to Wikipedia. Many Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodgey5 (talkcontribs) 17:18, 12 October 2013

I don't have such a source, but try to place the defending champion at the top of the draw. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Armbrust. Regarding your close of the above RM, were you aware that it was a partial revert of a previous RM, whose extensive discussion was archived by the proposer just before this proposal was made? Kanguole 00:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but that requested moves discussion was closed more than a year ago and consensus can change. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that the failure to mention the previous RM, and indeed the hiding of it, has tainted this RM discussion, and it should be undone and relisted. Kanguole 00:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you on that. AFAIK there is no obligation mention previous RMs in a new one. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, disagreements happen. I've asked for review at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 October#Ragamuffin War to get more views. Kanguole 01:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapup of CfD Category:Duos and duets situation

Hello! I have been working on emptying Category:Duos and duets following the conclusion of the discussion at CfD, in which it was resolved to restore the original split into Category:Musical duos and Category:Duets. However, the template message on the page has not been changed since the conclusion was reached, and still says that the split is being considered. I was unable to find a template message to describe the result of the discussion. As the administrator who closed the discussion, can you resolve this, or tell me how to do so? Thanks for any help you can give. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK such a template doesn't exists. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

Thanks (RFPP)

Thanks for clerking at RFPP, I appreciate it. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's very easy job to read the page histories and to check, whether an admin already made the decision to protect. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This picture I nominated had 100% support (one was weak), but you just marked it as "Not Promoted." I realize there were only a few votes, but wouldn't that suggest relisting for more opinions might be more appropriate than just closing it? -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates relisting is not an option, and an image needs five or more supports to be promoted. Therefore this nomination could be closed only as "Not Promoted". Off course you can renominate the image, but you shouldn't do that too soon after the first failed attempt. Also if you think your nomination isn't getting the attention it needs, than you can list it at {{FPCurgents}}. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 23:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying the process. I thought that box would show up automatically, guess not. This was my first featured picture nomination. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This happened with me too. The Spanish Wedding lacked one !vote to be promoted, but the renomination one month later was successful. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix on the Talk:A Real American Hero (TV film) discussion

I knew I was forgetting something ... after I saw your edit. I guess that's what I get for being about six months out of practice. Anyways, thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. It was a really easy fix. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I assume you thought my  Not done here was inappropriate? My feeling was that since User:-sche's well-reasoned proposal had gone unanswered for a month, it should just be implemented. – Smyth\talk 11:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it still needs a closure, event if it's only notes, that the discussion has been superseded by other discussions. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have done so. – Smyth\talk 13:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist a CFD?

I noticed you have relisted some older CFDs and was wondering if you could do the same for a category I nominated on September 13. It received one comment but no recommendations to keep or delete. Otherwise, with so little interest maybe it should just be closed as no consensus. Thanks for your help. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Armbrust The Homunculus 07:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Armbrust, Thank you for uploading the logo of Tokuda Hospital. In order to be completely precise I think it would be better if you upload the one with English text, not that with the Bulgarian. You can take it from the English version of the official website. Thank you in advance. Best wishes, Atanas — Preceding unsigned comment added by DooM7997 (talkcontribs) 17:24, 30 October 2013

 Done You can find it at File:Tokuda Hospital English logo.jpg. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 06:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

  1. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
  2. Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)
  3. Canada Sasata (submissions)
  4. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions)
  5. New South Wales Casliber (submissions)
  6. Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions)
  7. London Miyagawa (submissions)
  8. Poland Piotrus (submissions)
  9. Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions)

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

  • New South Wales Casliber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
  • Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
  • Portland, Oregon Another Believer (submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
  • Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
  • Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
  • Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
  • Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
  • Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
  • United States Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
  • The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to British Empire The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
  • Finally, the judges are awarding Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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 (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 00:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I was curious as to your reasoning for uploading File:WBQT (FM) logo.png to replace File:HOT-969-Logo-(WBQT).jpg when the only difference is the new file is PNG, and the old file is smaller (closer to the actual used size in the infobox). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PNG is the preferred format for non-photographic pictures. See: {{Bad JPEG}}. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

AC election RFC close

Re Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013 -- where are the "strong suggestions" for the guides? NE Ent 10:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012, which was adopted as a starting point for this years RFC in this Village pump RFC. As this year there was no discussion about guides at all, this remained part of it. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; thought that might be the case. I've wikilinked to it in the close statement for clarity. (Obviously revertable if you think inappropriate.) NE Ent 21:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Armbrust. Would you note in your close of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013 that Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 109#Proposal to change the way the yearly Arbitration Committee Election RFC is conducted established that "the result of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012 should be adopted as standard rules, and that yearly RFCs should be made to amend these rules"?

