User talk:Matthewedwards

messages

Talk archives
	Index		May – Dec 2007		January '08
	February '08		March '08		April '08
	May '08		June '08		July '08
	August '08		September '08		October '08
	November '08		December '08		January '09
	February '09		March '09		April '09
	May '09		June '09		July '09

• In order to Keep discussions centralized, and unless you request otherwise, any comments posted on my talk page will only be replied to here; I will watch talk pages where I have posted for replies there, and do not expect a reply here.
• Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~).
• New discussions start below old; you can start a new topic.
• If you wish to talk privately, you can Email me, but please notify me here because I only check my emails once a month or so.
• If you need a faster reply, or a more complex conversation, you can contact me on IRC. My nickname is Matthewedwards. I can be found in #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-help, or #wikipedia-en-admins whenever my status is "online" or "on IRC".
• Discussions are archived after three days of inactivity.

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New York Yankees managers/archive1

Uhh...Matthew, there are still comments that hasn't been resolved in this nomination. You didn't pass one of my nominations when it had only one comment...:( -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooops. That was by accident. I've added it back into FLC Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New closures

I noticed that you closed some of the FLC's tonight and I noticed that one as the List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients. It did not say however if the list was promoted or declined and I haven't seen anything update so I thought I would ask. --Kumioko (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Check the featured list logs if you are unsure. In this case it was promoted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You haven't updated the closure log. Also, why was Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Ambassadors of Russia to Austria/archive1 promoted? It didn't seem to get that many reviews, and I still had an unresolved question. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean WP:FLL? Yeah I did. Sorry about the Ambassador list. I read through the list and the FLC and didn't notice that the sorting hadn't been done. I had each FLC that I was going to close open for well over an hour, so its likely that I missed your 9:34 pm (UTC) edit. The same thing happened with the NY Yankees FLC mentioned above. I'll add the sort and center the columns myself if you want? Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks. Have you updated the closure log (sorry to be such a nag)? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the thing on WT:FLC. No, I totally forgot. I'll do it sometime today though. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, no hurry. Sorry for being unclear; I should have provided a link. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WikiCup Newsletter XXII

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round III, Issue 4 - June 28, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with four wildcards, will advance to the next round. The pool leaders are: Pool A Sasata (311) Pool B Scorpion0422 (316) Pool C Candlewicke (319) Pool D Theleftorium (409) Wildcard leaders Juliancolton (232) Wrestlinglover (183) Mitchazenia (160) ThinkBlue (142) For a full guide see Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2009/Full All scores are accurate as of 21:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Juliancolton (1) Scorpion0422 (1) the_ed17 (1) Featured lists Scorpion0422 (3) Wrestlinglover (3) Featured topics Nobody Featured pictures Sasata (1) Featured sounds Nobody Featured portals Juliancolton (1) Good topics ThinkBlue (1) Good articles Theleftorium (12) Did you know? items Candlewicke (20) In the news items Candlewicke (17) For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. For Round 2 stats, see Newsletter 18. WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 3 total of: 3 Featured articles 8 Featured lists 0 Featured topics 2 Featured pictures 0 Featured sounds 1 Featured portal 1 Good topic 33 Good articles 54 Did you know? items 17 In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals and the Round 2 totals to make a grand total of: 28 Featured articles 55 Featured lists 3 Featured topics 177 Featured pictures 24 Featured sounds 3 Featured portal 4 Good topics 235 Good articles 501 Did you know? items 99 In the news items Biggest Jumps The difference between each contestant's point total from last week, and their point total from this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Sasata 180 311 131 2 Theleftorium 301 409 108 3 Wrestlinglover 108 183 75 4 Mitchazenia 88 160 72 5 Scorpion0422 245 316 71 6= Candlewicke 267 319 52 6= Juliancolton 180 232 52 8 Rlevse 55 105 50 9 Ottava Rima 94 134 40 10 ThinkBlue 104 142 38 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores This was generated from this diff. From the Judges A good week for all involved - however some really need to pick up the pace, lounging on very low scores. Come on, it's half way in now! 'weburiedoursecretsinthegarden,  iMatthew :  Chat  , and The Helpful One If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

[edit] FLCs

Hi Matty, this is just a heads up that I will be going away tomorrow for a week (I'll be back on the seventh). I'll also be going away July 20 - August 11, and at least one more week in August, as well as several random days and weekends in between. Also, when doing closures, remember to update the closure log. I find that a lot of reviewers do pay attention to it, and it makes your closure decisions a lot clearer. Have fun, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, if my two current FLCs - List of Olympic medalists in snowboarding and List of 2006 Winter Olympics medal winners - receive any opposition or concerns requiring major work, could you please leave them open until I return? There is a user who will address the minor ones, and if you feel they are promotable, then please do so (and don't bother to wait). Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Psst... Don't forget the closure log. See you in a week. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for feedback

Minnecologies has done an incredible amount of work on Outline of forestry and posted a note to me on my talk page requesting feedback.

I've posted my observations at Talk:Outline of forestry#Finished outline review.

Please take a look at the outline and let Minnecologies know what you think of it on the outline's talk page.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    19:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 20:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

[edit] Amazing Race Wikipedia Starts!

