User talk:Richerman/Archive 3

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for helping to raise Ely, Cambridgeshire to GA status -- Senra (Talk) 01:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice article

Hi Richerman, Just read and enjoyed Richard Buxton which popped up in Prestwich. Happy New Year.J3Mrs (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

PS He's in the ODNB and there are a few more details. I got to it with my Manchester 24 hour library card.J3Mrs (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I put it up for DYK and the reviewer pointed out that it was an orphaned article so I added it to the Prestwich and Ancoats articles. I had an idea I'd seen the ODNB article and it was just a rehash of his own autobiography in his book but perhaps I was wrong. I did have a library card but put it away "safely" along with the pin number. I think I'll have to get another one :). Please add anything that you think is relevant. Richerman (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never understood why orphaned articles are a problem, and if I ruled the world I'd delete that daft tag.

Fatuorum

21:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it just means that they're not likely to be found by easily. It wasn't tagged - just a comment, but it did prompt me to link it from some other articles. Richerman (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, are you doing an article for John Horsefield also? If not then I may have a go. I'll also do some other digging (there may be a pun there, of sorts!) as I am pretty sure that around the time of these two men the Prestwich Botanists were meeting at the Railway & Naturalist, a pub that still exists in Prestwich. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

NB: present Railway & Nat is not the original building ... but I know a man who has a large collection of old postcards relating to the area. I am also pretty sure that Horsefield & Buxton both are buried in marked graves not too far away, as are two other "notables" on whose articles I have worked in the last year. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Buxton is buried at St. Mary's church - I'll add that in when I remember where I saw it. I did think about maybe writing something on Horsefield but I've not found much yet - if you want to do it don't let me stop you :) I knew about the Railway and Nats but I've not really found anything verifiable yet. Who are the other 'notables' you're talking about? Richerman (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Horsefield created (is that the word?) a daffodil, which is named after him. The other notables have escaped my memory, but their names will surface now that I am thinking about it. I am pretty sure that both were engineers because that was the area in which I was contributing at the time. I couldn't get to the churchyard then due to suffering the effects of one of my frequent accidents, and if it wasn't my dog who ate my "homework" then something similar to that happened vis-a-vis my notes. OTOH, I do recall seeing Buxton's grave a few years back and it does mention the botanical connection - photograph time, if I had a decent camera. This is a good time of year for photos in overgrown cemeteries, although I suppose headstones are primary sources. - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll get down there with my camera this week - can you remember where the grave is located? BTW it say here 'Famous Burials include...Charles Swain - Poet, Sir William Fairbairn - Engineer, James Lamb - cabinet maker, John Brooks - member of the Anti-Corn League, Richard Buxton (one of the Manchester Botanists) and William Sturgeon - inventor of the Electro Magnet'. Richerman (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Fairbairn (who had bust ups with the family behind W & J Galloway & Sons) and Sturgeon are the ones of whom I was thinking, but there is another drifting through the mental mist & who is not on that list - give me some time. It is a few years since I ventured in the place - broken hip etc - but if you fancy a plod around it & want some company then I'll join you & it might jog my memory. - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a kind offer but I'll probably have to do a quick raid in between work shifts. If I can't find it I may take you up on that though. Richerman (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a sprawling place and up/down hill. It is also likely to be pretty wet! I'll try to get there in the next couple of days & see whether I can pinpoint the necessaries again, then give you some details so that you are not rooting around in your limited time. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, but please don't risk any broken bones on my behalf :) Richerman (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The hip is a Meccano set now and will not budge. It is probably stronger than my unbroken one! OTOH, slicing off some of my toe with an angle grinder last year didn't exactly help matters <g> I'll be fine. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that there's a good account of Horsefield's life in the James Cash book - but then you obviously knew that having already made such a rash promise. Pity there's a chunk of it missing from google books - looks like a trip to the library for you :) Buxton should be on DYK fairly soon - all part of my drive to shine a light on our forgotten heroes of science.Richerman (talk)

I shall have to get you both library cards, Horsefield is there in the ODNB too. Do you have email, I could send it to you?J3Mrs (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have ODNB access via my nephew's university. Shhh. I'll take a look at Horsefield in the next day or two: I am amidst my usual skirmishes relating to Indian caste articles + need to polish Papadu, but I've already done some background reading on the daffodil man. I must have passed the site of his house daily, pretty much for the last 50 years! - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You can get it free from the Manchester 24 Hour Library website, it's free and very easy. I applied online as I don't live in the area.J3Mrs (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

