User talk:Ritchie333 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fram (talk | contribs) at 21:27, 4 March 2018 (→Warning: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:27, 4 March 2018 by Fram (talk | contribs) (→Warning: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is Ritchie333's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138Auto-archiving period: 21 days

If you leave a message on this talk page, I'll respond here. You may want to watch this page to catch the response. Click here for a tutorial in watching pages. Please avoid using talkback messages if you can - if I've messaged you recently I'll either be watching your page or otherwise keeping an eye on it.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blackfriars station, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages South Eastern Railway, Queen Victoria Street and Cold store (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Cold store should not be a dab page. Ritchie333 10:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

But the link to the tv episode needs to be kept - have added a hatnote. PamD 10:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be one of those articles that we should have, and without them we would not have frozen peas, but it's not easy to find sources - a search for the topic just brings back a huge number of cold stores. Ritchie333 12:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

cite book

Hi.
It has been a long time. Hope you are well.
Recently I have been coming across many books that are written by organisations and/or they dont have an ISBN; like this one. Is there a way to turn it into {{cite book}}?
Something similar to this: {{cite book|last=Richelson|first=Jeffrey T|title=The Wizards Of Langley: Inside The Cia's Directorate Of Science And Technology|publisher=Hachette UK|year=2008|isbn=978-0-786-74266-0|ref=harv}}. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: In that case, it appears to be that Studied in Intelligence is a periodical, not a book, so it won't have an ISBN. It might have an ISSN or it might have a OCLC number in WorldCat. In this case, a search on WorldCat gives back an OCLC number. DGG and Megalibrarygirl are experienced librarians and may be able to give further advice. Ritchie333 18:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Most older books don't have ISBNs—they only came into use fairly recently, and even today some books are published without them (although this is becoming rare). There's absolutely no obligation to include the ISBN field in a citation; I generally include the OCLC number (you can find it by searching the book's title at Worldcat) as a service to readers to ensure they're seeing which edition you're using, but there's no obligation even to do that. ‑ Iridescent 18:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

As Bill Clinton might say, it depends on what your definition of the word "old" is. Alan Jackson's London's Termini 2nd Edition, which I have used all over the place in London railway station articles (the clue's in the title), published over 30 years ago, has an ISBN. I'd certainly expect a periodical from 1997 to have one. Ritchie333 18:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It depends on the country and the publisher; the registration fee (usually $125 per book) isn't much to a big firm, but to a small specialist press which is likely to sell only through mail-order and specialist shops it isn't always going to be worth their while. As a general rule, anything published before 1975 is unlikely to have one, while anything published after 1980-ish in North America or Western Europe almost always will unless it's a hyper-niche publication. The numbering scheme began life as WHSmith's warehousing system, so for books that were of broad interest to the 1960s UK market you sometimes find them earlier than usual. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I found an odd one the other day: The isbn seems not to exist, even though it was in the frontispiece as both hb / pb. Bizarre! >SerialNumber54129 18:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup, everybody is correct. And yes, "Studies in Intelligence" is a journal actually. BTW, I didnt get your ping Ritchie.

—usernamekiran(talk) 19:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, come on!

Damned if you do
Damned if you don't

We could really use a serious answer. All we need to hear is your specific opinion on the policy-compliance of ALT6A. Because of the trouble over this I want there to be no room for doubt that that specific point was addressed. And it would be a shame to have gone through all this trouble for nothing. While I've got you, though, I'm thinking maybe the second slot could be

... that Hillary's portrait is now being printed on some $5 bills?

What think you? E Eng 19:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Run, Ritchie, RUN!!!

I never thought I would see the day when EEng would say "be serious, dammit!" If you mean "DYK that Trump is directly connected to Russia (map pictured)" - it's fine, anyone who doesn't like it should never come into contact with a copy of Private Eye because their head might explode. As for the Hillary hook, sure, I laughed more at the uranium one but that's not actually based on reality. I recently heard somebody say that choosing between Clinton and Trump is like choosing between Theresa May and Nigel Farage - damned if you do, damned if you don't. Ritchie333 11:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please register your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Taking_stock_--_final_policy-compliance_discussion_re_ALT6A so we can put this to rest. I'm afraid your current comment there is ambiguous.

