User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 54

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

→

Iloveartrock

Continuing from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#The Piper at the Gates of Dawn and Arnold Layne, I'm not sure what fully protecting the Piper article for 3 days was supposed to accomplish when the disruptions are only being caused by IPs and new accounts made by a single user. S/he claims that the reverts are being made for no reason, but this is blatantly false, and s/he's just extremely uncooperative (see Talk:Pink Floyd, User talk:Ilovetopaint#The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn).

Your refusal to protect Arnold Layne suggests that edit wars are a requirement for page protection, but that's not the official policy.

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

S/he has been doing this for 6 months. You can interpret further disruptions by them as one extended edit war over Pink Floyd genres, so it's a bit strange that you pass over an article for "not enough activity" when there is indisputably a lot of activity from this user. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint:, @NeilN:, @Oshwah: (and feel free to ping anyone else I've forgotten)

Firstly, read some of the things I've written in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Long term planning; it may explain where I'm coming from.

I have been a fan of Pink Floyd, particularly the late 60s / early 70s era (which is now finally getting attention outside of the Bootleg market via the Early Years boxed sets) for about 25 years, give or take a few. I've just had a go at re-creating Echoes in my home studio for no reason other than I wanted to, and I prefer listening to that over the original right now, just because it's fresh. I've read most of the major biographies on the band, including Nicholas Schaffner's "A Saucerful of Secrets", Glenn Povey's "Echoes", Nick Mason's autobiography "Inside Out", Nick Manning's "Rough Guide" and the various works of Andy Mabbett, and one other I can't remember off the top of my head. From this, you may be able to draw the following conclusions:

I'm going to be interested in improving Floyd articles, including taking them to good article status
I have a reasonable handle on what's important in the article, and how to structure it

Important things for a Floyd album article might include background to composition (since the post-Barrett band frequently found themselves lethargic and had difficulty kick starting themselves), who recorded what and when (since they infamously liked to record all their parts separately to save arguing), when it was released, what promotional tours were like, how they think about it now, and what the retrospective critical reception is like. These are the typical things a layman reader will be looking for.

None of the above includes the "genre" field on the infobox.

Genre-warring has been going on a lot longer than six months - I seem to recall A Knight Who Says Ni complaining about it at least ten years ago. It's a silly and pointless feud that has only one correct way to win, and as the computer in WarGames concludes, it is not to play. Quite frankly, if an IP came off the street and changed the genre in Made in Japan (Deep Purple album) from "hard rock" to "progressive rock", I would probably let the baby have their bottle as it is not worth fighting over. It's possibly not the best term, it may be inaccurate, but I can say (as a reasonable subject expert on Floyd history and a frequent reader of Wikipedia articles on topics I don't know much about) that most people would not giving a flying monkeys which it was. Instead, I would improve the article, maybe add another review, or find something else to edit. When you've done the hard work of ferreting out good sources for an article, and writing the prose for it, giving you 150 edits in the article that you can say "that's my hard work" (but don't talk about it too loudly), then you can afford some give and take and "lose" a few to other editors. It's no big deal.

Therefore, getting involved in any sort of reverting or spilling disputes over to articles (other than perhaps a discussion on the talk page that attempts to converge towards a consensus to settle the matter) is a complete and utter waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. Quite frankly, the lot of you have been made to look like absolute chumps and should hang your heads in shame. This guy (whoever he is) has wanted attention, and you have handed it to him in spades.

Like you said, The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars!

It never ceases to amaze me how people always think edit warring only applies to other people. I need to take a break from this and will follow it up later, as I've got to go and let a band into the studio. Watch this space. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional reading : Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates and Parkinson's Law of Triviality Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Whilst playing Paint Box of course ;)

"Like... who cares... summarizing reliable sources on Wikipedia is a huge waste of effort dude... just write whatever you want... none of it matters..."

Well, gee. Never had someone write such a long-winded reply that boils down to "abuse doesn't matter and nobody cares what Wikipedia says anyway". You should try to get every Wiki policy and guideline abolished and replaced with "don't do anything". I know you would like to save us all the time and effort required for improving Wiki articles, so that would be the best way to do it.

