User talk:FClef

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Hello! To create a new message for me, just click here. I will reply on your talk page, unless you say otherwise.

There's a list - albeit short - of the articles I have originated and contributed to at FClef

Welcome!

Hello, FClef, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 20:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Merging Articles

Your question:

How to merge:

If you are proposing they all be merged into the same article then I'd say put the discussion on the talk page of the article being merged to and put {{mergeto| templates on the articles being merged there. Hopefully the main article will get a lot of traffic. You can put a mergefrom tag on that page so people know to check the talk page. RJFJR 15:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear FC

Dear FC, thank you so much for your kind words, and for trusting me with your request for help. I see, however, that you have already instrumented pretty much every step that can be taken in these cases, as you have attempted to contact the anonymous editor who made the contributions that worry you. This is very common, so don't worry; as long as you discuss with your fellow editors all major changes to those articles that fall into your area of expertise (or at least try to discuss, as unfortunately sometimes not everyone agrees to communicate), you'll enjoy a long and fruitful wikilife - way to go! :) If I can ever help you in any other way, please, don't hesitate to contact me. Big hugs, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 08:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Trooping the Colour

NB This is copied from Giano's talk page - very helpful. Regarding your question, I'll post my comments here, I assume you want to know as you want to bring this up to FA standard:

At the moment it isn't anywhere near being a FA, as it has too many sections which are just lists, and too many other sections which are too short, a couple being just one paragraph. It needs to have a history section, and more images - perhaps some detailing the distinguishing features of various uniforms. The page seems to be totally devoid of any references - this will be an instant killer to it being featured anywhere. The text and prose are from brilliant phrases such as "as his mental condition deteriorated he was subsequently transferred to a mental hospital." and "Sarjeant was seized by Lance-Corporal Alexander Galloway of the Scots Guards (who used the butt of his rifle to subdue the assailant), and several policemen" and others similar are clumsy and need to be re-written. Other phrases and statements such as "The slow march is traditionally a waltz from Giacomo Meyerbeer's opera, Les Huguenots." - beg the question why? and need to be explained.

Sorry to be brutal but you did ask! I don't know how one has a on a portal, when pages I have worked on have been "portalised" - a message has just appeared on the talk page announcing it. I would imagine if you are keen to see a page there, just track down the appropriate portal, and leave a message on its talk page making the suggestion. Hope this helps. Giano | talk 12:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can see where you are coming from on everything you've said. I didn't write the "incident" para with which the article ends. Nor did I write the introduction. I have done alot of work in cleaning up the middle of the article. I inserted the bullet points to clarify the article, which, though informed, was muddy.

Regarding the uniforms, these are dealt with on the appropriate regimental pages of the Foot Guards companies, but I could put in a bit more. I have not yet inserted any pix and am something of a technophobe.

In all, thanks, but probably I have not the time to dedicate for all the work required to get it to FA standard. Would you like to shine some of your sunny beams to the article? (I imagine you don't have time either. -- FClef 12:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not read the article, but bullet points often help with a list; however, they seldom make prose better. I will give the article a copyedit if I have time, but please don't give up: you may like to get a peer review and then nominate it as a Good article. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signatures and references incorporating Talk page

Your user page is at [[User:FClef]] (User:FClef); your user talk page is at [[User talk:FClef]] (User talk:FClef). Similarly, Baden-Powell House has a talk page at Talk:Baden-Powell House.
To get a reference to your talk page in your signature, you will need to edit your preferences. See WP:SIG and WP:SIGHELP.
I think that arrow just denotes a link (you are probably using the monobook skin, where I think it is standard. I use the classic skin and don't see it - links are just red or blue. Again, I think you can change this in your preferences.) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to revert edits cordially

Memo from me to me - just copying this code: "Thank you for your edits to /// however, I have reverted your edits. For a further explanation please see the talk page -- FClef 23:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from HelpDesk: Footnotes - Aaaaarrrrrgggh !

I am trying to learn inline citation so that I can raise articles to Featured Article standard. Please could you take a look at the article Grenadier Guards which I do not see as a FA. I have made an attempt to generate a footnote as a test case for other articles I'm working on.

