User talk:RLO1729/Archive 1

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.

Hi RLO1729! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like John from Idegon (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I have received your message, and posted on the talk page in support of the 1925 image. Also I must apologize for cropping the Schiphol image, I did not see that you had already done so a few days prior Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Very nice work.I am trying to recall where I got the orchid promise info.Not presumably in the entomological journal obits as it's gossip. The note in my card index on entomologists isn't referenced so it is no help. It may have come from Paul Smart the author of Butterflies of the World (and also later bankrupt). I will sleep on it and try a few avenues.Heres hoping Best regards Robert (Nash) aka Notafly (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Robert. RLO1729 (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The Eponym Dictionary of Birds 2014 by Bo Beolens , Michael Watkins , Michael Grayson repeats the info but gives no reference.Maybe they got it from Wiki and didn't like to say

I've also seen it here, also not referenced. RLO1729 (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

This predates my account ( 9 February 2007‎) and at that time I was a member of the Lepidopterists' Society and so it is a very likely source - Lee D. Miller Presidential address 1984: A tribute to the Amateur Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 40(1). 1986. 1-7 pdf PS Even if it isn't I'd add the ref Robert

Thanks, that is certainly the earliest reference to the story I've seen. However, contemporary newspaper accounts indicate Joicey went bankrupt only twice: 1909 (the £30,000 mentioned by Miller seems to be a misinterpretation of the sums mentioned in that bankruptcy) and 1922 (rather than Miller's "1930s"), and I cannot find any evidence of the orchid story in the quite detailed newspaper accounts of either bankruptcy. This tends to reduce my confidence in the whole story, but there still may be some grain of truth in it and it would be interesting to know Miller's source. RLO1729 (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Doubt we will trace Miller's source.Or mine if not Miller.A lot of my knowledge and Miller's no doubt came from correspondence or conversation.No academic rigour here and certainly not primary sources. Soon I will fill this red link Lee Denmar Miller (1935–2008). All the best Robert

OK, many thanks Robert. I might move the orchid story to a footnote until further corroboration is found, what do you think? RLO1729 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be the best solution. Consider writing though - According to Miller ........ using the ref ^[1]

You read my mind :) RLO1729 (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Done, let me know if the Note needs any adjustment. I was also slightly worried by the fact that the Wiki bio for

Walter Rothschild does not mention orchids, but this indicates he was interested in them. RLO1729 (talk

) 16:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:JJ Joicey butterfly cabinet Haslemere Educational Museum.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JJ Joicey butterfly cabinet Haslemere Educational Museum.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  OTRS pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Whpq, {{

OTRS pending}} has been added to the file description page and evidence forwarded to [email protected] (same for the two related images recently uploaded). RLO1729 (talk

) 03:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright permissions resolved. RLO1729 (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi RLO1729,

Reviewed the article and gave it a C. I do not have much feedback beyond that B to featured articles have three paragraph intros in general.

You may deserve B but I am not a good judge of that, since I know nothing on the subject. If you are confident that you have covered the scope of his notability, work a bit on the intro, and find an editor who can give you the B.

I am mostly working on actors bio, and I you don't mind down the line I may ask for your feedback.Filmman3000 (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Filmman3000, I do think the article meets the B criteria summarised at B-Class criteria which is not specific about number of paras in the intro, but I'll review as you suggest and re-submit. RLO1729 (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok I've just re-checked the article, you are probably right. I do like your enthusiasm as you are currently sculpting three paragraphs. You are right they are not necessary in the B-criteria, I just didn't know. Upon re-reviewing the article and coming in knowing nothing about the subject and his speciality, there is one thing thing stopping me next to his name in the intro there are these letters FRGS FLS FZS FES FRHS and father's name in early life VD JP DL. I think context should be given to this. Upon clicking on these next Joicey Jr.'s name I got it, but with his dad I didn't because one was a decoration the other society or association. I think I can fix with Jr. but not Sr. Once this is fixed I will gladly give you the B.Filmman3000 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Just did my edit in the intro, once I understand what these letters next to his fathers name without me having to click on it. I will give you the B.