Would you also link to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Electoral Commission in the "Electoral Commission" section of your close? Thank you for all the work you do at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Armbrust The Homunculus 13:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive of closure reviews. I'm not sure where to link to it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Maybe it could be added to the archive box but I haven't figured out how because of the archive box's formatting. If adding it to the archive box isn't possible, perhaps it could be added somewhere else on the ANRFC page? Also, if I've missed any closure reviews or made any factual mistakes or typos in creating the archive, please feel free to make corrections. Thank you for your help with this, Armbrust! Cunard (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I'm not even sure, that this should be subpage of WP:ANRFC. I mean closures reviewes shouldn't go to that page, but directly to WP:AN. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is meant to be an archival page of all closure reviews. Closure reviews will continue to go to WP:AN, and they will now be recorded on this page. I agree that this might not be the best location for the page, but I'm not sure where else to place it other than under ANRFC. See also the talk page post I made at WT:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive would be better (at least until there is no page dedicated to closured reviews, like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review). Armbrust The Homunculus 19:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive. Thank you for the suggestion. Cunard (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armbrust "Thank you". She is a lovely rare steam locomotive. One of only 2 pre-revolutionary Russian locomotives to survive. There are a few more freight locos and shunters(switchers). She is alos a De Glehn compound and was Lenin's personal locomotive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harveyqs (talkcontribs) 17:55, 4 November 2013

Be my guest, but I only closed it because the users reviewing the image supported it. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

I would like to thank one more time for accepting my request on uploading the university logo. However, I have one more request: I have been thinking to replace the main image in the info box of the article with the logo. Is it possible to do this? I wanted to do this especially to make the article appear more officially in the social media (particularly on facebook). Since I am quite new in using Wikipedia, I do not want to make any significant changes. Is that possible for you to make this replacement? There is the English version of this logo. However, I am planing to upload it in the future when I am finally auto-confirmed. I believe it will provide better illustration for this English article.Sari9th (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sari9th (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You'll need to discuss that on the article talkpage in order to gain WP:CONSENSUS for that change. Note: I hoep you don't have conflict of interest in this matter - as the founder of Wikipedia said, those who work for an org should never directly edit the article, but should only suggest sourced changes on the article talkpage. Note also: the goal of Wikipedia is not to improve social media propogation ES&L 12:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
probably using the name of the social media service makes me suspicious about having conflict of interest however I can ensure that this is not true. I have made the decision of making this request after checking the structure of several Wikipedia articles about the academic institution of the same country. The reason of my request for replacement of image positions (please notice, not a major change but replacement) was based on that; I have noticed a contribution was needed for the article while I was using the said social media website. The main image in the info box is quite old and does not reflect the current image of the building. Moreover, it duplicates the itself which already exist through out the article. Furthermore, in my opinion, the use of academic institutions logos in the info boxes provides the most efficient identity for the articles. I am still thinking that there is nothing wrong with my request. However, please let me know if I am still wrong. Sari9th (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, discuss it on the article talkpage to gain consensus for the change - that's how Wikipedia works ES&L 14:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tokuda Hospital logo appearance

Hello Armbrust, I noticed that Tokuda Hospital's logo appears very bad in Facebook. May be it is more appropriate to cut the text "Tokuda Hospital Sofia" and leave only the logo. This links might be helpful: 1, 2, 3, 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DooM7997 (talkcontribs) 01:57, 11 November 2013‎

Sorry, but that the logo looks bad on Facebook doesn't concern me and IMO the current logo is the best for Wikipedia. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loomspicker topic ban