However, I have enountered difficulties in execution and also in terminology. Let me first say I know about bibliographic and citation style, but have had trouble with

  • working with the "ref" and "note" templates. Having checked the appropriate Wikipedia How-to page - WP:IC - on this, I'm thoroughly confused. I tried to create a footnote in Grenadier Guards using the "ref" and "note" templates. The note looks OK, but the ref in the text (it's in the Marches section) is NOT ok. Could you please take a look at the article and advise me as to where I'm going wrong on this?
  • Relating what seems to be "Reference" advice to my Footnotes and Reference section. The instructions on the How-To page do not clearly distinguish between a Footnote and a Reference. To my understanding, the Reference section is a bibliography and each reference item would appear therein only once. Meanwhile, Footnotes can refer to the same text a number of times - i.e., Ibid. and Op. Cit. references, etc. etc.

Are the "ref" and "note" templates actually for footnote use? What am I missing here?

  • And finally: in the article Grenadier Guards have I placed the Footnotes, References, See Also and External Links categories in the right order?

Your sage advice welcomed as always. -- FClef (Talk) 00:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have put the footnote and references in the {{cite book}} format, and used the <ref></ref> format for the note in the hope that this is what you were looking for. Please feel free to revert.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I refer to your actions on my recent Help Desk query. Thanks very much for using the advanced formats to improve my footnote. That's exactly what I wanted. -- FClef (Talk) 02:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE the preceding topic about footnotes, e.g. Grenadier Guards

I think I've got this straight. Do I do the "References" section using Citation Templates - WP:CITET - ? And do I use <ref> and </ref> tags within the text, containing between them the footnote, followed by a Notes section with <references/> for "Footnotes"? as described at WP:FN

  • Please confirm that my understanding of this is correct. Thanks for your forbearance. It's a steep learning curve. -- FClef (Talk) 02:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Sounds about right. You can think about it as two independent issues. When you place something between <ref> and </ref> tags in the text, cite.php will move whatever you put there to where the <references/> tag is. Because you're using this for footnotes, you'd put that <references/> tag in a Footnotes or References section at the end of the article. The {{cite}} templates just make it easy to format your whatever as a standard bibliographic form...it's unrelated to the cite.php mechanism. DMacks 08:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grenadier Guards Footnotes and Refs

I refer to your actions on my recent Help Desk query. Thanks very much for using the advanced formats to improve my footnote. That's exactly what I wanted. However, from my understanding of the 2 formats you used, they both appear incredibly advanced and may require software I don't have. Have you any info as to how I can use them? Also, why did my formatting NOT work originally? And what about the other issues I raised regarding my confusion on WP:IC? I hope to contribute to more articles in the future and need to know how to do footnotes and references properly - can you offer any guidance? Please reply here or to my talk page. Thanks again. -- FClef (Talk) 01:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey FClef. No, no esoteric software is needed. There are a number of templates which are intended to help format references—{{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} etc. (see Category:Citation templates). One thing very counterintuitive about these templates is that you don't see the template on the template page, but on its talk page (I've never understood this). So let's look at cite book, which is what I used to format the article. Like all templates, it starts with {{ and ends with }} In between those are many different categories of information you can put in: title, last (name) first (name) etc. These are are done by placing a pipe before them ( | ←one of these) and formatted for ease of reading vertically (but they don't need to be), like this
| first =
| last =
| title =
You can simply copy the template from the talk page, mix and match categories and fill in your information. Note that, for the most part, you don't put periods in, nor italic markup, it automatically formats the entries. Now forget all this for the moment. Let's talk about the <ref></ref> format as a separate topic (we'll combine later).
First a note on the form. Many html tags work in this form: a < then a > some text being formatted by that tag and then to end it, the same thing again but with a forward slash before it (</>). So, for instance if you want to make something boldface in html, you would type <b>text you want boldfaced</b>. With <ref>(text)</ref> it gets slightly more complicated. First you have to place the following text under the references section: <references/>. After doing so, whatever you place in between the <ref></ref> tags will automatically show up in the references section and where the ref tags are placed, when not in edit mode, will be the footnote markup ([1] for example).
Now combining the two different sections, all I did was place between the ref tags the cite book template, but anything you placed between the tags would have shown up. This is the reason I wanted to explain the two markups separately. They really are not part of each other but may appear so if you are unfamiliar.
Finally, you may have noticed some stuff I did that looked like this in the references section: <div class="references-small">. This is simply markup telling the software to reduce the size of the references. It is a fairly accepted style, especially for reference sections that have many entries. You'll notice that this follows the same form we've been discussing (i.e. <> followed by </> but it nests the <references/> markup inside of it and uses <div> and ends with </div>. Just copy it from the Grenadier Guards article if you want to use it.
Regarding the formatting you used, I'm not sure where you were taking it from (and I am not familiar with all citation formats) so I can't tell you exactly why it didn't work. I hope this is not confusing for you.
Note: I just realized that you typed the note below while I was typing the above. I haven't responded to that nor looked at it. I better post before I lose it:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 03:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afterthought re the above