Nobody is actually arguing over "genres". It's about the misrepresentation of sources. I couldn't care less whether someone on here thinks PF is psychedelic rock or experimental rock. I do care, however, what's been published about PF, and it's annoying whenever I discover BS claims that some editor synthesized. I thought one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia was that editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong?

And "who played what" or "promotional tours" being a more significant or interesting point than "what genre is the music"? Haha. "The retrospective critical reception." What, you mean like when a critic calls Piper the "greatest psych-rock album of all-time"? How about if an editor said Robert Christgau dubbed it a "punk rock classic"? (He's never said any such thing, of course.) Your priorities are very curious. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood what I said. If Christgau has a reliably sourced opinion of an album, I don't see why it can't go in the article. Perhaps User:Dr. Blofeld/Encyclopedia problems will explain what I can't. You are right about one thing - if you get into fisticuffs with editors, most people in the world won't care. That, unfortunately, is life. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if it wasn't clear. I'll reiterate, the issue is with regards to WP:STICKTOSOURCE, not WP:TRUTH. Their edits are reverted because the claims aren't supported by the sources, not because I (or anybody else who has engaged with this editor) dispute them. Perhaps Animals is a space rock album. It would be interesting if somebody at AllMusic or Rolling Stone believed that, but so far, nobody appears to hold that view.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, if you edit-war over it and generally act aggressive towards the other party, then sanctions have a tendency to boomerang back on you as well. As I'm sure you're aware, "my edits were right, so I'm not edit warring" isn't a valid defence. You have to be like Caesar's wife - above suspicion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, now I just deleted the part of the article in the Velvet Underground that said "the Velvet Underground is now recognized as one of the most influential bands of all time for its integration of rock music with the avant-garde." Since the 2 mentioned sources did not say anything about that, that is to say nothing exact. But as usual, Ilovetopaint (talk) will be against me for the injustice that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.7.97.166 (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) I'm a big pink floyd like you, every day I think there are genres that should be added to the albums, songs and artists of the band, I get all the necessary sources to add them but unfortunately always come a motherfucker like Ilovetopaint (talk) and ruin everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.191.60.233 (talk • contribs)

Like I said above, some hills are not worth dying on. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ilovetopaint (talk) He is always undoing and undoing the issues I make giving the same silly excuse as always. Tell me if the genre I just added to "Arnold Layne" is not reliable or is not specified.[[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.191.60.233 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Instead, I would like you to:

Add a citation to the quote from Roger Waters re the origin of the lyrics (since our verification policy demands all quotations are sourced)
Explain what "at the lead of Waters" means re: Candy and a Current Bun
Find sources for the other Joe Boyd quotations re: early live performances
Do we need to be specific about the dates where it was performed on Gilmour's solo tours in 2006?

... and then expand out the article as much as you can, with sources, and nominate it for GA. Everybody wins. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think all of them are in the article now.

The source you gave for avant-pop on "Arnold Layne" is inappropriate for the article. This is because not only is "avant-pop" never attributed to the song, the phrase never appears in the book. You need to find sources that use the exact phrasing of a genre and unambigously attribute it to a work or artist. Anything less is original research--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Timeline of Amazon.com

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Timeline of Amazon.com. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Burning Pillar (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: Since the review got boomeranged so quickly - to answer your legitimate question as to why I didn't relist; I simply thought the discussion was getting heated, and a relist was just going to make it worse without converging towards any result. Enough "heavyweight" editors had thrown in their 2c, in my view. The articles have been worked on and cleaned up since the AfDs closed, so it's not all bad. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: That's fair enough, hopefully you realise I didn't mean to be critical, although it probably sounds like that. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	This is the first barnstar I'm giving! Thank you so much for your help! You've really helped me a lot of lately! Be it directing me to the correct method of deletion or providing a good reason for not deleting something I foolishly nominated, you've always been there! Thanks a lot! Yashovardhan (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion denied for VMJ Higher Secondary School