At your urging I did renew my Manchester library access (honest Mum!) and there is an autobiography of Horsefield in the newspaper archives. However, I can't access the ODNB until I call into a Manchester library branch to confirm my address. You can contact me by email via the 'email this user' facility - the entry for Buxton would be nice...... Richerman (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, scrub that, it works now. It must take a few days before access is allowed. Richerman (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Just sent it but no problem. Mum indeed, i take it you're under 30.J3Mrs (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Er, 'fraid not - I'm a grandparent too. In fact I'm about the same age as Malleus - sorry ;-) Richerman (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Pensionapedia then. :-)J3Mrs (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't get the state pension yet (hence still working) but I do get a works pension and I am eligible for a bus pass. Richerman (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oldipedia it is then. :-) J3Mrs (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Now there's a thought - no popular culture less han 40 years old, no articles on computer games, crappy films or TV programmes, no 'text speak' allowed - bliss! Richerman (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice thought, we can dream. J3Mrs (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't live with that - it would mean that my beloved Buzzcocks etc would be gone :( Now if you want to shift that timescale to around when Wham! and other bilge hit the big time then I would have no objections :) Will it ever stop raining here? I'll get down to the cemetery when it does. - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well punk's not really my thing but I suppose we could let them in - does this sound like room 101? Richerman (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd far rather allow punk in than any of those bloody boy bands. Girl bands are of course a fish of an entirely colour; I'm told that some of them can even sing, although I can't say I've ever noticed.

Fatuorum

00:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Buxton (botanist)

nominate

) 00:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Richard Buxton

Hi Richerman,

Great job on the Richard Buxton article! In the future, article titles should only be disambiguated with existing articles, not potential articles, per Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines. I have retargeted the Sir Richard Buxton links.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

John Horsefield. I'll do some more work on it tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice article- I presume you must have been quietly working on it in your sandbox. Are you going to put it up for DYK? Hopefully it will do better than Richard Buxton - that only got 45 hits when it appeared there. I've usually had over 1,000 with my other articles - I don't know if it was because the hook wasn't too interesting or just the timing of when it appeared on the main page. You may have noticed I've put my name down for the wiki meetup. If I do go I'll be expecting you to keep me awake until I get off the bus or tram in Prestwich. Last time I had a few pints in Manchester I woke up on the bus in Pilsworth and had to get the bus back from Bury. :) Richerman (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I drummed it up "live" after a couple of days thinking about it. I've never had much to do with DYK, despite having some credits to my name. If you can see a hook then feel free.

Regarding the wikimeet, yes, I had noticed your interest and, yes, I am sure that we can provide ourselves with mutual support on the return journey. Back in the pre-bomb days, when Willoughby's still had their shop, I knew someone who worked there & wangled free tickets to a single malt tasting at Old Trafford (cricket). Fortunately for me, Old Trafford (football) were playing that night and thus I was unable to fall down on the return tram journey even if I had tried. Tram is the way in this instance: the stop is about 100 yards from the Waterhouse.

BTW, among my numerous failings is a complete inability to write decent leads. Malleus is one of several who have stepped into that gap in the past. If you have an aptitude then it would be appreciated, but maybe give it another day or so until I have tarted up the article body. And another: I have the feeling that there are enough sources knocking around for an article about the Prestwich Botanical Society & also a category for Manchester botanists. I am about to request something at

WP:RX which seems likely to go some way towards bolstering the notability. What do you think? Bloody hell, I am surely among the worst gardeners ever and I am getting involved in this stuff? I must be mad. - Sitush (talk

) 00:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, Manchester Botanists, Northern Astronomers - these people do deserve to be remembered for the contributions they made. Actually, I have plans to write something for the Transit of Venus due this year. As it only happens twice every 120 years or so I'd like to get something on the front page about it. They're a bit like buses - you wait 120 years and then two come at once. And there was a local lad involved with the first observation. Richerman (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Mike Peel, a researcher at Jodrell Bank, may have good info on that one. He'll be at the wikimeet. I've just found this about Richard Buxton, if you want to peruse. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've seen that before but I think it's mostly taken from Buxton's own book. Richerman (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Bugger! But you are correct, of course. Now, bearing in mind your interest in the Transit, are you familiar with astronomical equipment? I started Thomas Thorp during the blackout & I have quite a lot more to add. But the astronomical side of things is causing me some concern. At the most basic level because I cannot resolve a lot of the redlinks. I did think about posting something at the WP astronomy project, if only to check that I have got things right, but I am trying to find a balance between the layman and the astronomical anorak (apologies!), and I do not think that I am managing that task particularly well. - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Nob End, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lister (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Your friendly meetup reminder service

The Manchester meetup is this coming Saturday (a fact to which your watchlist should alert you now I've finally remembered to put the notice up!). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, goody. I'll be ready for a decent pint by then. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. How will I know who the people are? Will everyone be wearing a red carnation? Richerman (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Strangely enough I asked Sitush the very same question, although I did add the option of carrying a rolled-up copy of The Times, and he very kindly emailed me his mobile number.