I think I've got this straight. Do I do the "References" section using Citation Templates - WP:CITET - ?

And do I use [1] tags within the text, containing between them the footnote, followed by a Notes section with

  1. ^ and

for "Footnotes"? as described at WP:FN

  • Please confirm that my understanding of this is correct. Thanks for your forbearance. It's a steep learning curve.


Only two remaining questions:

  • what's the "small-references" bit in your citation used for? Please can you refer me to a page on this?
  • what's the "div" bit for?

Thanks again. -- FClef (Talk) 02:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITET shows various examples from the citation styles that now you know you can see on specific templates' talk pages (again, I don't understand why these have been written so that going to the template explains nothing, and you have to stumble on the talk page to realize that's where the information is). I think all other questions here are obviated by the preceding explanation. If you need any further explanation regarding the above (this stuff is tough if you are not familiar with it!), or any other wikipedia formatting or other issues, do not hesitate to call on me.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, one more note. I think you intended with the last post to show what you would type to get certain effects, but as you can see it formatted into footnotes, etc., rather than showing what you typed. A very useful tag is <nowiki></nowiki>. Placing this around any text will tell the software to not render the wikimarkup. This means that you can type, for instance ~~~~ and instead of formatting to your signature, it will show up as four tildes. The same for the <ref> tags you typed above, or any other markup.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a million for very helpful explanations. The bit about having to stumble on the enlightening talk pages is incredibly dispiriting but typical of humankind: we are an imperfect species, Wikipedia notwithstanding. As you see, this has kept me up all night!  :o)-- FClef (Talk) 03:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome!--Fuhghettaboutit 03:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original - unsatisfactory - formatting (FYI)

Incidentally, the formatting I originally used was at shortcut WP:IC in their section 2 and 2.1 - that was the article that I was ORIGINALLY moaning about on Helpdesk. I found that formatting unsatisfactory for the reasons I gave there. What do you think? (no need for immediate reply, I insist on at least 3 hrs sleep and bid you goodnight - but a reply at some stage would be nifty) -- FClef (Talk) 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Aha. That format breaks if there are any spaces between words. If you had typed {{Ref|BritishGrenadiers1}} instead of {{ref|British Grenadiers1}} it would have worked.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh....ok then!  :o) -- FClef (Talk) 12:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Hey!. I have answered your questions on my talk page:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 03:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Fuhghettaboutit has sorted you out.
The {{ref}} and {{note}} templates are an old implementation that was always rather fiddly; the new <ref> and <references/> templates are much more robust and easy to use. Just put <ref> and </ref> tags around the text of the reference (which you can create using the {{cite}} templates if you wish, but that is optional) and remember to add <references/> lower down (the slash at the end of <references/> is needed because tags are meant to come in pairs, one "opening" and one "closing" - like <ref> and </ref> - but there is no "closing" tag here, so the "/" at the end lets you know that this tag has closed itself).
You can add names to the <ref> tags, which lets you use them more than once - so the first one would be <ref name="name of the ref">The text of the reference</ref> and a second or third one would be <ref name="name of the ref" /> (this uses the slash at the end too, note). For a relatively simple example, see Corinthian bronze.
Good luck! It is a steep learning curve. Your difficulties with the help pages and the templates are instructive - perhaps it would be worth suggesting amendments? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A good place to start would be a message on the talk pages for the help pages that you tried to follow, and the templates that you tried to use, explaining your problems. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References versus Notes / consequent citation issues

My final queries - I think some of them may be unanswerable (they are certainly unrepeatable, heh-heh): I'd be so grateful if you could bullet your answers separately