With a thrill I realized at a uranium hook might be possible, but unfortunately that article's already an FA. E Eng 12:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"The UKIP pound in your pocket"? "Ukip’s brand is worth a lot of money" lol Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123, you might want to download the updates to your 2016-2017 views...get latest upload here. Funny how, of late, polls have been consistently wrong and not in-sync with RL views. Hmmmm...what to do, what to do...(rolling fingers on desk). 21:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Help w/UK Roads

Hello! I'm slowly working through some old unreferenced aticles and coudn't help but notice tons of UK road articles with no references (e.g. see the first couple dozen of Category:All_articles_lacking_sources. Categories are bit inconsistent here, but you can grab bunches of these with searches like this as well). It looks like you were involved in improving/cleaning up UK roads articles in the past so I wanted to reach out for some advice. I'm happy to do the leg work here, but do you know any common UK road sources, or have suggestions for how to proceed? I'm having trouble finding sources besides the SABRE wiki. Thanks for any help! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: Here's what I think. Most road articles of the variety "Axxx (road)" are not notable and fail the general notability guidelines. To give a practical example, if I walk into my local library, I get two full shelves of railway books, with more history on the Kent and East Sussex Railway than you can shake a stick at, while there are only two road books - Mike Parker's Mapping The Roads and Joe Moran's On Roads. An article that consists of nothing other than "The A1234 goes from High Barneyton to Lesser Crumpet, London. It passes the B543 at a set of traffic lights by Joe's Kebab Shop, curves right towards Parallel Park where there is a 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) footbridge ..." is ridiculous - this is why we have maps. Navigating via a route description fell out of favour when John Ogilby published his strip maps about 450 years ago; as the old saying goes, "A picture is worth a thousand words".

Having said all of that, there is definitely potential for more road-related articles to be expanded and improved, it's just the road number is a bad choice for a source search. A1232 road doesn't sound exciting until you do a bit of creative searching and discover it's actually a former historic coaching route and a waypoint for the English Civil War. A431 road isn't very interesting until you work out its better-known title of the Upper Bristol Road and dig out the history for an alternative turnpike route between Bath and Bristol, and the creative use of a field for a toll road about five years ago (indeed, one might suggest that the spin-off Kelston toll road be merged into the parent). A82 road is a rare example of a road that's both of great historical significance and well-known by its actual number.

What I would do for now is take any road article that has no references and has no claim to notability (eg: just a route description) and turn it into a redirect to the main list article. eg: A110 road -> A roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. If it turns out it's actually a former 17th century haunt for highwaymen, we can revisit it then with a proper title. Ritchie333 11:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I'll just go ahead with that assuming this is fairly uncontroversial (since many of these have sat uncited for a decade). If anyone has a problem they can just revert and I'll bring it up at the UK roads project page. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd be amazed if anyone cared enough to revert, but stranger things have happened. :-/ Ritchie333 00:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Park Lane

Hi, do you really think that my edit on the Park Lane article was not an improvement? The previous version, which is also the current version after your rollback, doesn't mention the most important thing, i.e. "The Adventure of the Empty House" being a Sherlock Holmes story, while it mentions something not very important like the name of the victim of the story. --Newblackwhite (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about a street - keep cultural references to a minimum otherwise they get out of hand and accumulate a large bunch of unsourced or poorly sourced content. IIRC I trimmed enough getting the article to good article status in the first place. Ritchie333 15:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Trimming is ok, but why does trimming involve keeping the name of a non notable character like Ronald Adair, while removing the more important Sherlock Holmes name? --Newblackwhite (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well you didn't use an edit summary, so I had no idea what your intent was. The source given only mentions Adair, so to add anything else requires an additional source per the verification policy and the good article criteria. Perhaps I should just remove this trivial reference entirely to save arguing. Ritchie333 16:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

True, I didn't use the edit summary, but I thought my intent was super-obvious. I mean, mentioning a SH story without mentioning SH at all is obviously incomplete, since not everyone will click on the "The Adventure of the Empty House" link, and not everyone is expected to know by heart the title of every single SH story.

And to say that the cited source doesn't mention Holmes is very reductive, since the source is a book is titled "The London of Sherlock Holmes", and the whole point of the book is listing places appearing in the Sherlock Holmes stories. Still, if you feel we need a source to prove that "The Adventure of the Empty House" is a SH story, there's no problem, since there are thousands of sources saying that. Hopefully the reference will not be removed, since it's far from trivial: SH is one of the most famous fictional characters of all time, as certified by countless sources, and the Park Lane Mystery from "The Adventure of the Empty House" is one of his most famous stories. --Newblackwhite (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It's fundamental policy - source it or lose it. Not only is this "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", it's "the encyclopedia that anyone does edit" and I've seen enough cases where I've picked through 10 years of changes thinking, "if only somebody had sourced this originally, I could work out what the intent was". I've seen enough incidents (both on here and in real life) where "the assumption of something obvious" causes a major problem. (eg: "It's obvious 'Remain' will win the EU referendum so I'll vote 'Leave' to stick it to Cameron!") As you can see from the above thread, "Help w/UK Roads", the presence of sources also helps you judge the opinion of whether or not something has an appropriate weight in an article where it's not directly the topic, so having a source that's geared towards locations in London is better. This is why, despite trying to put Oscar Wilde in every London street or landmark article I come across (he seemed to get everywhere), he isn't mentioned in this article despite Park Lane being name-checked in one of his stories. Ritchie333 16:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

So that goes for Abbey Road then? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. I wish Misplaced Pages was less about burocracy these days, since I think this is a factor that has driven many contributors away. Regardless, I have a hard time understanding your point, Ritchie. First you imply that my intent of adding the SH name to the article wasn't obvious because I hadn't wrtitten an edit summary, even though I plainly added the SH name to the article. Then, you imply that it would be unsourced to write that the story is a SH tale, even though the article about the story says that, not to mention the tale is in public domain and can be found even at Wikisource, and that there are countless sources about that. I don't know if the Oscar Wilde reference is significant or not, but the whole Sherlock Holmes story is about solving a murder that happened at Park Lane, as per the sources in the last link. --Newblackwhite (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

John Christopher (15 July 2012). The London of Sherlock Holmes. Amberley Publishing Limited. ISBN 978-1-4456-1568-4.

The only advice I can give you is "walk a mile in my shoes". Once you've written 100 GAs, you'll understand why experienced editors sometimes seem to be a bit bitey around the edges, and why when you complain at ANI, nothing happens - although I'd like to think I am more tolerant than some. Ritchie333 16:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll keept that advice in mind, and hopefully we can solve this without any ANI with a bit of common sense. For the time being, I am adding the Sherlock Holmes name to the article since he is mentioned in the given source. --Newblackwhite (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

And that's fine. Like I said, "cultural references" sections are a minefield, not because what one individual editor does, but rather what the cumulative effect is of 100 editors, none of whom communicate with each other. It might seem counter-intuitive that 100 editors can make an article worse than one, but just look through the backlog of featured article removal candidates for evidence. However, you're right about one thing - adding sources is too hard and the user interface should make it easier to add them, and make it impossible for an article to be tagged {{db-a7}} unless you jump through several "are you really sure?" boxes. Ritchie333 17:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added the Sherlock Holmes name to the article since he is mentioned in the cited source. The section now reads:

In Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes short story The Adventure of the Empty House (1903), the character Ronald Adair, a gentleman who is murdered in 1894, lives at No. 421 Park Lane (the old numbering).

It's definitely an improvement, but if we agree that this section should not be removed, then I think it can be further improved:

In Arthur Conan Doyle's short story The Adventure of the Empty House (1903), Sherlock Holmes investigates and solves a locked-room murder that took place at No. 421 Park Lane (the old numbering). The story is set in 1894.

Both versions have a similar word count: 35 words for the current version, 39 words for my proposed version. Why do I think that would be an improvement? Well, essentially for two reasons:

Saying that in the story Holmes solved a murder at Park Lane is more informative that just saying that a murder took place at Park Lane.
Saying that a character from a 1903 story was murdered in 1894 is misleading, since many people reading the article will assume that Holmes investigated a 9-year old murder, while in fact the whole story took place in 1894 despite being published in 1903. Not that the article is about the story, but anything that potentially misleads the reader should be avoided IMHO. Incidentally, I don't think it is absolutely necessary to mention the year 1894, but since it was there even before my edit I saw no reason to remove it.