Fatuorum

22:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll just walk in and watch out for the guy with the constantly ringing mobile :) Richerman (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Make sure you get a pint first. I'll be the one at the bar shouting "Oi! I was here first!"

Fatuorum

22:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're there first it's your round! Richerman (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It was more of a threat really. ;-) It'll be nice meet you in the flesh on Saturday, and of course the others as well.

Fatuorum

23:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I read a quote once when one of the young sci fi writers (can't remember who) finally got to meet his hero Isaac Asimov and was so disappointed he stuttered something like 'but you're.....nothing!' Hopefully, none of us will be too shocked by the reality. Richerman (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you will be shocked, I assure you. Some of us are almost normal. I don't necessarily include myself among that number. I'll mail you my mobile number, Richerman. Just stand by the main entrance and let it ring a few times - can't hear on the phone but I'll find you. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Good man! - or maybe you're a woman - who knows? Richerman (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it may be a surprise to those such as you and I who haven't met up with anyone on Wikipedia. I remember the late-lamented Jza84 being most surprised to learn that that I wasn't a hot-headed teenager, more of a Ben Elton/Victor Meldrew cocktail.

Fatuorum

00:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

All will be revealed. Although I do not think that The Waterhouse has gone into competition with Spearmint Rhino etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not like the old Mr Smith's just round the corner from there then? Pie and peas and three strippers for a pound - those were the days. Richerman (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't be with you. I just needed a couple of extra days warning... still, next time perhaps, add me to the list --ClemRutter (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember where I heard about it now - probably on Malleus's talk page. The link to it is here Richerman (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Transit of Venus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Gregory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Beatles infobox

There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. When you recently edited Ordsall, Greater Manchester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hermitage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Transit of Venus

Yeah, I'll definitely take a looksee at both. I'm so very excited for the transit, and hoping to death there aren't clouds. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I've expanded the lead now and I'm off to bed as it's 2.25 am here. Richerman (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure Malleus will catch the prose issues. One thing - I just read an article in the latest Sky and Telescope (or possibly Astronomy, can't remember) that had a pretty extensive discussion of the transit, would you like me to email you a copy? I'll post other comments on the sandbox talk page. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be good, thanks. I must say there was no shortage of sources for this one though - more a case of what not to put in :-) Richerman (talk)

I understand completely...better than having a shortage. The science stuff looks fine to my amateur astronomer eyes. The Wikipedian in me is wondering about that giant block quote, but the astronomer in me thinks it's really cool. I'd wait for Malleus to weigh in on that too - he just did a wonderful peer review for Andromeda (constellation) so perhaps he has astronomy on the brain! :) I'm emailing the document to you now; I hope it works! Let me know if it doesn't. All the best. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree but wen I found it I thought it was just too good to miss. It was even longer but I split it up a little. I know Malleus doesn't like plagiarism but I think it may just be out of copyright. Richerman (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

We'll see what he says, I suppose. Good luck! I'm glad there'll be a good article on the transit now. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 13:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have left some suggestions for you at User talk:Richerman/sandbox2. Dolphin (t) 12:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied there. Richerman (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of a bit of copyediting while I read it, fascinating stuff these Lancastrians got up to. If it's not ok please just change it back. J3Mrs (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Transit of Venus

Hey Richerman, I hope you don't mind my presumption in butting in on User:Richerman/sandbox2; I followed the link on MF's talk page which I was reading cause I had nothing worse to do. Excellent article, by the way. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I presume Chetham's College is related to Chetham's Library? A forerunner/alternate name of Manchester Grammar School I didn't wl it since I didn't find the precise terms in the history sections in those articles. The first paragraph of "Observation of the transit" is fascinating. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I only just saw that this is related to the thread above. My apologies. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem - it's open to editing by anyone (that goes for J3Mrs too). More eyes can only help as far as I'm concerned. I knew once it went on Malleus's talk page it would attract some quality editors. The souece said "probably a school attached to the Collegiate Church" so I'm assuming that's Chetham's but not absolutely certain. Richerman (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's

Chethams School of Music :-) J3Mrs (talk

) 18:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

"The newly founded Royal Society assumed responsibility for publication of most of the remainder of his work as 'Opera posthuma' ...". The remainder of whose work? Horrocks or Hevelius?

Commemorations

"During the 19th century there was a revival of interest in Horrocks' and Crabtree's achievement. Rev A. B. Whatton, who translated Venus in sole visa from Latin, assumed that Horrocks comment ...". You need to decide on what form of the possessive you prefer and stick with it; elsewhere in the article we have "Horrocks's".

Observation of the transit

And now for the $64,000 question. I think that blockquote is way too big. I'd suggest moving it to Wikisource, providing an external link to it there, and including a drastically cut-down version in this article.