  • Are References basically considered as identical to "Notes"? - see the last reply to me on the Wikipedia HelpDesk (In some articles they do the job of Footnotes or Notes; in others, e.g., Buckingham Palace, there are sections for both References and notes.)
  • !!!But I observe in B Pal that the Notes section does not use normal footnote crediting format - it is just used to amplify the text.
  • I see that the cite format employs inversion of first and final names. That's fine for a Bibliography, but in Footnotes the firstname comes first normally and parentheses are used for publishing data e.g. (London: John Murray Ltd., 1979) ...can I alter the order of things when doing the piped links on the cite template OR does it not matter? OR - see the first and second bullet point above - should Notes NOT have the full form of the reference, but just use a surname (as Giano does in B PAL)?

I think I am probably in OK shape to start applying what I know but any further clarification you can give will be welcome. -- FClef (Talk) 12:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

References are not quite the same thing as notes, although they often merge together.
There is little in the way of mandatory practice here. The <ref> system is the easiest way to do footnotes, and many people put their references in the footnotes and put the <references/> tag in the "References" section. Others like to have proper footnotes (Smith, 1999, page 20) and use the <ref> system for that, putting them in a "Notes" section with separate fully-cited references in a separate "References" section. Horses for courses.
None of the these formats are mandatory (neither <ref>s not the {{cite}} format) although some people consider them best practice. I must admit to never having used the various cite formats. Some people may winge about format, but at the end of the day, so long as the information is cited, that is the main thing. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Royal Dig reply

FClef, I wasn't sure if you wanted me to reply here or not. I've already done so on my talk page; I hope you don't mind, and I apologise for any inconvenience. --Scott Wilson 02:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi FClef -

To your first point, I refer you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) which states that wikilinks should not appear in headings (see "Linking").

To the second, I can only say that mentions of garden parties etc. are more to do with Buckingham Palace and the Royals than the archaelogical excavations that took place last weekend (or the programme itself). Articles in an encyclopaedia are better kept "on topic" as it were and not treated as one would write a magazine article. That kind of information is better put in an appropriate article (such as one on the Queen's 80th birthday celebrations, if there is one, or the Buckingham Palace article itself, or the article on the Buckingham Palace gardens).

The programme itself, BTW, was brilliant - and you've done a good job with the article. Keep up the good work! Stephenb (Talk) 19:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi FClef - I haven't logged on for a while, but I was sad to see the page deleted - I felt it contained notable information that the Time Team article couldn't cover, and was thus valid. I was surprised to read in the summary, then, that the merger happened with your blessing in the end. What changed your mind? Stephenb (Talk) 14:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olwen Headley's book has wrong ISBN?

Hello FClef, this is a comment on your exchange with SmackBot about an invalid ISBN on one of your books. I had a similar problem yesterday on the Errett Bishop page that seems to have been a robot problem, but in your case I wonder if the ISBN is actually bad? Removing the dashes from the ISBN is probably not going to protect you from all future robot visits. Would you consider omitting the ISBN? One of the sites I visited told me the ISBN is invalid: 85372086X. I suppose if that actual ISBN is printed in the book it's hard to argue with.

To see if the ISBN could be corrected I searched for the Olwen Headley book in catalog.loc.gov (Library of Congress) and it's not there, and it's not available at Amazon or other book-buying sites, nor in the Boston Public Library. It's also not in the British Library. The publisher is no longer in business. This is slightly tongue-in-cheek, but maybe you could find a more accessible reference? :-) EdJohnston 18:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! The ISBN is in fact wrong, it is missing a leading zero! Rich Farmbrough has already updated the Buckingham Palace page, so ignore my recommendations above. EdJohnston 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I certainly didn't mean to be rude to the editors of the article (of which I am one), apologies if I was. I've checked out the book as described above by ED, at the British Library. I suspect the discrepancy is due to the change from SBN (the old UK system) to ISBN, which was done by adding a 0- to the front of the numbers. While not all publishers follow the rules, the correct format according the International ISBN Agency is four groups separated by spaces or dashes. Spaces break wiki-(ISBN)-links, so dashes are our best option. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:36 1 September 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Flyby etc

Thanks for the note - and good luck on your training course!

We can do the article a number of ways as you suggest. If you want to use the Flyby header edit the article delete the redirect that is now there and post your article on top - it will then re-appear under its own name and leave the American flypast as is.