I wanted to consult other types of folks like him in featured articles but the only science folks who have featured article are in physics. Hope it can be useful to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Physics_and_astronomy_biographies

Thanks. Filmman3000 (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again Filmman3000. I've slightly revised your intro edit to just mention 'Fellow' (rather than member) and re-ordered the Societies to match the list given later in the bio. I think the best solution is to not mention his father's post-nominals so I've added a couple of links to further info on his parents instead. RLO1729 (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok clipped these for you, hope they are useful.

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/41317491/obituary/

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/41317584/collection_of_butterflies_are_worth_a/

I may in the near future ask you to give me feedback on an article in media bios.Filmman3000 (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: Hi, I wondered if you would consider doing a GA review of my article on James Harvey Insole. Thanks! (No worries if you're not able to.) RLO1729 (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's out of my wheelhouse. Looking good though. SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: Hi, I'd like to acknowledge your editing help publicly as AMAZING! (Barnstar awarded). :) RLO1729 (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

For creating Cymmer Colliery explosion, have a cuppa to keep your WikiJourney going! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks CaptainEek! RLO1729 (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

PS - thanks for assessing Cymmer Colliery explosion. Do you have any suggestions on how it could be improved please? RLO1729 (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Welsh: Hi welsh, thanks again for getting the ball rolling on the Cymmer Colliery explosion review. I wondered if you might also have a quick look at the related articles on George Insole and James Harvey Insole please? Thanks! RLO1729 (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. BTW my wedding reception was in Insole Court 35 years ago! welsh (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Welsh: Great, thanks welsh! (The Insole Court Research Group would be interested to see photos of the interior/exterior at that time if you wanted to contact them ([email protected]).) RLO1729 (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

On 8 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cymmer Colliery explosion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Cymmer Colliery explosion of 1856 in Wales resulted in a "sacrifice of human life to an extent unparalleled in the history of coal mining of this country"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cymmer Colliery explosion. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cymmer Colliery explosion), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Incredible writing and research, thank you so very much. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine: Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. RLO1729 (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you're welcome to contribute to this! Keep up the great work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks. Should I add the three Wales-related articles I created in the weeks prior to joining this group to the Challenge page? RLO1729 (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, anything done in the last few months! Thanks! I'm running the

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message. RLO1729 (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome! Happy editing Red Director (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	You're doing a lot of good work here, keep it up!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Dr. Blofeld, much appreciated! RLO1729 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@

<div style="position:absolute; top:-50px;"> {{Portal image banner |NASA-HS201427a-HubbleUltraDeepField2014-20140603.jpg |croptop=5 |maxheight=100px |overflow=hidden}} </div>

but then the banner does not extend across the full width of the page. Thanks,  RLO1729^💬  11:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Like so maybe? – Thjarkur (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Perfect - thanks!  RLO1729^💬  11:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

​ More generally, would it be worth changing the 800px value in Module:Portal image banner to an optional parameter rather than a fixed value?  RLO1729^💬  02:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be very easy to add, but then I thought that it would be unlikely that anyone would need higher resolution portal banners. This template isn't used that much, and the image is already automatically double the resolution on hi-res screens. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi RLO1729! You created a thread called Large images in {{Portal image banner}} at archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1049#Large_images_in_{{Portal_image_banner}}|here]]. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both talk ) 19:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: Hi again, I've been working on the Charles Wilkins (writer) article to de-stub it and hoped you might have time to cast your eye over it for copy edits and any other suggestions please. Thanks, ~ RLO1729^💬 15:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Will do. I've been away from the computer for a while, but I've added it to my list. SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! :) ~ RLO1729^💬 04:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I did some copy edits, but it looks very good. The image could probably be improved significantly by the good folks at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop. SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Excellent as always thanks. (The Red Dragon page was moved recently to include the "The".) Thanks also for the image suggestion which I'll follow up. :) ~ RLO1729^💬 02:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Notafly: Hi Robert, I've revised the George Talbot (entomologist) bio and would be grateful if you would cast your eye over it for any errors or omissions. I've upgraded it to C-class but think it's really at least a B, what do you think?