Fatuorum

17:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

1/ Horrocks
2/ Yep, I thought I may have done that somewhere but in the end I think Horrocks sounds better. Is it just Horrocks with no apostrophe? I never could repeat "Rattle your bottle in Horrocks's yard" too many times without getting it wrong.
It should be "Horrocks'", but I think you've fixed them all now.
Fatuorum
18:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
3/ I thought you'd say that and I thought abought the wikisource option while I was working this afternoon. Can I do a direct link to it or is it just the usual "wikisource has media related to this article" option? Richerman (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops sorry - you already said an external link - doh! Richerman (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree re:quote. But Richerman, I think you should write less esoteric articles; there is no mention of Twitter, not even a nod to the Simpsons, and there is no "controversy" or "in popular culture". You're not doing the Foundation any favo(u)rs, you know. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, if Stephen Hawking can get in the Simpsons why not Horrocks? - I'll drop a not to Matt Groening. On the plus side - I don't think anyone can add an "In popular culture" section :-) Richerman (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Horrocks & Crabtree have articles in the ODNB.J3Mrs (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I'm not terribly happy about using Encyclopedia.com as a source, or indeed any general encyclopedia. Much better to use Crabtree's and Horrocks' ODNB articles.

Fatuorum

19:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, when I was using that one I thought of one of your edit summaries that said they'd used "Encyclopaedia fucking Britannica" - I'll look fo an alternative source. Now, does anyone have experience of uploading text to wikisource? I don't think I have the energy to plough through all those instructions. Richerman (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I can sometimes have a rather colourful turn of phrase, but it stuck in your mind, so it obviously worked in that case. ;-)

Fatuorum

19:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Too fuckin' right it did. Richerman (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping to find some non-sciency stuff, but unfortunately Russell Fraser, in "Science and Poetry" (The Kenyon Review (1968) 30.3: 384-399) has little to offer on the topic of Horrocks. "Transit of Venus" + Horrocks did produce some interesting JSTOR results (I downloaded a half dozen of them) which I will be glad to email to you if you're interested--including W.F. Bushell, "The Keats of English Astronomy" (The Mathematical Gazette (1959) 43.343: 1-16). Drmies (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes please, there's some serious work to be done yet on the Jeremiah Horrocks article. Do you have any experience with uploading to wikisource? Richerman (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No I don't, sorry. Send me an email so I have yours, and I'll send you the files. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, done that Richerman (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a fudge, but if wikisource is likely to cause problems then I am sure that I have seen people upload PDFs to Commons. As long as you fill in the usual blanks there re: origins/copyright etc. I don't mind taking a look at the wikisource system but I've never uploaded there before. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've saved the text as a word document so it shouldn't be too hard to turn it into a pdf - you can also upload those to wikisource. If you could have a quick look I'd be grateful - it's just one job too many for me at the moment. Richerman (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking at WS and, geez, it seems to be a nightmare. I am a newbie, all over again. It is difficult for me to determine whether the folks over there are really interested in snippets such as this blockquote, ie: if there are no plans to transcribe the lot, then it may not survive for long. I could be wrong, and often am! However, their Help page says right at the top that "All images, PDFs and other files should be uploaded to Wiki commons." Converting to Word to PDF is a piece of the proverbial; it is even easier if you use OpenOffice (or LibreOffice, blah blah). Just mail me the Word doc if you want, and I'll convert. I must say that although I have not checked the sandbox history, the quote does not seem quite as long as it did 7 or 8 hours ago; it is, however, still quite bulky. - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I know, I'm pruning it slowly (and with some reluctance) and I've found another really nice one in some stuff that drmies kindly sent me which I've stored at the bottom. Perhaps that one can go in the Jeremiah Horrocks article. I do have open office so I'll use that for the conversion and upload it to commons. And a newbie is exactly how I felt on wikisource. Richerman (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

For better or worse the article has now gone live as

Transit of Venus, 1639. Thanks to all of you for your help. Next stop DYK. Richerman (talk)

01:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a damn sight better than 99.999% of DYKs, so I'm sure you'll have no problems with that.

Fatuorum

01:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

All part of my drive to turn DYK into something interesting and relevant instead of the pile of crap it is now. Richerman (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

HM the Queen

The article is "owned" by two people who cannot see the forest for the trees. I entered into very lengthy discussion, making points about the "balance" of the intro, over and over again, suggesting different angles. I did not insist on my own wording but simply requested a broader view of the Queen's reign that did not hone in, within the main biographical paragraph, so minutely on the Diana affair that even the fact that the Queen stayed inside the palace for a few days got priority over matters of real significance in her reign such Falklands War and Visit to the Pope.

Iraq was just slightly more significant long term, than the fact that the dining hall at Windsor Castle was burnt out . The Blowing up of Uncle Dickie by the IRA was a little more significant than the fact that Andrew's wife split.