Alternatively use the ceremonial name and I can change the fly past redirect to the new page when its done. Whilst you are working on an article either create it in a working sandbox - I have created this one for you Your sandbox and then paste it as a ready finished article to the new name or use {{inuse}} tag on the article page whilst you are doing it. Let me know what you want to do and I'll help you.

Kind regards Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

Wikipedian Press here for Your sandbox

A present from Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open house weekend

Hey there, glad you enjoyed the open house weekend - I've never been to greenwich before and was really quite wowed by it. I'm assembling a kind of photographic pin-board (for use in present and future articles at User:Mcginnly/Sandbox/London Images. Many thanks for your kind words regarding the Tulip Stair photograph - I've had quite a bit of positive feedback so I nominated it for WP:FIC - we'll see how I do this time (It might result in buying a new camera). Regards --Mcginnly | Natter 23:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ceremonial flypasts

Brookie here - thanks for the note - the draft article is looking good; I have made a couple of changes, which I hope are okay. Let me know when you want to go live. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flypasts

Brookie - here - glad to learn that the course is going well. You'll have to let me know when you're let loose on the public! The Flypast article is looking good - I have altered a couple of headers and put some pictures into a gallery to try and keep them tidy Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buckingham Palace Garden

Happy New Year - and good to hear from you again. I have sorted for you the things requested. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Sorry to spam you like this but I want to thanks for all your support. I'm planning to say little more on the subject unless I'm attacked again. I have proved my point about the IRC admin channel, and many people (whose opinion matters to me) now seem to believe all I have ben saying was true. The channel is now thoroughly discredited and will never be a source of power again, and used by anyone of Wikipedian value - it is now basically finished - no one will ever believe a word that emanates from it again, no doubt a few little firecrackers will continue to pop on admins notice boards and such places but I think people can now evaluate such comments for themselves and see them for what they are dying embers of a former power base. Once again thanks for your support in this. I have appreciated it. Giano 10:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buckingham Palace Garden aka "The Garden"?

Hi FClef! Although I'm sure that those who live and work at Buckingham Palace refer to its garden as The Garden, I'm not sure that it has a much wider currency outside that circle ("The Garden Party" might be a different matter). If you said "The Garden" to any random Londoner, I reckon they'd be more likely to think you meant Covent Garden or the Royal Opera House (which often styles its productions as "Such-and-such at the garden") – so I've added them to the list. For example, Google "The Garden" and you won't find Buckingham Palace Garden cropping up very often. If you can cite some evidence to the contrary, please do. (I've also posted this message on the discussion page and invited others to comment.) SiGarb | Talk 23:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again FClef! I can see why you wanted to attract readers to the main Buckingham Palace Garden page from the The Garden Disambiguation page, but really, I think in order for it to qualify it would have to get a few Google hits on the first couple of results pages. An enormous number of gardens, large and small, public and private, are referred to by those who work in them, or live nearby, as "the garden". Or, indeed, "The Garden". The Alnwick Castle garden springs to mind; also RHS Garden Wisley. Another example which has just occurred to me, which ought to be included, is the Garden of Eden!
(BTW, I'm not sure that your two candidates for merging should be added to your article: Prom at the Palace and Party at the Palace were, after all, their official titles. You could have a small section on events in the garden, with pointers to the main articles.) And I hope you won't mid if I make a few suggestions about some stylistic points: your section headings are a bit over-capitalised (it should really be "Landscaping, lake and artworks" or perhaps, arguably, "Landscaping, Lake and artworks"); the first mention of the subject in the intro text should be bold (Buckingham Palace Gardens); the first para should be a brief summary of the subject, then the fuller info should come under appropriate headings. I think some dates would be useful in the first mentions of Goring Great Garden, Henry Wise and Aiton. (Nice pic of the old chap on his page!) The first ref to the Queen ought to be wikilinked (the Queen). SiGarb | Talk 19:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

Thanks for the award, I only just noticed it, the user page and talk page on a watch list look very similar, and my talk has been quite busy the last few days. Is there a reason other than my computer why the picture won't download? I'm not very good with pictures, Aloan normally has to sort that page out for me! Thanks, it was very kind of you. Giano 14:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Seven Subarus for seven sisters. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: More on BPG

Hi FClef. Well done! I think the Buckingham Palace Garden page looks somewhat better now. I think, to fit in with Wikipedia style, the first paras (before the first subheading) are too numerous and discursive, but apart from that, much improved.