Hi, when making your close, did you notice that all 6 users that supported a topic ban were already in a dispute with me on another page elsewhere related to that topic area? I can provide the list of disputes if you like. Perhaps a WP:RFCC on my editing would encourage more than a single uninvolved editor to part? --Loomspicker (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I don't think that has any relevance on the closure. At the ANI discussion there was a very clear consensus to enact the topic ban and any other closure of it would be inappropriate. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying the fact that all of the 6 of the 7 participants that would already support a ban in the same area has no relevance to the close? How can it be a consensus, if discussion is from one side only? --Loomspicker (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus doesn't depend on which "sides" the participants are from, or if they actively edit in the topic area for which the ban is enacted. The discussion took place in a public place, where everybody can voice their opinion, but only one editor opposed the proposed sanction. Therefore it's now in place and you have to be careful to fully adhere to it, because you can be blocked for the violation of the topic ban. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Community enacted topics bans need to be enacted by the community, not a small one small group of users that are already involved with said user and topic. All that thread shows is that everyone who disagrees with me in said topic also wants me banned from it. If you are unwilling to change the close, I will seek a review of it. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomspicker (talkcontribs) 21:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can do that, but I'm absolutely sure it will not overturned. I also want to note, that "small group of users that are already involved" with you are also part of the community, and therefore their opinion have equal weight. The fact, that only one user opposed the proposed sanction (despite the discussion taking place at WP:ANI) speaks for itself. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

Image Upload Request Advice

Hey, I saw you responding to image upload requests and wanted to ask Re: Wikipedia:Files for upload#Sky High Mission One book cover.jpg whether or not you felt it would be worth my time to attempt to receive written permission from Lowell's Books, Inc. for the upload and usage. Xenonmenet (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, as I have never tried to receive permission from anybody. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fractional currency FP set

Hi Armbrust!

I added some minor information to the created by section of the nomination which clarifies the discrepancies you mentioned (i.e., Fractional was issued from the early 1860's to early 1870's) - all printing was under the control of the Treasury Department, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing only came into existence in the early 1870's, hence the use of "Treasury Department" for many of the individual images. If this is not clear now, I will do more work to clarify. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have fixed the author information on Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle, hopefully everything is okay now. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image titled under Koonan Cross oath is published by Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church in their website koonankurishu.com Many other websites are maintained by the same and we could use their materials for educational and informational purposes for free. Since this image is used for educational purposes in Wikipedia, there doesn't exist any copyright violation. have a great day...! Jiss Tom Palelil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jisstom123 (talkcontribs) 08:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what you say can't be found anywhere on their website. The file can only be hosted on the Wikimedia sites, if
  1. they create a subpage, where they explicitly release the file under the claimed license ({{GFDL}} in this case) or another free license
  2. or they send an e-mail confirming the release as described at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries.
Please also note, that the file can only be uploaded to Wikipedia if commercial use and modification of the file are also allowed. Files for educational-only purposes are not free enough for the purposes of Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Free licenses. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you! (Jayadevp13)

Thanks. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. Good morning & have a nice day! - Jayadevp13 00:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Keithbob

Hey Armburst, thank you for moving my closing summary to the top of the RfC at Template talk:Infobox. I'm still getting some of the nuances of the RfC close procedure and I appreciate your help. Cheers! KeithbobTalk 01:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was a lot easier, than closing it. Anyway, thanks for that. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reward board completion

Hello Armbrust, I am here to let you know that as of today, I have completed your reward board request for four completed Requests for Closure. These include the requested closure of discussions for International Indian Film Academy Awards, Rza, Gza and Ronan Farrow. I used my best discretion in each instance and I hope you are pleased. DarthBotto talkcont 01:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Armbrust The Homunculus 15:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2013


Greetings Armbrust. Thank-you for arranging to move "Category:Tintin" to "Category:The Adventures of Tintin" and the similar moves for all the other Tintin categories. I don't disagree at all with your decision, I thank-you for it! Now, as one of the primary Tintin article editors, I wonder if there is any negative side of this. Don't we have to change the Category statement found at the bottom of each of the article? Do you feel readers may not be able to locate their Tintin categories after this? Should we create redirects from "Tintin:Category" to these? I am interested in your thoughts on these questions.