The upshot is that the banqueting hall is fully restored, and back in business, but Iraq is still with us. Andrew's wife still resides under the same roof, but the Reunification of Ireland, which Lord Mountbatten supported, (unbeknowns to the IRA) hasn't happened yet! So what do we get in the intro? Fire at the castle, and Andrew's divorce!

The introduction of the article is a serious embarrassment, and other people need to be sufficiently aware to see that! The point is, it is the biography of a living person. Amandajm (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That may be so, but a diatribe peppered with bolding and capitals and ending with "and I want it changed TOMORROW" on the day it appears on the front page won't achieve anything other than making you look like a petulant child. You should delete all that and replace it with a reasoned statement about your concerns. Richerman (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I can read what the article "goes on to say". but the fact of the Queen staying indoors for several days after her daughter-in-law died was not a major event in her life.

What the Intro requires is an encompassing statement that the Queen's reign has seen periods where her popularity has waned, including (an example e.g. the period around the death of Princess Diana). This is a general statement. There have been other periods in her reign when popularity has waned. Details such as "she was criticised for remaining blah blah" belong in the section dealing with Di's death, not in the intro. It is true that she was criticised at that time. But it is far from a notable event.

There needs to be (I have already recommended) a paragraph in the intro dealing with successes and another dealing with challenges. Some of the challenges of the "annus horribilis" were notable events. THe year wasn't a notable event of itself. Fire at Windsor needs to be in the body, not the Intro.

"Challenges" have included:

the divorce of the Prince of Wales, heir to the throne. (the other divorces don't belong in the second paragraph.)
the wars- ireland, Korea, Falkland Islands, Iraq1, Iraq II, Afghanistan
death of Mountbatten
death of Diana
death of her mother and sister within the same year.

"Successes" have included

many successful tours
many state visits
Ist reigning British monarch to visit the Pope. This is an extraordinarily significant event. Remember Henry VIII?
Ist reigning British monarch to speak at US Congress. This is an extraordinarily significant event. Our bright boys counter it with arguments like "not the first head of state", and "Churchill also spoke at Congress" Neither of these points take away from the fact that the US, having, 200 years previously, rejected the monarch and all it stood for, invited the Queen to speak.
Ist visit of a reigning monarch to Ireland for a long time. I don't know how long!

The arguments put forward by the two main editors have sought to counter my case for each of these remarkable events. That's OK! I suggested they came up with a different list of notable events or achievements. I was told that it was "subjective".

So, the Queen staying indoors for a few days after Diana died is major biographical event for the introduction, and the fact that the Queen, as head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith, went to visit the pope, is not!

I am not suggesting for a moment that the ongoing criticism and the republican movement don't have a place in the article. The fact that there has been criticism is Intro stuff. The minor detail that the tabloids pumped up, to sensationalise the Queen's negligence in not comforting her poor subjects and their teddy ears outside the palace, doesn't need to be in the introduction. It is tabloid stuff, not major event. The inclusion of such a detail, and the expansion of sacred Diana into three separate mentions in the intro is inappropriate. The statement that over the years there has been ongoing criticism of the monarchy needs to be made.

The intro is seriously unbalanced.

Amandajm (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"Tomorrow" is a day of major events. Its probably the biggest day of the whole Jubilee celebration. Wiki front page or not, it is going to be a day when many people find the article on Google. And the few days following. That is why I feel a sense of urgency about it. Amandajm (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

TOV blurb

I know you're busy, and I'm sorry I have to disappear, but please have a look at Talk:Transit of Venus#Almost four which concerns a small change to the blurb which will appear on the main page in 12 hours. I can live with the change, but as I noted at the article talk, I think it should be improved since "3 1/2" is clumsy and is an unnecessary precision for the point being made. No need to reply, I just wanted to be sure you noticed the change before it goes live. Johnuniq (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	rare astronomical event
	Thank you for building bridges to the transit of Venus as a rare event, looking at the broader perspective of other occurrences in history, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well thank you - you're welcome. I just hope it helps to get those brilliant Lancashire astronomers a bit more recognition. Richerman (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Transit of Venus, 1639

DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Transits of Venus

I noticed some of the editing activity recently related to Transit of Venus, including the request you made for that article to run again, and the new article on the 1639 transit. I've read a bit about this topic in the past, and I was wondering if you had plans to do articles on the 1761, 1769, 1874 and 1882 transits? Some of those would have enough for articles, the 1874 one in particular saw several expeditions planned and carried out, some not mentioned in the main article. I was thinking of drafting or starting one or other of those articles, but don't want to step on any toes if you have plans to do this. Also, it may be too late now (with only 17 days left), but one idea might have been to get one of the specific transit year articles through FAC and featured on 6 June, rather than the previously featured article. Not sure if Raul will agree to your request, but if he does, I think it will be only the second time this has happened (I think a US president got a second appearance in an election-day double feature). Carcharoth (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's only the second time a transit will happen in our lifetimes so why not a second appearance of the article? :-) I hadn't any firm plans to do any more articles but I had begun to think it wouldn't be a bad idea - if you want to do something go right ahead. It's asking a lot to get one to FA before then but anything's possible I suppose. If you start anything just let me know and I'll see what I can add. Keilana would probably chip in as well, although the people who watch the main TOV article seem to be strangely reticent about getting off their arses to do anything. I never get any replies to posts on the talk page. The 1369 article is now queued to be on DYK on the 5th of June and it wouldn't be too difficult to get some more articles done and lined up for the 5th or 6th. That would probably be another first - to have a few DYK's on the same subject on one day. I had struck me that I should contribute something to "in the news" to run for a few days before and up to the 5th and 6th and that would obviously include a link to the main TOV article. I was thinking of something along the lines of "Astronomers around the world gather to observe one of the rarest of celestial events..." What do you think? Richerman (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Having DYKs on the same subject on the same day is not that uncommon, though maybe you mean specific and narrow topics, rather than themes? There were several Titanic-themed DYKs over the weekend of 14/15 April this year. Something for ITN would be good. You would need to nominate at least a week beforehand, in case the discussion gets dragged out, and it would help if the 2012 transit article was in good shape at the time of the nomination. I also noticed that

1769 Transit of Venus observed from Tahiti. One of the things I read about, while reading up on some of this a year or so ago, was the story of Jean-Baptiste Chappe d'Auteroche. He is mentioned in the main ToV (in the table of past transits), though not linked. It's this sort of extra material that makes me think dedicated articles for each transit are possible. I may not have time, but if I do make a start on something, I'll pop a note here. Carcharoth (talk

) 01:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd pitch in on a collab, just let me know which article needs help and I'll do what I can. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Predictably I failed to get anything done in time, but I'm glad to see that at least two other historical articles got done: 1874 Transit of Venus Expedition to Campbell Island and 1874 Transit of Venus Expedition to Hawaii. There were many more expeditions of course (the main transit article mentions a fair number). What I'm wondering is whether a complete list of expeditions and notable observations is possible for each transit before the 2004 one (were there specially planned expeditions in 2004 and 2012?), and at what level there is enough material for an article on such expeditions? It also does seem slightly silly to now have two articles on expeditions for the 1874 transit, but no article giving an overview of the 1874 transit. I may do something about that, as a reaction to my recent tendency to fuss over articles until they are 'ready' for mainspace. Links for those two 1874 expeditions also need working into the main transit article, which I've now done.

Would (either of) you also be able to check the last two bullet points in the 2004 and 2012 section (which I've just read)? They seem to be talking about the same thing: (i) "Spectrographic data taken of the well-known atmosphere of Venus will be compared to studies of exoplanets whose atmospheres are thus far unknown." and (ii) "The Hubble Space Telescope used the Moon as a mirror to study the light that bounces off Venus to determine the makeup of its atmosphere. This will be a technique that astronomers could also use to study exoplanets." I thought it was the light bouncing off the Moon, not off Venus, that was being studied? Light bouncing off Venus to the Moon and then to Hubble makes no sense. Hubble was pointed at the Moon (as pointing at the Sun would damage Hubble) and the light from the Sun, passing through Venus's atmosphere, bouncing off the Moon, and to Hubble, is what was studied. Which is the same as the point made in (i), unless other telescopes were also used as well as Hubble. Carcharoth (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) OK. I created

Transit of Venus, 1874. Hopefully you and/or Keilana (or anyone else who finds the article) can help improve that. There will be lots more, including various external links, but that's all I have time for right now. I will add references later today if no-one else has done so (it will likely get tagged for that anyway at some point). Carcharoth (talk

) 08:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look later. The stuff about using the Moon as a mirror was more or less taken directly from the source material. I think what it means is that the light from the Sun passing through Venus's atmosphere is sampled after being reflected off the Moon - but the news reporter is probably a bit confused. I'll check that and then see if I can sort out the wording. Richerman (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

From Venus

	The Venus Barnstar
	Thanks for your work on the articles about the Transit of Venus—that work puts the encyclopedia in great shape for 2117! The historic second TFA was also a great result. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Aw, shucks! and you made me a barnstar all of my own. Thank you kindly sir. Richerman (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Turing is certainly in the news today! Woz2 (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well thank you. 250,000 hits (so far) for a 8 words on the main page was better than I thought. Richerman (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I think a lot of those hits might have come from Google: they have a elaborate Turing machine interactive Google Doodle running today. The link takes you to a Google search results page where the article is ranked #2. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I'd seen the doodle as it's mentioned in the article but hadn't noticed where the link went. A bit odd they don't tell you what you're supposed to do with the doodle - perhaps they're hoping to uncover some more potential Turings with it :) Richerman (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