I'm also currently working on de-stubbing Percy Ireland Lathy and wondered if you had a copy of his obituary reference please:

Talbot, G. 1943: "Lathy, P. I.", Entomologist 76 : 263-264

Do you know of any other secondary sources for Lathy? I've looked online but found very little. I'm concerned that without other secondary sources the bio might be open to deletion for lack of notability. Thanks. ~ RLO1729^💬 00:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, would love to see your work on this. If not competing for prizes we'll accept general articles improvements like you've been doing. All articles done will go up on the 10,000 challenge at the end anyway! Kep up the good work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. When I read through the conditions and the checking requirements and adding the script tool to Preferences etc it all got a bit too complicated for a novice. But if you want me to just add the pages I've destubbed this month (even though I was also working on them last month?) to the list then I can certainly do that.   ~ RLO1729^💬 10:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk

​Great, thanks Chiswick Chap.  ~ RLO1729^💬 11:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Hi, I've noticed a couple of minor copy edits that could be made and I would also now prefer the last para to be moved to second-last. Should I do that now or would you rather I left it until you have finished your review? Thanks,  ~ RLO1729^💬 02:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Do whatever you need to. --Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Done, thanks.  ~ RLO1729^💬 04:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm awaiting your responses on the GA1 page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I've missed the talk page edit. Thanks for your suggestions, I'll work through them carefully and get back to you.  ~ RLO1729^💬 10:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Great to see you, can you add your entries to the bottom list too, I use that to find the listed entries!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. A quick list of instructions at the top of the article after Rules would be useful to novice entrants. Using the same format for the list at the end (just without the readable bytes) as the entries in each section would also be easier.  ~ RLO1729^💬 22:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Excellent work, thankyou!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Hi, I'm also considering GA nominating Thomas Stephens (historian) and would welcome your thoughts on whether it is nearing a suitable standard. Thanks :)   ~ RLO1729^💬 04:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on such matters. There are sufficient secondary RS to demonstrate notability. The article seems short but perhaps that's all that's known about him. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

That's great, thanks.  ~ RLO1729^💬 09:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

On 14 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Red Dragon (magazine), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Red Dragon magazine was intended to "make known to the greater English world the characteristics and aims of the Welsh people and the beauties of their language and literature"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Red Dragon (magazine). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Red Dragon (magazine)), 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) 00:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@JohnThorne: Hi, I saw you reviewed the article on George Insole. I'm a relatively new editor, could you let me know what this review indicates please? Thanks.  ~ RLO1729^💬 01:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The review is to see that the article doesn't have any serious deficiency, at least from the aspects of notability, verifiability, reliability of sources, and what should be in Wikipedia . Any editors can still improve the articles, or correct any mistakes (as no article is perfect). Hope this answer your question. Happy editing. JohnThorne (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see any comments on these areas so do I assume there were no major problems?  ~ RLO1729^💬 02:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No apparent problems. Hope it can be a good article. JohnThorne (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@JohnThorne: Hi again, I see you have been working on the order of references in the article. Can I ask what order you are applying please? Thanks.  ~ RLO1729^💬 02:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Just from the lower to higher reference numbers. JohnThorne (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)−1

Is there a specific MOS policy on that or is it just a personal preference? It is more usual in academic writing to order them in the way they relate to the text they follow. That is, where relevant, the first reference generally relates to facts earlier in the paragraph, later references to later facts in the para. That is how they were ordered.  ~ RLO1729^💬 12:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk

@CaroleHenson: Great, thanks! Looking forward to hearing from you.  ~ RLO1729^💬 01:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, check out the talk page of each of the articles. The GA review has been done for George and James Insole. I have just started the one for Cymmer Colliery explosion and will get back to it shortly.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk

The article George Insole you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:George Insole 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) 17:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The article James Harvey Insole you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:James Harvey Insole 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) 17:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk

Thanks The Rambling Man, looking forward to it.  ~ RLO1729^💬 11:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The article

No idea how they got screwed up when I added Barbara Schulz to cast box and appreciate your getting them back in the right places. Mirawithani (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. :)  ~ RLO1729^💬 00:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tholme: Thanks for the recent edit to my User Thanks page. It is certainly more efficient to have the center style at beginning of the gallery syntax but that has also centred the whole gallery on the page. I would prefer it to be left justified. Can that be done efficiently too? And the user names below each gallery image are now not centred.   ~ RLO1729^💬 00:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Think I've sorted it using div tags as recommended

I'm happy that you got it fixed :) I'm sorry, i didn't notice that gallery was centered as well, it was supposed to look the same. I think your solution is the simplest and best to the have the layout you want. Another simpler alternative would be using <gallery mode=nolines>, but then the images would have no border, and thats maybe not what you want. The third alternative is to use TemplateStyles, but thats probably overkill in this case.Tholme (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you changed 2020 to 2019 as end of the series, cast appearances, etc., but: The final episode of Season 2 started streaming in French with English subtitles in Jan 2020 and isn't scheduled to be released in France until September or October 2020 (Antoine Dulery from Season 1 reappears as guest star in the S2 finale); the first episodes of a Season 3 with new lead cast were to start filming in March but had to be postponed due to Covid — they are expected to be released in late 2020. Mirawithani (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mirawithani, the article itself only had episodes up to 2019 (until your recent edit) but the source I relied on was IMDM which gives September 2019 for France and October 2019 for Italy for the last episode "Un cadavre au petit déjeuner". As it is a French series, later release dates in other countries such as in Australia seem a little irrelevant, but that's why I added "(France)" to the final release date in the infobox. Otherwise the article will need to keep track of release dates in all countries. I also think it is better to only include dates for existing series (so up to 2019) rather than assuming further seasons will go ahead, despite announcements. The article can be revised when the new series actually appears.  ~ RLO1729^💬 20:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The infobox item is also called "Original release" so 2019 per the IMDB citation would seem to be the best date to use at present.  ~ RLO1729^💬 21:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Just checked, the episode itself is dated 2019 in the credits.  ~ RLO1729^💬 22:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure your date edits are well-intentioned but they're based on incorrect information and also misunderstanding of how TV series Infobox is handled on Wikipedia. IMDB is often incorrect because, like Wikipedia, much of it is user-added and not “official”; any registered user can contribute and IMDB doesn't usually check to see if it's verified — contributions that I've added to IMDB have been accepted immediately. In March 2019, the head of France 2 TV Fiction said publicly that “Un cadavre au petit déjeuner” would be broadcast in France toward the end of 2019, but then the network postponed for a year and nobody bothered to revise it on IMDB — a Google search will indicate that this episode has definitely NOT been released in France yet, other than in an Avant-Premiere at a film festival. (Several episodes of this series have been shown in other countries before France over the years.)

Australia (French with English subtitles) is especially relevant here because this is English-speaking Wikipedia and is available on streaming, although the true initial release was on Italian TV last October —- dubbed in Italian and broadcast only a few times.

It is standard Wikipedia form to use a Start Date followed by -present, -ongoing, or just a plain - for a TV series that has not ended; no date for last episode actually aired. Mirawithani (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. If the last episode is dated 2019 and it was released (anywhere) in 2019, then surely 2019 should be used. Why is released in Italy less important than released in Australia? The infobox item is not titled "First aired in home country" but "Original release", and the last episode of the currently existing series was thus originally released in 2019. Whether or not it was an English-language/subtitled release is irrelevant, especially as we are talking about a French-language serial anyway.