If you think 39 words rather than 35 is too much, we can change "locked-room murder" into "murder" and/or remove one werb from the "investigates and solves" expression and/or remove the reference to 1894 which, as I said, I don't think it's really important. If you think my proposed change is not supported by the current source, we can still change it to another one. Do you think Wikisource is good enough for this proposed edit? Or do you prefer another source? --Newblackwhite (talk) 17:44, 12 February 20

I'd go for the John Christopher book published by Amberley mentioned by Serial Number 54129 above (assuming the prose above is backed up by the book itself - I don't have the book myself to check). I have used other Amberley books extensively (eg: to write Fremlin's Brewery) and in my experience they provide plenty of detail and have a reputation for being factually accurate. The key with Wikisource, and indeed other sources such as British History online (which I cite a lot) is to cite the original work, not Wikisource itself. That's another problem with Misplaced Pages being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - you come to a claim cited to another article or a WP mirror, or some other self-published source, wonder if it's actually true, and find that the fact you question has been repeated all over the internet as gospel without actually being able to tell if it's correct or not. Ritchie333 17:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If that's the source you prefer I have nothing against that. But beside the question of which source could support the text of my proposed edit, do you think the text itself is good or not? --Newblackwhite (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Ritchie333 18:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

In that case, I assume there is a consensus, so I'll add that text to the article using the source you mentioned. --Newblackwhite (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Ritchie333 18:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Tenberry Software deletion

A7 deletion tag gone for "good evidence of pre-internet paper sources"

The page issues for tagging for deletion is:

Too short (under 200 words)

No or very little notably

No infobox

Next try for tagging for deletion is PROD or Afd, but which one should i try? Proposed deletion or Articles for deletion? 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:606D:C6BA:A351:3BEA (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You should try searching for sources and improving the article! I remember the dark old days of real mode DOS where 640k was enough for everybody, so extenders like this were a godsend in the early 90s. At the very least, the article could be turned into a redirect somewhere. Ritchie333 09:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, but i still want it for deletion, what i should use? 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:606D:C6BA:A351:3BEA (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I’m not telling you - we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to demolish one. If you don’t have fond memories of booting up DOS/4GW to play network Doom with your friends - well you had to be there, I guess. Ritchie333 09:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Zaid Ali

Zaid Ali (https://en.wikipedia.org/Zaid_Ali) page was deleted because it was incorrectly categorized as "not importance or significance". which is not the case. He has millions of followers on youtube and facebook. I am putting some reference for your review. I will re-write this article so that.

Above are few, there are many more pages on him. --Spasage (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Well yeah, but it's also been deleted five times and protected from creation three, in its colourful history, so that's a pretty strong consensus against having it here...On a different note, Ritchie, were they all created by the same editor? >SerialNumber54129 15:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: The various versions of the article were created by different accounts, for what it's worth. Ritchie333 16:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I think, we need to see, if we can actually create this article. What I know form his following, he deserves a wikipedia page. You can do a simple google search and you can see. He is not unknown and has very large following. Above references are from very well known media houses, both print and electronic. --Spasage (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a draft article, Draft:Zaid Ali. Follow the instructions therein, and if the draft is successfully reviewed, it will be moved to mainspace. Ritchie333 16:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

February 14th

(1860-1880) Museum of London	Happy Valentine's Day!
	It wasn't easy to come up with an innocuous Valentine's Day greeting to share with collaborators on Misplaced Pages, so I went with "evolutionary". Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There’s too much fraternizing with the enemy. ~Henry Kissinger 13:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Well yesterday in the office, somebody said "oh bollocks I'd better get the missus a card and something". And they said romance was dead.... If you're single, remember that today is also the anniversary of one of the greatest gigs of all time, so crank it up loud! Ritchie333 13:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Fifteen minute My Gen, AbsolutelyHighFuckingOctane!!! Better turn the bass up on this one :) >SerialNumber54129 14:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

And in a slightly different take...Pinball Prison Blues :) >SerialNumber54129 14:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Somebody should have got José Mourinho to cover "Substitute" .... "You think you play pretty well together // You think your boot can kick that leather // Well I will substitute for another guy // You look pretty tall but your kick's too high // The 4-4-2 formation is complicated // You run pretty good but your striking's jaded, yeah" Ritchie333 14:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, ^^^this^^^ is inspired :) I've texted it to loads of people (with some WP:A of course). Ha! >SerialNumber54129 11:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Did someone say high-kicking? Would make a great support act. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing protection of a template