I am sorry I used the wrong criteria there. Now looking back at it, I think it was a bit rash of me to nominate it on the first place. Thanks a lot! Yashovardhan (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: No problem, it's a common mistake to make. It does sometimes mean you have to take an article like "Fair Oak primary skool is in Lesser Snoring Suffolk the head teacher is Miss Grumbles" and have to PROD or AfD it instead, but the CSD criteria are deliberately strict as they give administrators latitude to delete things without discussion, which can be contentious. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I had nominated another article under the same. I removed it now! The other one is really short like the one you said, should I prod or afd it? Thanks Yashovardhan (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The best thing to do with school articles in my view is to redirect them to an article on the town they belong in. If you can't find a suitable town article, and there aren't many sources, PROD. If the PROD gets contested, AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Ritchie! You've been really helpful to me!Yashovardhan (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I thought your edit here was well crafted and diplomatic. Whether it works is a different story ,.. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Re — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:2:803:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Lil Cory

I am new here. I received a notification saying "decline A7, has sources, try PROD / AfD" from a man named Richie.. What does this mean? Archiveworld (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Archiveworld: In this case, it's because I declined to delete the article as I felt it should go to a full deletion discussion first. You can do this by reading the deletion process instructions and then filing a debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil Cory if you so wish. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Micaela Schäfer

Hi there. Just a heads-up, I restored the article and fixed the worst problems (or so I hope). I understand why you did the deletion but I still think you shouldn't have done it for the reasons I gave at WP:AN. Such actions - while meaning well - might lead to some users thinking that admins are above the rules we explicitly have put in place to handle such pages. Next time you feel like doing so about a German subject, just leave me a note, I'm happy to add German-language refs. Regards So Why 19:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: As you've restored the article, everyone can see the talk page comment from the IP that was a major factor in deciding to nuke it. I think everyone has commented that this was "out of process" and basically an application of WP:IAR, so I don't think anyone's going to lose confidence in the admins and worry if they're going to suddenly run amok. I was never going to begrudge anybody rewriting the article, provided it was done in full accordance with BLP; however, a number of people have questioned whether Schäfer is actually notable. I'm not going to AfD it, but somebody else might.

The more ethereal issue (if that's the right word) is - is this article really necessary? Would Wikipedia be strongly criticised as being obsolete or biased if the article wasn't there? I would say, probably not. Meanwhile, I look at Jemma Green, which I cleaned up to a reasonable state yet it's had a ridiculous amount of disruption and I don't think it's clear of AfD just yet either, although hats off to CaroleHenson (again) for making a valiant attempt to salvage it. I then look over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red and wonder if Micaela Schäfer really is the sort of article the founders of that project were thinking of when they set it up? Then again, Wikipedia survived without Dunalastair Hotel, which I managed to rescue and salvage this afternoon despite at least three administrators deleting it in the last few months. Perhaps we just have to get what we given.

I may take you up on the German sources offer; in the past I have whistled to Gerda Arendt but I always feel guilty afterwards that I never get around to commenting on whichever Bach Cantata FAC she's working on.

Talk page stalkers (especially the rampant feminist variety) - what are your views? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Is she notable? Probably, at least per GNG. A lot of people spend way too much time covering her. She is one of those people famous for being famous. And whether you or I like it, this is all it takes and in accordance with NPOV it is all it should take. Whether Wikipedia would be criticized for not having this article, I don't know but it should because if this is to be a repository of human knowledge, we have to have articles on all notable subjects, even if their notability is solely based on the fact that they like to pose naked on different occasions. After all, who are we to judge? As for feminism, I am an ardent feminist myself and as such I believe any women - like any men - has the right to be whatever she wants. Even if it is being a nude model who makes money exploiting the tabloid media. Regards So Why 21:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The old version of the article had an unsourced claim she took part in the Ice Bucket Challenge naked. If you can find a source for that, the combination of "ice bucket" and "naked" sounds like just the sort of thing EEng could squeeze a DYK out of. Well, it worked for vaginal steaming. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean like this video of her doing it (NSFW!)? Here is some news coverage as well [2] [3]. One might want to lament the priorities of many news organizations these days but as they say, "sex sells". Too bad EEng would have to bring the article to GA-status first before he could nominate it for DYK.