I also have one major objection, but one that I actually believe you are likely to agree with, which is: Why are we arranging one of the Tintin categories to be inconsistent with the rest, namely why is "Category:Video games based on Tintin" moving to "Category:Video games based on The Adventures of Tintin" instead of to "Category:The Adventures of Tintin video games"? Remember, the others are going to be: "Category:Tintin books" moving to "Category:The Adventures of Tintin books", etc. Just because it was inconsistent before doesn't mean we need to keep it inconsistent now. (P.S. I notice someone has created a redirect category called "Category:Video games based on The Adventures of Tintin" which perhaps should be speedily deleted.) What do you think? Can we change this one particular move to be consistent with the rest as I suggest? Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armbrust, since category manipulation is, as you say, a completely manual task, including all the clean-up work that is required such as changing the Category statement at the bottom of each and every Tintin article, and as I have my doubts that users will be able to find their Tintin categories after this, and as I am assuming you are not planning to do the clean-up but are expecting me to do it, I am respectfully requesting you now to cancel your request to speedily change the Tintin category names. What are your thoughts, please? Prhartcom (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. Cydebot (talk · contribs) does it completely automatically. The situation in the section immediately bellow was at a time, when Cydebot was down, and my bot took over the task in the meantime. (My bot does the recategorizing automatically, and only creating the categories is manual.) It's also will not handled as a speedy rename, and I will initiate a full discussion later today. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's good to hear, if there is no clean-up for me to do then I once again support your category rename. I have had other editors do different actions without regard to the cleanup work they were causing me, so if your bot will do this work then please forgive my thinking. I hope users will be able to find the more complicated category name. So, that only leaves the one issue I mentioned: Could you please rename that one category to "Category:The Adventures of Tintin video games"? Prhartcom (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me butting in... I would oppose the latter, as Category:Video games based on The Adventures of Tintin (or the current Category:Video games based on Tintin) is part of a consistent pattern adopted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 1. IMHO, other categories should be renamed likewise, e.g. to "Films based on the Adventures of Tintin". Have a look around the tree Category:Works based on works to see the standard that has been partially rolled out so far. The Adventures of Tintin started as a comic book series, so other Tintin media belong within Category:Works based on comics and should be named accordingly. For comparable examples, see Category:Works based on Star Trek and Category:Works based on Doctor Who for works based on television. – Fayenatic London 14:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you Fayenatic, I was unaware of that discussion and its decision, and I agree with it, as I am always for consistency. Armbrust, Do you agree to change all Tintin categories in this way? Prhartcom (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with it and already nominated the categories for full discussion. You can find it there. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a suggestion there. Fayenatic will you also please comment there? Prhartcom (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your interest and attention to detail. I have commented in support there. – Fayenatic London 22:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the category pages are not tagged. It's probably best to tag them now and relist the full CfD nomination onto today's page. – Fayenatic London 18:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are tagged... just for speedy renaming, where a direct link to the full discussion can be found. If you want to tag and relist them, than I have no objection against it. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. – Fayenatic London 19:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd behaviour by ArmbrustBot

Hi Armbrust. FYI, when ArmbrustBot moved Category:Formula One related lists to Category:Formula One-related lists on 27 September 2013, it added the list of authors into the category page - see here. Apologies in advance if you've already corrected this behaviour. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually creating the new categories is a completely manual task. It looks like I accidentally used the wrong key combination. Sorry about that. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. DH85868993 (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Historic Places listings in West Virginia

Would you mind retracting your contesting of the dozens of NRHP categories at CFDS? The current category names and list names were the result of discussion at WT:NRHP, and the list names (i.e. "National Register of Historic Places listings in ___") are simply an alternate kind of "List of ___" page title, used because NPS doesn't have a specific noun that it uses to denote "a building, structure, site, object, or district that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places". The present situation for most states is comparable to List of United States Senators from West Virginia and Category:United States Senators from West Virginia. Imagine if our category for WV senators were named "Category:List of United States Senators from West Virginia" and I took it to CFDS to get it moved; opposition to the NRHP move is comparable to saying "Object, and let's move the New York category to 'List of United States Senators from New York'". I don't look forward to having to create several dozen CFDs to enforce naming conventions. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, I didn't thought about.  Done. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie O'Sullivan's page

Hi, I'm new to this and I'm struggling a bit.