And why is this no surprise to me? Two things stand out: the first is the obvious academic "cashing in" that has become so prevalent in recent years; the second is that this is yet another example of BBC News reporting stuff before it happens, which can only be done if they bow to the PR/spin people etc. Sure, it is not political spinning but it still rankles with me and regardless of the veracity of the man's theory, I despair. I guess that I must now be officially old and reactionary, although I do not live in the stereotypical Tunbridge Wells. Good result with the mere 8 words, though - well done. And, no, I do not regard an online encyclopedia as something that is "cashing in": the info was already there and has merely been highlighted. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Not until they start paying us anyway :-) Richerman (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Horsefield

I've been fiddling around with the John Horsefield article. Do you think it is worth me nominating it as a GA ? Aside from the recent listing of his tomb, there appears to be little more that can be said using sources that are easily accessible. At some point I will make a trip to Central Library but I doubt very much that there will be anything significant to add. - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't have thought you'd have any problems. I'll try and get to St Mary's this week and photograph his and Buxton's tombs. I'm thinking of going for FA sometime with the

Transit of Venus, 1639 article but I'll need to sort out the references properly first. Richerman (talk)

11:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a very interesting article Sitush, I hope you doon't mind me removing a few alsos. It's worth a try at GA. Good luck :-) J3Mrs (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Not onlys, but alsos!

Yes, some of the prose is suspect. I am not the best of writers but will be giving it a once-over later today. Thanks for the tweaks and, of course, feel free to do more of the same. The lead is also suspect: I am particularly useless at doing those things but will give it my best shot. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just off out but, in the absence of

the Maestro, I'll have a look later too. Richerman (talk)

14:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I could text the Maestro but fear for accidentally calling him Austin. He is missed. J3Mrs has twiddled further and I've tidied up some citations (very poor initial form on my part, sorry). I have - yet again - become distracted and have begun Leopold Hartley Grindon which for some obscure reason attracted an "unsourced" template despite having sources! Anyway, to continue the aside, are we getting to the point where we could use a Category:Botanists from Manchester? There are loads of them and these artisan botanists etc are quite clearly referred to in reliable sources, which means that the potential for expansion is considerable. I can't handle astronomy stuff, although I thought your Transit work was fantastic, but for some obscure reason I probably can handle the botany line. This is despite being a well-known destroyer of plantlife, from buttercups to 90' trees ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure Austin is not too far away and will read this before too long - you never know, he may take pity on his struggling proteges. I've been down to St. Mary's now and taken a photo of the gravestone. Unfortunately with it being a table grave I can't get it all in on one photo as, being somewhat vertically challenged, I can't get the camera high enough. The only way to do that would be to construct a frame over it to hold the camera or stitch together three seperate photos. Interestingly, the next grave to Horsefield's is for another botanist from Rochdale called James Percival. I'm not sure about botanists from Manchester but there are a lot from Greater Manchester, so Lancashire botanists would certainly be a goer. Actually after reading Ann Secord's Science in the pub that you've used I'm thinking that there should be an general article on the artisan botanists as well. Getting back to the Horsefield article, perhaps some of the stuff from the death section could now be moved to the image page. I'm glad you liked the transit stuff, I think that as a ~~numpty~~ layman, I can write better articles than a lot of experts as, if I can understand them anyone can. And, if I get anything really wrong, some smartarse will come along and correct it within minutes. Richerman (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the photo: the article needed a visual something down below. I could move the Swain poem to the image page, although that might lose the link to Charles Swain (poet). I have never used image pages as repositories for anything but images, so this is a new concept for me. I am aware of Percival, although I did not realise that he was Horsefield's neighbour or indeed anywhere in that churchyard. I'll have a think about the category issue, and I agree re: a general article concerning artisan botanists/popular science. Secord appears to have found herself something of a niche in that sphere, but there are some other sources. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You could move the English Heritage description there. If you wanted to put the poem there you could leave a mention in the article with the Swain link. To read the inscription in the image you'd need to click on it anyway so anyone interested would would get to see the full text in the image description. Luckily when I got to St Mary's there was a volunteer working in the churchyard who had an annotated plan of the graves. I found Buxton's too just nearby. I took some pictures but his is pretty overgrown and could do with a cleanup to get a better photo. Richerman (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you boys don't need my help, but if you get stuck email me; I don't often check my (much reduced) watchlist these days. I'll always have a soft spot for the GM project and what we achieved, but I'm completely out of love with Wikipedia I'm afraid.