Regards So Why 19:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a get out clause for unsourced BLPs (and the last time I did a GA review with EEng it ended in tears..... best not) Now, I hate to be a stick in a mud, but sticking two bits of gaffer tape over your boobs is not actually what I would describe as "naked", so I can't put that in the article.Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

'ere SteamyThreessie, me ol' china, I 'ad that "Quim Hoffner" in the back of me cab the uvver nite. And he was all mouth and no trousers, I can tell you. Miss Bricktops 123 (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You're 'avin a giraffe (data) aren't you? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

... and lot of people spend way too much time covering her. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

So much censorship: yet another example of news uncoverage being chilled. (Innocent that I am, having now learned of Vaginal Davis, I think she and Viola Davis should sue one another.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the pair could form a trio with Steve "Interesting" Davis and do, er "interesting" things (though of course what I consider "interesting" is probably not the same as Mr De Caunes. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Not soo old

I have been doing some little scavanging on various talk pages for both admins and non admins though experienced editors and decided yours is where i will start taking the bigger strides from. I am still trying to get a hung on what serious wiki editing entails but its coming to a point i am getting confused by various noticeboards,alot of wiki jargon and editors wars case in point the blofeld and sangara writting conflicts. Though this is normal since we are human first. Just wanted to understand is there a wiki manual that will involve basics start ups guides for an inexperienced editor and a clear cut journey to build oneself as one moves on embracing wiki editing as just a plain editor to such length as you have attained yourself. Mark you i have seen a lot of templates redirects that keeps on confusing me some more. I have tried uploading pictures that are deleted almost immediately,i see articles get promoted and i only left to wonder if an article is in wikipedia.. Is that not enough ? Ritchie.. Just hold my hand as where i come from i have lots that has not seen the light of wikipedia. I usually see your proposals on how to establish a sort of customer care desk and made me reallise you might have been involved in alot of wiki projects house clean ups. Wangina (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Interantional Soiety for Research on Emotions

Dear Richie

you deleted the article I created for the International Society for Research on Emotions (ISRE) on the basis that it was "unambiguous advertising or promotion." Not deleted was the article I also set up for the Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management. Both articles refer to not-for-profit scholarly associations that sponsor scholarly journals and run major conferences. ISRE has been around since 1983 and sponsors Emotion Review, which is a high-profile scholarly journal published by Sage. Can you please reinstate the article. If not, please explain in moire detail why you should not do so.

Cheers Neal Ashkanasy Nealash (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I should add that the link is needed for the new Emotion Review wiki site. ISRE is the sponsor of this journal. After your deletion, the link is red.Nealash (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Seems your deletion was spot on. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not. Compare to Wiki article re. International Society for Intelligence Research. ISRE is probably more deserving of a site that ISIR.Nealash (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nealash: The problem with the article is that it was quite short and just talked about ISIR membership without really explaining what the society was for, and how it is beneficial. I have restored it to Draft:International Society for Research on Emotion where it can be worked on further - have a look at the instructions on the draft to see what is required. I also think the existing article on Emotion Review might also want to be merged with this, or at least that's worth discussing. Mlpearc - deletion may be have been appropriate (not sure deletion of any good faith edits is "good"), but so is managing those who have had hard work wiped out, and trying to accommodate them wherever possible. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

NHS Mandate

Speedy deletion is only appropriate if an article "does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject". That is clearly not the case with this article....."This deletion rationale should only be used rarely". I would be obliged if you could restore the article, and if someone wants it deleted there should be a discussion on the merits. In my view it is completely inappropriate to force this large topic into an article about an Act of Parliament.Rathfelder (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: I haven't deleted NHS mandate, only redirected it to Health and Social Care Act 2012 as I think the two articles may need to be merged. If you think this is inappropriate, undo the edit and remove the {{db-a10}} at the top of it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Benjamin E. Park

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Benjamin E. Park. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

follow-up Q - I appreciate your vigilance on behalf of the Wiki Community with concern to the above conscientious AfD close. In any case, you seem appear a fairly active participant in AfD's. Any thoughts for the community's enlightenment here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix-?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mayfair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanover Square. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SineBot as a rib-tickling April Fools gag ("always helpful to newbies, very civil, appears on many difficult disputes, blocks are ancient history" but maybe I'll do DPL bot's as a "job lot". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Enforcement of contested speedy deletion