People who know me, know I've been taking care of Ronnie O'Sullivan's website for years. I'm trying to edit his wikipedia page and keep running into difficulties.

For example, I want to add that he's active on twitter and weibo - where he has verified accounts, but I'm not allowed to insert the links to his twitter and weibo profile pages because those are not seen as reliable sources, and if I don't insert them, the update is refused because I enter no reference to prove that what I write is true. One reason I want to do this is because I also want to stress that those are the only two social networks he's active on. On Facebook and others, pages are either fake or just fan pages. Some of the fakes have really tried to fool the fans, sometimes selling them goods, so I feel this is important. I would think that links to verified account are reliable enough.

Another one is about Ronnie's books. I'd like to mention them. But I don't want - and I suppose would not be allowed - to link to commercial sites selling them. What do I do?

And finally, I wanted to put a line about Ronnie enjoying cooking and being a fine cook. It's common knowledge on the tour and something he regularly speaks about in his twitter … which again I can't mention. Any guidelines/help would be hugely appreciated Monique Limbos (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Monique Limbos[reply]

Everything included in Wikipedia needs to have at least one reliable source, which verifies the content in question. (This is even more important in the biographies of living people.) That you take care of O'Sullivan's website (which is under construction now) doesn't change that. Let's see it detailed:
  • Social media The links to his social media accounts should go in the "External links" section. To say that he is only active on Twitter and Weibo or comparing the number of his followers to every other snooker players needs a reliable source, which explicitly says that. Note that comparing the followers with other snooker players isn't good, as it constitutes original research (which isn't allowed on Wikipedia).
  • Autobiographies These books are already mentioned in the "Further reading" section.
  • Cooking Again reliable sources are needed for this. That it's a common knowledge on the tour doesn't change that. The inclusion criteria on Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth.
  • Management He's not listed on Groove Snooker's player list, but that doesn't mean that he began the new season with a new management. He could have leaved the company mid-season. A reliable source is needed to say, when this exactly happened and without one saying that it's original research.
Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 14:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status page

I am using your code in status subpage for mine. Hope you won't mind... Herald talk with me 16:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. I took mine from {{Useronline}}. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion

Hey, we still have multiple categories from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 19 that still haven't been moved or closed yet. To be exact, Category:Minnesota Strikers (NASL) players, Category:Minnesota Strikers (MISL) players and Category:Orlando Lions (ASL/APSL) players. Any idea why? – Michael (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done all three of them. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming an award from WP:REWARD

Hi, I've expanded one of the articles you listed at Wikipedia:REWARD#Stub expanson (Yellow-spotted Honeyeater). I have not officially changed the rating of the article, but I think you'll agree it meets the c-class criteria. This was interesting to work on, thanks for bringing it up. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Awards delivered Armbrust The Homunculus 00:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a really neat idea. Wish I'd thought of that. My only experience was with the bounty board (asked for a picture of Gita Gutawa... never happened). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: There are some images from her at FlickR. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And they're CC too! (odd, I don't recall seeing these when I wrote that article... and I did do a Google search limited to CC images) Armbrust, I think you've managed to become my favourite Wikipedian. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was worth a try. And luckily there were really some appropriately licensed images. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded Bar-backed Partridge, another article on that list, and although it is not quite as comprehensive as the Honeyeater article, I believe it is MP-worthy, and accessible sources were hard to come by for this one. If you think it is too short, I can scour deeper into the depths of the Internet looking for more sources. Regards, ~HueSatLum 19:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Awards delivered Armbrust The Homunculus 20:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (Crisco 1492)

Drinks are on me
They call this "soda gembira" (literally "excited soda"). Just mix the soda water and milk/strawberry flavouring together and you've got a sweet-tasting concoction that that reflects how I feel about having this on Commons. Thanks!  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]