Fatuorum

12:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course we need you Obi wan, but until you feel able to come amongst us again we'll fight the dark side using what you've taught us :) Richerman (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I wish I'd been a better pupil, but I'm trying, or as my family would put it, very trying.J3Mrs (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

While carrying out a search of "James Percival Botanist" in the Guardian and Observer archives on the Manchester 24 hour library page I came across a couple of factoids about Horsefield. In the first article that comes up called "Another old Lancashire botanist" it says he had a son called William who was a botanist and lancashire dialect poet. In one of the other articles called 'Manchester Botanists Association' it says William (who'd just died in 1883) was a 'letter carrier' in Whitefield, which I presume means he was a postman. Richerman (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, William was Whitefield's first postman, according to information that I cannot possibly use in a Wikipedia article! - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"J3Mrs has twiddled further", you guys are so complimentary.J3Mrs (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you worrying abou primary sources again? You can use them as long as you don't draw any conclusions from them. I've also looked at the gravestone pictures I took earlier and he had a son called James who married a lady named Alice. It's a shame William isn't mentioned on the gravestone but it looks as if they ran out of room. Richerman (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have the entire family tree, courtesy of Prestwich & Whitefield Heritage Society but unpublished. That comes from their research of the parish registers, and its shows 11 children. Two of those died within weeks of each other in 1849, which was a cholera epidemic year (but that definitely would be drawing conclusions!) I also have census stuff, courtesy of Ancestry.com. William gets a brief mention in the article because he was also a president of he Prestwich Bots. - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be published. In an academic context you'd refer to a "personal communication" from the society or one of its members. That Randy from Boise won't be able to find the same information on Google is his problem, not yours.

Fatuorum

00:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And all the information in the family tree has been published in the parish registers or the census anyway. Richerman (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added it now but will not be surprised if it causes a discussion at GA. I found this to be fascinatingly gory but we cannot be sure that it refers to the same man. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Malleus has been involved with FA assessments for ages and knows what you can and can't include in them so it shouldn't be a problem. As for the stuff about the strangulated hernia - what are the chances of another John Horsefield having died in Whitefield on the same day? I would say that he probably died of that and add a note of explanation. Richerman (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Passed the GAN]. Thanks to all of your for your guidance and your edits etc. It is much appreciated and, as I say in the wrap up, these stories need to be told. - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! I didn't think you'd have any problems with it. I did think I'd put Buxton up for GA as I don't think there's much more information to be found about him. Perhaps if I do it now the same guy will do the review. Richerman (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My congratulations too, it's a very interesting topic and exactly what this encyclopedia needs. Go for it Richerman.J3Mrs (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you notice that the ~~Austin~~ Maestro passed by and deployed a little Turtle Wax? Buxton? Yes, I was surprised to see that you had not nominated it. I've just rushed through Peter Dorschel in order to shut up a neighbour who wanted more info, and will now return to the Leopold Hartley Grindon stub. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am quite non-plussed by this "polishing" malarky. It seems that in some quarters it's more important than content. I hate it when somebody comes along and let's me know how inadeqate my edits are after all this time thinking I'd got it. J3Mrs (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not so fussed because I know that I am not a great writer, and I am an admirer of great writing. Although I have queried this edit, which seems to be one person imposing their preferred style despite

WP:NAMEDREFS saying that it is optional. Hopefully, they will explain. - Sitush (talk

) 09:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a great writer either but the edit you point out is the sort of nit-picking I can't abide. I doubt anybody could explain in terms that made sense to me personally. J3Mrs (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've struggled to work out what the difference was with that edit - if it's a change of citation style I would just revert it as it shouldn't have been done. To answer J3Mrs, it's a bit like doctors or lawyers - ask three of them for an opinion and you'll get three different answers. Whenever you think you've got it just right someone will always come along and change it - that's the nature of the beast. Sometimes it's something you missed, sometimes it's just down to differences in style, and sometimes the changes are no improvement, but I have to say I rarely have any quarrel with any changes Malleus makes. And, to be honest, I very rarely read anything on here and don't feel the need to make some changes - even when it's something I wrote myself some time ago. Richerman (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm always correcting myself, and make loads of little errors, sometimes I "know" what I think I've written and I haven't. When I first started, MF advised me to use "citation" which I do. (I still couldn't do it without copying one I know works, and if it goes wrong I am flummoxed - I think that shows how little interest in it I have) The more technical anything gets, the more off-putting I find it. I thought the idea was to encourage editors, that particulary edit wouldn't encourage me.J3Mrs (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed earlier today that you used "twiddles" in an in an edit suumary. Rock on! As for the technical stuff, I am trying to withdraw gracefully. But doubtless I will keep getting sucked in ... There was a time when I quite enjoyed debating the merits of this or that programming language, the constructs, syntax and the wider logic, but I long since realised that logic is not a part of human nature and no coder can constrain or even anticipate what we real things will cock up next. Of course, someone has to try to make the stuff idiot-proof etc, and I appreciate the attempts, but the limits of idiocy are at least Infinity + 1. - Sitush (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)