Hello Ritchie333, earlier today I created the redirect Kenwilber.com to Ken Wilber to use it for a citation. The page was shortly tagged for speedy deletion, which I however contested, since it was a valid R from domain name (in the likes Steam (software) has SteamCommunity, Steamcommunity, Steamcommunity.com, Steamgames.com, SteamPowered, Steampowered.com, Store.steampowered). Without any prior discussion and disregard of my message on the talk page, you deleted the redirect. Could you reassure me why that move was justified despite my correct argument? Lordtobi (✉) 17:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Bernard Woolley would interject at this point, 'Minister, one reassures that but explains why, err...' ;) — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Steam is a software vendor, community site, games developer, and website. Ken Wilber is not a website. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where the problem is, since the target subject has a website, which's domain is as titled. Since the website is also title "kenwilber.com", the redirect would be, if not an R from domain name, an R to related topic. Lordtobi (✉) 18:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The website is not a "related topic". It's not a topic at all. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It says "to related topic", and Ken Wilber is definetly a topic and definetly related to his own website. Lordtobi (✉) 18:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you just type "Ken Wilber"? We don't usually have websites as redirects, hence why it seemed to meet the criteria for WP:CSD#R3. I can restore it, but I think I would then have to take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion if that's okay? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The major issue with the deletion is that my attempted conversation was skipped over, so if it you think that it is a reasonable move to do, and an RfD discussion would lead to my wished discussion, please go ahead. Lordtobi (✉)

@Lordtobi: Are you sure? Because if the discussion results in a "keep" then I will launch a community-RFC asking if we really want to allow the creation of millions of redirects consisting solely of a domain name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

If the usage of domain names would really be as bad as you make it seem, why would the discussion result in keep? If it, however, would come out that way, why is there a necessity to mass-create redirects, rather than keeping it a single case and leaving it as a reference for similar, future discussions? Since, well, there shouldn't be a reason to turn out keep if it was nonsensial. But after all, it depends on you people. Lordtobi (✉) 20:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

If the redirect is deemed to not fall afoul of WP:R#DELETE #4 then I would work to change the wording to make it more explicit that these types of redirects should be deleted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

List of London Monopoly places thoughts

Hi Ritchie, some initial thoughts for your consideration:

I would combine it into one single table, with colour as one of the columns.
The Monopoly value of each location should be included.
The "Known for" will fall foul of OR. Perhaps simply renaming it to "nearby locations" or something.
The title "places" is a little odd for me, it might be better as "List of locations on the London Monopoly board" or similar?
Is there nothing we could add on Waterworks and Electric Company?

Whaddya reckon?

I also think we might need to crowbar the board diagram in:

UK Edition Monopoly board layout

Free Parking	Strand £220	Chance ?	Fleet Street £220	Trafalgar Square £240	Fenchurch Street station £200	Leicester Square £260	Coventry Street £260	Water Works £150	Piccadilly £280	Go To Jail
Vine Street £200	MONOPOLY									Regent Street £300
Marlborough Street £180										Oxford Street £300
Community Chest										Community Chest
Bow Street £180										Bond Street £320
Marylebone station £200										Liverpool Street station £200
Northumberland Avenue £160										Chance ?
Whitehall £140										Park Lane £350
Electric Company £150										Super Tax (pay £100)
Pall Mall £140										Mayfair £400
In Jail/Just Visiting	Pentonville Road £120	Euston Road £100	Chance ?	The Angel Islington £100	King's Cross station £200	Income Tax (pay £200)	Whitechapel Road £60	Community Chest	Old Kent Road £60	Collect £200 salary as you pass GO

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: No problem with any of these generally, feel free to be Ariel Excel (like Bold, but better)