Hello, Shappy. This is a reminder that Amazing Race Wikipedia will start very soon. At 00.00 (or whereabouts), our host Firestorm will place the first Detour on your submissions page. Again, the Detour is a choice between two tasks; both members of the team choose one task and work together to complete it. A Roadblock is a task only one team member must perform; he/she may not have any help from the other team member. Good luck and enjoy the Race! :-) Shappy (talk · contribs) and Firestorm (talk · contribs) --EdwardsBot (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Amazing Race

Absolutely. I'd be more willing to do the DYK thing (I have a few ideas already actually) so you can do the FL if you like (should be easier for you! :) ) Cheers,  PUBLIC GARDEN  12:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Righto - I'd go for DYK as it's easier. I was thinking Diamond Head discography and TV on the Radio discography but you're free to suggest whatever you like ;) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Argh, I can't read today :/ I'll be quite busy until the weekend really, so I'll have to start then... Got any ideas for an FL? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Note

I'm sure you're already aware, but [1]. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Thank you Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Home and Away AFD

Thank you very, very, very much for putting that excellent AFD together. Nice job. Sarah 02:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I saw your delete argument too and agree with it. Should we be speedy deleting the recreated articles under WP:CSD#G4? It applies to material created under a different title. We could just wait for the AfD to play out, too, though.

There are a few articles I didn't nom. Pippa, Alf, Sally and a couple of others, as they are the most important Home & Away characters and their articles can probably be turned into something worthwhile in time.

I read in one of the AfDs from a year ago that some thought it was a witchhunt for Australian soap characters; I know you're Australian so I just wanted to say that while I do intend to make another AfD for Neighbours characters if this AfD results in the Home and Away character articles being deleted, there is no bias involved. I've been a big fan of both shows since I was about 9, I've never stopped watching and I'm creeping on being 30. Even after I moved from England to America I continue to watch them both by downloading episodes from a private torrent site. It's just not in Wikipedia's best interests to keep them. I would actually like to see a Lostpedia/Memory Alpha wikia for both shows.

I also want to create AfDs for the British soaps Category:Family Affairs characters and Category:Hollyoaks characters. I don't think I've seen a decent page from either. Category:EastEnders characters, Category:Coronation Street characters and Category:Emmerdale characters may have some pages that are rescuable (let's not forget Pauline Fowler is a Featured article, but even many of those use The Sun, The Daily Mirror and Inside Soap as their WP:RS. :/ Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe, I was just going to say that I think that Neighbours might be in need of a similar clean out, but I'm really too scared to look too deeply into that closet! :D The first three "deleters" (me, Orderinchaos, Mattinbg), are all Australians. So don't worry, I know there's no cultural bias involved. The articles are purely and simply not suitable for Wikipedia and it wouldn't matter where the show was made. Last night I deleted Aden Jefferies (Home and Away) as a recreation when I realised that they had put it there to avoid the previous AFD outcome and the protected redirect at Aden Jefferies and I considered for a moment deleting the rest that had been recreated, but I think it's probably better to let it play out at AFD now. And I haven't looked at the old articles that were deleted so I'm not sure if these new ones are substantially the same or if they're totally different articles. The last AFDs were a long time ago, 2006, 2007, 2008, so I think it's probably a good idea to just let them go through AFD now.

I was a big fan of Neighbours when I was still at school and that was back in the Scott and Charlene days but I haven't watched it in a long time now. My mum's cousin's son is in Neighbours at present and I just realised his character Steve Parker has an article. An AFD of that article would make for a very strange AFD experience! Oh dear, I knew I didn't want to start looking in that closet - Stuart Parker (Neighbours), yeah, we definitely need a Neighbours AFD! Sarah 07:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed also - and thanks (ME) for your effort here. It comes down to being smart about it - Pippa, Alf, Sally and a few others are obviously notable and have impact well beyond the show's audience, and decent articles are capable of being written about them, so they don't get nominated. But most of these guys are just there for a year or two and have no lasting impact. There's also some odd factors that are the result of different scriptwriters or creative forgetfulness (eg remember how Duncan's accident in the mine also saw him age about 9 years?) While not a fan now, I used to watch H&A a fair bit in the 90s. Orderinchaos 07:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I congratulate you on having made possibly the most disruptive nomination in WP history. DGG (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of trivial soap opera characters gone => Wikipedia disrupted? Not seeing the link... it's not like he nominated the entire periodic table for deletion or something. Orderinchaos 17:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be such a drama queen. This is hardly disruptive. Actually keeping them is disruptive. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Using primary sources in featured lists

Hi Matthew. I've pinged Scorpion about this, but I was wondering what you thought about the various "List of Nobel laureate" featured lists using just the Nobel Organisation as their reliable sources? Crzycheetah and Truco are noting that the NHL Draft FLC uses just the NHL website for sourcing, and a quick look back over the Nobel featured topic constituents reveals a similar issue. I suggested to Crzycheetah that he may well want to FLRC those lists so perhaps we can have a centralised discussion. What do you reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that for the list itself, using primary sources makes sense, as they are obviously going to be the most reliable, and other sources (at least on the web) would probably use the primary source as their source. Now, the Nobel lists are primarily lists, and as such, there's not as much "info" that needs citing from other sources; the lead only discusses the nature of the award and process itself, information for which it makes sense to use the Nobel site. On the other hand, the NHL Draft FLC has more prose, and covers other aspects such as history and possibly reception, and I'm sure there are other areas that could be covered. For that, we need third-party sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well that's interesting. "Primary sources.... [are] most reliable" Is this coherent with WP:RS? Is a Nobel Prize list which just references the Nobel Organisation still compliant with WP:RS? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, you make a good point, and I think we need a centralized discussion at WT:RS to hash this out. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)