This is really such a minor issue, but I'm suggesting accuracy about the current state of affairs over speculation about the future, and standard Wikipedia form is not always a good guide. The expectation of a third series could be included in the body of the article.  ~ RLO1729^💬 01:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

“Original release” in the Infobox is the date the series started and is followed by “-date” only if the SERIES has ended; it is never intended for the airdate of just the most recent episode.

If you want to change the year of “Cadavre” back to 2019 from 2020 because Italy aired it first, feel free to do so. Problem is finding a reference with the date because networks tend to remove the page shortly after they first broadcast it. It took some contortions to find even one because Googling for Fox Crime + the series or the episode produces only the current schedule. Here it is, but no guarantee it won't expire any minute: ^[1] Mirawithani (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, which I'll add in and hopefully it will be archived somewhere. Re the Infobox, I've revised the Original release info per the template parameter description and hope that resolves this discussion.  ~ RLO1729^💬 02:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary because the entry page is so short anyway, but regardless of whether Collapsible is used, the leads — Duléry and Colucci for S1 and Labarthe, Bellavoir, and Frenck for S2 —should be in the lede or somewhere in the top of the narrative and probably also in the Infobox. Lead actors in a series are always shown prominently. I'd attempt it myself but you'd just have to fix it because, in case you haven't figured this out yet, although I've been on Wiki for years, I'm competent to do only simple edits that don't require understanding the Wiki “system.” Mirawithani (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Done, although the number of brackets in the top section seems a little cluttered, moving back to the French Police ranks would help that too - what do you think? Also, not sure why the existence of an episode means we don't need a citation but happy to go with that edit.  ~ RLO1729^💬 00:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If films and TV shows have already been released, cast members don't get citations in list or Infobox because the work itself is considered the source. Same reason Plot descriptions don't have citations unless an editor includes something parenthetical that isn't in the plot. You can check some random TV shows and films if you're in doubt but I've never seen citations used other than for as yet unreleased projects, e.g., citations would be necessary for the new main cast and guests who have been announced for Season 3 of LPM. Mirawithani (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, that seems to be an approach that has evolved in this area of Wikipedia that relies mainly on the primary source (the film/episode etc itself) and so doesn't meet the usual Wikipedia injunctions that sources should generally be reliable secondary sources. The approach for film and TV seems to be like stating that Mt Everest is a certain height (check it if you like). I'd say the statements below from

WP:PSTS

are relevant and mean we shouldn't be adding original plot descriptions because they are interpretations of primary sources (but summarising existing plot descriptions from a reliable source would be OK):

Wikipedia articles should be based on

reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources

.

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

• Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
• Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
• Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

There is possibly some uncertainty in the above as to whether plot descriptions are "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" or "interpretation", but the dot points above are pretty clear in relation to the whole "Episodes" section of the Les Petits Meurtres article.  ~ RLO1729^💬 23:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, I see

MOS:TVPLOT says "Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given" so it seems we just need to ensure the plot descriptions are only basic.  ~ RLO1729^💬

01:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I take the point. Salmon implies that Elwes had considerable influence over the curation of his collection when it was in the Natural History Museum. I don't necessarily regard Salmon as 100% reliable, and it is frequently unclear what his sources were. Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the issue. It prompted me to provide a little more detail – and a citation, which for some reason I had neglected! Will you be revising the last sentence of that section?  ~ RLO1729^💬 08:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It should be possible to sort out some of the contradictions by checking sources quoted by Salmon: Riley and Stearn. These are traceable publications, but it may be difficult to consult them when most of the libraries which should hold them are locked down!

I will make some enquiries; but this is likely to take a week or more. I guess that for most purposes this is now satisfactory on the Elwes page, in that we are not claiming 100% accuracy, and the reader is alerted to the fact that there may be alternative narratives.