Well spotted on the Aiton pic. I hadn't really read the article, just glanced at the pic, which is nicer than the only one I've seen of William T. I did know they were father and son: the son was one of the founders of the Royal Horticultural Society. You're right, they do really need a page each, as other careless readers could do the same as I did and assume that, because they had typed in William Townsend Aiton, that was whose portrait they were seeing. But, as you say, they'd both be rather tiny articles.

Yes, I live in Lincolnshire. It was still a bit breezy this morning, but the worst winds were yesterday and the night before, when we lost half a large willow tree across the green in front of our house! As to SiGarb, it's just an abbreviated form of my name. SiGarb | Talk 16:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Mayor picture

Hi FClef. I've made the changes as you requested. Thanks for letting me know. Yes, I was there - it would have been difficult to take the photo if I wasn't! Glad I could assist with illustrating the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flypast

I responded to your post on the talk page...but I wasn't the one who made the comment you objected to. - RJASE1 01:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the article is up for peer review; discussion is at this page. Should be able to get some constructive feedback. I also nominated it as a good article. You probably already know that suggestions will likely be to add some US info and maybe drop some unnecessary stuff that the article can live without.
I'm in the US Air Force (was based in Cambridgeshire from 1990-99) - this weekend I'll take a run at including some US aspects in the article without disturbing the UK spelling and style. I think it's got a lot of potential. - RJASE1 05:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the suggestions at Looper5920's talk page - I definitely defer to his judgement as he has about a million times more experience and expertise than me. Remember, WP:AGF - please don't get defensive about feedback on how to improve the article. I'm willing to work with you on addressing the review concerns, and I'm sure it can be done without altering the fundamental nature of the article, or destroying the content you put together. One of the best things about WP:MILHIST is that it's a well-organized project with active, high-standard, peer review, and the advice you get through the process can get your article all the way up to featured-article status. - RJASE1 17:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: flypast peer review

The earlier discussion was unfortunate; I apologize for any overly hasty remarks that were made.

In any case, the comments on the review should be somewhat more helpful than the back-and-forth arguing. The issue with the article is not a UK imbalance per se, but rather that the "meat" of the topic isn't covered adequately; when that's resolved, the balance should become more reasonable as a consequence.

Of course, it's not a problem if you don't have the materials at hand to expand on some of the areas I mentioned; the great thing about Wikipedia is that somebody that does will eventually come by. The only immediate point here is that these areas are noticeable gaps, so please don't be too upset by the article's failing to advance further up the assessment scale until they get some more coverage.

(Personally, I'm pretty useless with a topic like this; my own interests lie a few centuries prior, and firmly on the ground. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My condolences for your loss.
It would not be very useful, I think, to ask for retractions or to pursue further recriminations; now that the focus has been pulled to the content of the article, returning it to discussing the people involved would probably be counterproductive. That particular conversation should be over now, in any case; I'd suggest letting it gather dust for a few days and then archiving it. Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My condolences to you as well.

This week I started gathering some source material for the USAF version of the practice (regulations, fair use images, etc.) and will probably start assembling it this weekend in my sandbox. I still need to look around for Navy/Marine info - they're big users of the flyover as well, and I think the US Army does it pretty frequently at their ceremonies with helicopters. We can cast about for an RAF or RAAF chap to address the Commonwealth-style military aspects. Also, tomorrow I'll verify that all the inline citations are in the WP:CITE format, if you like - we'll need to do that to eventually reach A-class. - RJASE1 04:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: More on flypast before I go to bed (4 am in the UK!)

Have no fear, my UK brother. I won't make any substantive changes to the article and will keep new material in my sandbox until you have a chance to look at it. It's obvious you're willing to take the lead on the article expansion - consider me your assistant on the US Air Force angle. Have a good one... - RJASE1 05:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Good morning

Sorry about the gender assumption. I feel like a jackass. :)

I wasn't planning on renaming the article myself - that was just brainstorming. I'll keep you posted on the material I dig up. - RJASE1 16:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/c/l/User_talk%7EFClef_aa80.html"