With a single table, where would you put the intros. It is very non-obvious how the orange set came to exist in particular, and only make sense when viewed in historical context at 19th and early 20th century London.
Collapsed board - where would you put it?
Property value - what might be even better is the value on the board and a contemporary value in a source such as this (although this won't be possible for all the properties; is there anything on Whitehall or Trafalgar Square that's not Government-owned?). The lead hints the relative property values are roughly the same, let's expand on that
The term "Known for" comes straight off {{Infobox street}}
The utilities are tricky, but I think I'm on reasonably solid ground in referring to WP:NOTESAL and WP:CSC and suggesting there are no reliable sources that talk about any London property called "Electric Company" in the context of Monopoly. All the other sources here both refer to either the list of properties in real life, or a subset of them, and also to Monopoly, and it's the mix of the two that allows this list to exist. You could represent them as London Electricity Board and Metropolitan Water Board (London), but that's veering off into OR territory. (The original draft of the mini-project had them as Battersea Power Station and the London Met Water Board simply because those looked like the most interesting articles to work on). And then, if you've done the utilities, why not do Free Parking, which of course in London is an oxymoron ;-) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point about the 'known for' bit. Would it be possible to have what the place was known for at the time the board was created as well as / in place of today? — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I just semi willy nilly pulled the contents from the infobox on each article, or cherry picked linked items from the lead if it didn't have one. The list doesn't really pay much respect to whether the buildings / landmarks are current or historic, Vine Street Police Station is long gone, as is Sheffield Midland and Manchester York Road stations, which were a principal raison d'etre for Marylebone's existence. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Following you here from tps at TRM... some of the 'known for' content on the locations is a bit POV. Particularly the inclusion of things like the odd hotel here and there to the exclusion of others, exclusion of churches etc. I'm guessing you culled these contents from their Wikipedia articles, but it leaves me unconvinced. I think you might exclude this content altogether or perhaps include the very objective - where a blue plaque appears? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Forget about my blue plaques idea. Few appear to match. And it's possibly a bit random. Just drop the known-for? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe replace with text about the origins of the name of each place, where known (which is most cases)? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Why the locations were chosen for the game

I think you could add some text about this. I presume no RS exists explaining them. So say that we don't know why, that in many cases the locations were already well known landmarks (eg ...) but others a bit more baffling. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've put in the best explanation I can - which is the official Waddingtons archives have got nothing. So if there was a reason, it has been taken by Vic and Marge to their graves. :-( Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, that seems good to me. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This list article is almost more informative about the origins of the Ingversion that the main article is :) e.g., nothing about Waddington's archives there. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 10:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Well that just goes to prove that Dweller's old fashioned values really work ... if a bunch of us get together, disagree on stuff, make alternative suggestions, and then (and this is the important bit) constructively work out a compromise, we can do brilliant work. It certainly beats sulking round ANI wondering who you can block next. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

~~Classic :)~~ Actually, Ritchie333, thinking on, I've emailed you. No need to reply; but i wonder if I'm right...? ;) — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the plug, above. My old-fashioned values campaign welcomes talk page stalkers. Click my sig! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I miss Hafspajen :-( Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Mmmm talking of images, how bout a map of all the places IRL, as it were? — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Second external link covers that I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Merging the colours

Okay, I've started sandboxing it, see here, brown and light blue merged. I think the detail above each section can go into a single section after the lead. Comments, both from you and/or your TPSs? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie333 likes this. The detail isn't available for all the sections anyway. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This is now done. The only outstanding question is whether to add waterworks, electric company and the stations interleaved in the board position in the table.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Stations I think are a good idea (the preamble can go with "locations" and the "where the hell is Fenchurch Street" can be answered there too"). As for the utilities, see reply above - I would need evidence that a real life Electric Company that is specific to London is discussed sufficiently in sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Well if we put the stations in, I think we'd need spaces for the utilities, even if we made the note that the board is non-specific... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Jeez, the bloody utilities can only ever net you £120 maximum, which is what you get from Piccadilly next door with one house all the time, and a couple of houses on Mayfair net you ten times that, hell even Old Kent Road's better if you stick a hotel on it .... (I'm a fan of the brown set, dirt cheap to develop, only two of them, people tip-toe round Mayfair and then land on them, losing their salary to me, and there's always "Go Back to Old Kent Road") .... um, anyway, if you really really want the utilities, put them on and we'll see what people think. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I relented, integrated the stations, and left a note at the top of the table regarding those squares which aren't included. I think that's about everything, what say thee? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The only major thing I might consider as well is contemporary property prices, which there are sources for. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, and you would compare them to the price of a single house on each row? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You know, one way around the problem with utilities (free parking! too, etc) would be to title the article 'List of geographic locations in...' (my emph.)- that would automatically exclude utilities, whilst including stations. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec)The Esquire source has used an average price for one house taken from Zoopla and average rent for any property based on the Greater London Authority's records. I've got to nip out in a mo, but I'll get onto this afternoon unless anyone else does. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Added from a source in The Independent for late-2016. I have also added house price for game because comparing the price of a single property with the price of the whole street seemed a bit odd to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