Since the editor who changed the face of this template is topic banned and there is consensus to change the template per here, can you remove protection from this template now to allow these edits? D4iNa4 (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather not, since templates are also TE-protected to stop good faith edits jamming up the job queue by having to continually regenerate the transclusions. Plus I'm not sure entirely what the consensus is in that link. Hopefully there's a template editor more local to the area who can look into it, or you can ask for TE rights yourself at WP:PERM. Ritchie333 14:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Lil vandal

There's an IP wreaking havoc - today they blanked the entire WikiProject Libraries page. They've been warned - obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. 02:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There’s a foreign secretary wreaking havoc - a few days ago they patronised the entire British population. They’ve been warned - obviously not here to build an economy. Ritchie333 08:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

One quote in particular made me nervous..."not some great V-sign from the cliffs of Dover",...maybe in the UK a V-sign from the cliffs means something different from what it means in NYC and has nothing to do with pink hats. I can only hope... 23:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a great encyclopedia somewhere around here - I just discovered the finger is a good article. (Probably a good thing Muboshgu didn't bring that up at his RfA) Ritchie333 23:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Ha. I pointed people to my user page where I take credit for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie

Sent you a reply to your email. Warmly, Lourdes 13:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Pancras railway station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article St Pancras railway station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I've put a few comments on the review page, but they are not so substantial as to make it necessary to put the review on a week's formal hold. Over to you. Tim riley talk 18:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Pancras railway station

The article St Pancras railway station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:St Pancras railway station 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Trellick Tower coordinates

What do you mean when you say "duplicate" here? The coordinates aren't appearing at the top of the article, and mean that the tower is invisible to a basic API search. My understanding was that "display=inline,title" was required to fix this. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury: Yes, it should work, but why does it put the co-ordinates at the top, then in the infobox immediately below. @RexxS:, have you got any ideas about fixing this? Ritchie333 19:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, right. The template's just doing what "inline,title" is being told to do, displaying the coordinates in both places, and I thought this was common practice for coordinates in infoboxes; clicking around, all the major city articles seem to do it. I agree it looks a bit repetitious, but no more so than repeating the article title in the heading, the first sentence and the infobox. --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury: Looks like you're right. I have self-reverted. Ritchie333 13:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Lord Belbury: Sorry I'm late to this, and it looks like it's all sorted now. The default for {{Coord}} is to simply put the coordinates where the template is (same as |display=inline), but as Lord Belbury says, we usually want the information repeated at the top of the page (|display=title) because automated tools can look for it in a consistent position then (and of course not every article about a place has an infobox). Using |display=inline, title does produce duplication, but I think it's pretty much accepted as standard these days. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

New section header

Meh. The only reason they chose that particular question (#10) to ask was in order to then "justify" an oppose, and so subsequently oppose based on it. Sheer waste of bloody time. >SerialNumber54129 18:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
New section header? Primefac (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"A new section header?—What would that be then Ted?"!! ;) >SerialNumber54129 19:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Well... the idea in my flippant reply was to avoid a back and forth over an opinion no one takes seriously anyway. I see all worked out as planned. GMG 19:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

And the idea of my reply was to stop anyone !voting "Oppose per Andrew. D" - obviously I have a dog in this fight but hopefully that's put a lid on that one. Ritchie333 20:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Eh. I just assume anyone who's worth their salt is already familiar with the song and dance at this point. GMG 20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think basically if you haven't directly worked with Andrew on an article, he'll oppose. I have worked on several with him, and do lots of writing on London-based topics, so I'm one of the least likely people to clash with him. Ritchie333 20:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever worked with Andrew on anything... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I, personally found Andrew's argument to be quite convincing. Though not of the conclusion he likely intended. If a person needs to go to those logical lengths to oppose adminship, then clearly the editor in question was (figuratively speaking) born with a mop in their hands. Before anyone decides not to appreciate the (attempted?) humor here, please understand that I did, actually go over that entire RfA before casting a vote, and that I stand by it. Lourdes' answers appear thoughtful and insightful, and a number of editors whose judgement I trust and who have dealt with Lourdes before have supported them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Sadly, that's Davidson having a dig at me while denigrating a really good candidate. It's a real shame that Davidson is allowed to continue to do this, but at least he is almost invariably shown to be completely out of touch with the community wishes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I had to close the last topic ban as "no consensus" a few months ago because there weren't the numbers. We can't prove that people don't run because of him. The run of "Support per Andrew D" !votes suggests he's now being subject to public ridicule there. Ritchie333 22:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely the case. It's a shame that he's allowed to continue to sully good nominations, in the past a "unanimous" vote of support was considered a really good thing, but with Davidson, that's hardly likely to ever be the case, even with candidates who make WP:300. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Meh. It's all a pass fail event in the end. GMG 23:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