By the way, I like your Joicey page (I think you did indeed originate it?) Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing what you can find, no hurry of course. Glad you liked the Joicey article, I didn't create the page but have enjoyed the journey expanding it from Start to GA; he's a distant relative.  ~ RLO1729^💬 13:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk

Thanks Sainsf.  ~ RLO1729^💬 21:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

On 19 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles Wilkins (writer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charles Wilkins, who wrote prolifically about the history of Wales, was described as "an Englishman with a Welshman's enthusiasm"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Wilkins (writer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Charles Wilkins (writer)), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk

On 21 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Stephens (historian), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that historian Thomas Stephens is considered to have done more to raise the standards of the National Eisteddfod of Wales than any other Welshman of his time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Stephens (historian). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Stephens (historian)), 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) 12:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk

On 26 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article George Insole, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that George Insole pioneered the introduction and early success of South Wales steam coal in the London and international markets? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George Insole. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, George Insole), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

On 27 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James John Joicey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that amateur entomologist James John Joicey had a collection of 1.5 million butterflies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James John Joicey. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, James John Joicey), 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) 12:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the

Hi RLO1729. I see someone has picked up the Christie GAN. Good luck with it. There are some things that need to be addressed before it should pass, which you may want to focus on before the proper review starts. There are way too many unreferenced passages, particularly towards the end ("Archaeology" have numerous uncited parts; "Portrayals" has only five cites). Some of the bullet-pointed lists (which shouldn't be in a prose piece) are only partly sourced. There are several POV claims (her "best-known novels", "Notable television adaptations include" etc - they may be notable to you, but you need a source to identify the "best-known" or "notable" examples) and a couple of the sources (IMDB and YouTube) are unreliable and should be replaced. I hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SchroCat. As I mentioned to Sainsf, the article has been around for a long time and revised by numerous editors, so there are sections my co-Agatha-editor Tbytheriver and I have revised heavily and others for which we are not responsible except for trying to tighten it academically and style-wise, though not always completely successfully. I've tentatively put my hand up to take the resulting article through the GAN process but know there is still room for improvement. I appreciate you casting a fresh pair of eyes over the article and will address the points you raise.  ~ RLO1729^💬 08:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No probs - and kudos for taking on such a big project too. BTW, in terms of the lists within the page, you could follow the example in footnote "n "in this FA, so the paragraph that starts "Notable television adaptations include:" could all be dropped into a footnote at the end of a sentence "There have been numerous adaptations of Christie's work on television(citation)(footnoted list)". This way there is no loss of information for those that want to see the details, and a smoother read for those who are reading for a general overview and don't want the detail. I'll leave it up to you whether to do it or not. It's a personal preference as much as anything, but I find the reading easier and the presentation better with such extraneous details elsewhere. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

PS: Also thanks for raising these issues without blasting them all over the article :).

Here are a few general comments on the points above:

Archaeology: The unsourced paragraphs at the end of the section are basic descriptions of the books mentioned. There are precedents for not needing to cite these basic descriptions as the books themselves are available; for example, see

MOS:TVPLOT

for "basic descriptions" of TV plots using the relevant episode as the source:

"Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given."

Portrayals: The references provided seem to cover the substantive points made, but I will double check. The remaining unsourced paragraphs relate to existing works and could also be considered "self-sourced" basic descriptions.

Bullet points: Thanks for the footnote suggestion which my co-editor and I will certainly consider. You say bullet points "shouldn't be in a prose piece"; is there a MOS reference for not including bullet points in article body text? From what I have read of Wikipedia style guides, they would seem to be a stylistic choice rather than being proscribed – but perhaps that's more what you are saying in your most recent message above?

POV: Agree with removing/citing expressions such as "best-known" throughout the article; will revise (again).

Unreliable sources: will review and revise.