So what's left for FLC? It pales in comparison to List of Norwich City F.C. managers, for example, but I can't think of much else to add in that's relevant. Isn't there a Monopoly template? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Good to go, added template and added link to this article into template. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Stand by, Gold leader- there's nothing in the lede describing the focus of the red squares (which also, ironically, end up in Trafalgar Sq!) — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I'll leave it for a while so that the fan club on this page can have a look, and so an email can come flying out of the blue from a Wikipedian who wishes to remain anonymous, listing a (very helpful and welcome) bunch of spelling and grammar errors. Also, it gives me another chance to check through Tim Moore's book and confirm there's nothing else I want to mine from it. Re: the red set, there really isn't much you can say other than all three streets are very well known London places in their own right, and all three connect to each other (Trafalgar Square -> Strand -> Fleet Street). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Scintilliating, my dear Watson (unbelievable they never put Baker St on it, come to mention it!)- that is presumably the link! ...unless it's galleries, universities, and newspapers :) doesn't Moore say anything? — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll have another look when I'm back home at my bookshelf (Google Books has a cache of Moore but not all the pages); I added in Fleet Street's article that the "You Have Won A Crossword Competition : Collect £100" card came out of the Daily Mail and Daily Express's attempts to out-do each other in crossword prizes (whereas nowadays they prefer to see how jingoistic they can be on the front page - although The Sun today is just flat-out racist. Bleugh. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

At one point I speculated the reason for all the squares being chosen was because Oscar Wilde had some involvement with all of them (he's had something to do with all the orange ones, that's for sure), but there's a couple I can't pin down, most obviously Marylebone Station which opened after he had permanently exiled himself to Paris. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me know if I can be of any more assistance. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The only other tidbit I want to investigate is I think there's an anecdote in Moore's book (or possibly another source) that talks about a Japanese tourist wanting to go to Pentonville Road because he thought it was famous. That suggests the popularity of the London set really has travelled worldwide. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe he thought the prison was there. Mind you, maybe they did too :) — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Just an office note: FLCs are taking a couple of months to go through at the moment, some are going a month without a comment, so nominating sooner rather than later wouldn't be a bad thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Done : Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of London Monopoly places/archive1 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Whatcha fink? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have dropped my 2c over there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your vigilance on behalf of the Wiki Community

... here (diff). In any case, you seem appear a fairly active participant in AfD's. Any thoughts for the community's enlightenment here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix-?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hodgdon's secret garden: Jimbo Wales' talk page isn't generally an effective mechanism for getting any changes (actually, I wonder where is sometimes). The usual reason for deleting articles is that if people can't independently find source material to improve them, they stagnate and get put on the ever-increasing pile of unloved articles. I will generally try and preserve whatever I can as I think, regardless of what the community in general feel, there is no value in deleting somebody else's work if they can get it back. In this regard, I can restore ‎Benjamin E. Park to a draft page if you want - I thought I mentioned this earlier, but perhaps not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I know. But it gets some folks attention that way. Anyway, yeah, dig it! I certainly appreciate your sentiments, as just expressed. Thanks.

As a follow-up tho:

Notability within bio (more specificallly: application of wp:GNG/wp:BIO against wp:AUTH/wp:PROF...and both vis-a-vis vagaries of actual practice!

I.e. - Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes! the proffered "draft page" might be helpful someday (ie - for if--and when--Dr. Park ever becomes, per institutional standards, "published": hah!..)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hodgdon's secret garden: Okay, that's restored to Draft:Benjamin E. Park Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mayfair

The article Mayfair you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mayfair for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Vaginal steaming

On 1 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vaginal steaming, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "sorcery for your vagina" can result in second-degree burns? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vaginal steaming. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Vaginal steaming), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ironic

It's ironic that my Rfa is floating within the discretionary range while GoldenRing is floating down.... Anyway, guess one can't and shouldn't compare fool's Rfas with real ones. Wìkìpe-tan (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

He's done pretty well, when it opened I anticipated a SNOW close within a few hours, the fact it's still rolling along after a few days is pretty impressive going. Still, I guess we'll let you delete the main page and block Jimbo Wales first, then. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)