History of Pakistan template vandalized yet again...

Hi. It seems like the Template:History of Pakistan was unblocked and vandalized again. Disruptive edits were made by D4iNa4 without consensus. Is it possible to have the edits reverted back to the last official edits and have the template locked again, which you had earlier requested and was granted. No consensus was reached on the any of the proposed edits. Kindly look into the matter. Thank you. --Ratatatain (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

As I've seen said by others in other cases, "obvious sock is obvious". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"that's just a bad cut and paste job"

I don't understand what "that's just a bad cut and paste job" is supposed to mean. I was just following MOS:ELLIPSIS—there's no "cut and paste" involved. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The "bad cut and paste job" referred to the original quotation, so I re-did the edit, cutting down some superfluous chaff. Ritchie333 17:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to say...

...Thank You for nominating Lourdes - excellent candidate, pleasant collaborator and knowledgeable editor. I couldn't agree more with your 1st paragraph at the RfA. You nailed it. 12:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for UK Picture Editors' Guild

On 26 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article UK Picture Editors' Guild, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that nominations for the UK Picture Editors' Guild awards have included photographs of battlefield conflict, German figure skaters, and Theresa May laughing? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, UK Picture Editors' Guild), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Copied article?

Hi.
Yesterday, I started to work on User:Usernamekiran/James C. King. A few minutes ago EricSerge published the article James C. King. I find it difficult to be a coincident. I am not mad or anything about "publishing "my" article". Actually, his creation is a lot better than my draft. But all I expected was a little communication, instead of simply copying-modifying, and publishing the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for any trouble, I had no idea you had a namespace draft going. I noticed on Template:NGA leaders he was missing. I was going to write his and then see if I could write Howard W. Penney next. I would ask that you assume good faith here, I did not copy anything from you and merely created an article from the source material I could find. I don't own this articles, it belongs to the entire community I encourage you to contribute. EricSerge (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@EricSerge: erm... I am saying the same thing. Thats why I quoted "my" above.

But you used the template on the article which is used on a few articles that were in turn created by me (so was the template). And the page history of King's article shows that you created the article in span of few moments. So I thought you somehow connected the dots, and published the article. What was more spooky, is that I was working on the draft when I got notification of the article being published. Sorry for the trouble/inconvenience caused. I sincerely apologise. See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@White Album

The other editor's correct, actually, R3s. I think it was my bad originally, the use of "refuted" there. (Other editor might like to leave an explanation with each of their changes, but, well, you can't have your Honey Pie and eat it too, can you …) JG66 (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I've dropped out of that now - I've done enough work on the article, but if people are going to insult editors (not you, you've done great work on this article) over minor wordings and not bother leaving edit summaries, then they can carry on making the encyclopedia worse and I'll clean it up next month. Ritchie333 11:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Phil Lynott

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Phil Lynott you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sompting Abbotts Preparatory School page

Hello Ritchie you edited the page above which now has a maintenance template to it - I believe I have addressed the issues of concern - would you be able to confirm for me please?Sarah-Monaghan (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Sarah-Monaghan

@Sarah-Monaghan: I've removed the tags. I did a large amount of clearing up on the article, and I have never visited the school, only driven past it trying to avoid queues on the A27 wondering when on earth somebody's going to build a decent road between Chichester and Brighton. Ritchie333 15:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Good question about the road - with all the development planned in the area it's going to get worse and worse. Thank you very much for all the clearing up you did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah-Monaghan (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious three years!

Precious
Three years!

How lovely ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

hapus Dydd Gŵyl Dewi, Gerda. Ritchie333 10:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, but how about English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ych a fi - it wouldn't be right to say "Happy St David's Day" in English, would it? Ritchie333 11:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

But wasn't that yesterday? See my talk, where you can also view my latest vacation pics (click on "the desert"), and read how I survive WP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

St David's Day has always been 1 March as long as I can remember. Not that you'll see many daffodils at the moment, the whole of Wales is covered in snow. Ritchie333 14:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Ritchie333. Some time ago you asked if I’d consider putting myself forward for selection by the community as an administrator. I’ve been giving this some serious thought and attention since. Though I feel I’ve more still to learn and experience, I have considered an ORCP to gather feedback and identify my weakest areas, with perhaps an RFA much later in the year. (Personally, I suspect I’ve not contributed enough at WP:CSD, WP:PROD and WP:ANI, as well as needing experience of non-admin closures and the undeletion area you suggested back in September. The areas of likely initial involvement would be the regulars of WP:AFD and WP:AIV)

I had been thinking about contacting you for some time now to follow up the offer and seek any advice or suggestions of your own that I ought to address. However an incident I dealt with yesterday has prompted me to seek your observations now as it made me consider whether I’ve handled an issue either competently, or extremely incompetently. Personally, I believe the former but, if the latter, I’m due a block under 3RR, and clearly have much more to learn before ever asking for the trust of the community. You might like to look at my interactions with a new editor at User talk:86.187.172.17 over what I initially took to be their repeated vandalism at Naeraberg, and my repeated reversion and communications over this issue. It seemed like a good place to start! I’m not seeking your involvement in the issue itself – someone else can block me if they feel I’ve done wrong. Just any feedback in your own timeframe would, I’m sure, be most helpful to me. Regards. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: ORCP is a good place to start - I don't think you'll get many negative comments provided you've been round the block a few times and you are serious about it. Right now, there's a bit of a backlog of AfDs, so if you've got established experience in that area, that will go down well. As regards the Naeraberg dispute, you have tried to explain your position politely and been rebuked by an IP flinging the odd insult at you. Now the IP wants to AfD the article, we should be able to see what other people think. In any case, this incident will probably worth a mention at Q3 in the standard RfA questions. Ritchie333 14:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much for that. I'd not spotted they'd now AfD-ed it after all that. Yes, it did strike me this incident might either sink me with too many reverts, or be of use for Q3! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding page Kuldeep Pai

Hi there,

This is regarding page https://en.wikipedia.org/Kuldeep_Pai. I see you have closed the page mentioning -'closing as no consensus'. I had included new artifacts, magazine reference and links of the National daily newspaper- The Hindu, substantiating the notability of the subject. There were three admins who had voted 'Keep' and none for 'Delete' in the AfD forum. We had discussions in the forum and I had incorporated few more citations to the content and improvised the content by adding his awards, with appropriate links. So why was this closed as no consensus. I would like to know the status of this article and what my next steps are...what else can I do to make this article live..kindly advise. Sharan (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Simply put, not enough people turned up to the debate. A “no consensus” close means the article is still kept, so I wouldn’t worry about it. Ritchie333 10:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Potential?

Don't hide very real problems under some wishy-washy title. He was a serial copyright violator who only reduced this once Corensearchbot came around, and even then he continued with copyvio translations and the like. This happened when he was here for a few years already and had created thousands of articles; not just in his first few edits. Fram (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

He’s also a friend of mine. I suggest you read this. Ritchie333 10:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought as much. That's not an excuse to spread misinformation at AN. Please stay out of this discussion if you can't be bothered to actually read the evidence presented so far, and prefer to attack the messenger. I suggest you read anything at all (perhaps Miffy or something else easily understandable) instead of editing about this dispute from now on. Fram (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Phil Lynott

The article Phil Lynott you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Phil Lynott 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Warning

Either retract your ridiculous allegations, or provide solid evidence. Otherwise, I'll just drag you to ArbCom for conduct highly unbecoming of an admin (again) and using personal attacks and utterly mistaken accusations to deflect the attention from the problems with old edits from a friend of yours. You should know that even if I had committed copyvios, they would need a separate section and would do nothing to make the problem of Blofeld's copyvios less real. It is not as if I provoked him into making them, did I? If you have real problems with my edits (not poorly written or unsourced, but actual policy violations), then feel free to start a discussion about them. But they way you are going about this now is really very, very low. Fram (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)