Thanks again.  ~ RLO1729^💬 08:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I think relying on TVPLOT to avoid citations is a slightly slippery slope (particularly as they can be found relatively easily), and if you are claiming there are "influences" (which you are), then they definitely need a source. The other point is that although you've listed, for example, four "archaeological" works and three "portrayals", how do you know that these are the only ones – or even the most notable ones? That's what a citation helps with - it stops the "fact" being challenged later on. The "portrayals" is very much in need of sources: as they are portrayals of Christie, that's not a plot – that's a character. Searches of Google Books and the BFI (and possibly the AFI) should be able to easily provide the answers to these, if the sources you have to hand don't cover them.

We have

MOS:USEPROSE as the main part of the guideline. For the bullet points, if you look through the best examples of the biographies we have on WP, or the most thorough print biographies, you probably won't find bullet points in the prose. I hope these help! Cheers - SchroCat (talk

) 09:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

They do, thanks. :)   ~ RLO1729^💬 09:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

PS: SchroCat, could you let me know of any other POV claims you noticed in the article please? Thanks.  ~ RLO1729^💬 10:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sainsf: We've had another go at the article, hopefully addressing most of the points raised here. Your GAN comments on the current version would be very welcome when convenient. Thanks.  ~ RLO1729^💬 05:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Awesome. I will take some time to read through it, busy writing a few articles at the moment. Cheers, Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 05:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

On 1 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Harvey Insole, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the modern legacy of South Wales colliery proprietor James Harvey Insole is his Victorian mansion Insole Court at Llandaff, Wales? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Harvey Insole. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, James Harvey Insole), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk

The article Frederick Vincent Theobald you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Frederick Vincent Theobald 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

On 11 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Frederick Vincent Theobald, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that entomologist Frederick Vincent Theobald wrote a five-volume monograph and sixty scientific papers on mosquitoes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frederick Vincent Theobald. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Frederick Vincent Theobald), 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.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 12:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious

good biographies

Thank you for quality biographies, expanded and created, such as Frederick Vincent Theobald, Agatha Christie, James John Joicey, Charles Wilkins (writer) and James Harvey Insole, for an amazing record of turning them to good articles, - guitar-playing mathematician, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no.

Many thanks Gerda Arendt! I am sincerely grateful for this award and for your thoughtfulness in presenting it.  ~ RLO1729^💬 22:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful way to react, - I'd normally just click thank you, but that doesn't work on this page, did you know? - I guess it is because of your lovely image on top, or do you intentionally suppress it somehow? - I hope you don't mind that the award comes from the "

cabal of the outcast" of which you are a member by what you do ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 07:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, not sure why "Thank" isn't working for you, it's not intentional. When I look at the Talk page "View history" I can see "thank" options next to other editors' names.  ~ RLO1729^💬 07:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm lazy. (See first thread on my talk: I am the master of the lazy thank-you clicks.) - You are right, when I go to the talk history, I have the thank option, but I tried right in the diff to which I was pinged, where I saw no options. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Compare this similar ping diff. - Nothing important though. Could you perhaps look at Monteverdi's vespers, post peer review? Composer's birthday coming up, and I want it in good shape. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look. I'll just jump in and make changes directly, if that's OK, and perhaps add other suggestions to the talk page if necessary. Please view any edits as friendly suggestions and feel free to revert (and/or discuss if you'd like) any as you see fit, especially if I've misunderstood something along the way. :)  ~ RLO1729^💬 09:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that's great! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you please do as you proposed, make changes in the article, and note other things (such as "when") on the talk? Because I may not have time to address them all in the remaining few days. The background section tries to supply the context, and I'm not sure how many years are needed, or may bore those who know. "emerging" opera, the first one, - all these things have articles for those who really don't know. Someone interested in the Vespers, however, might not even want the repetition of historic dates. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, tags removed. :)  ~ RLO1729^💬 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk