Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Walter de Coventre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • Is this your nom, Deacon of Pndapetzim's, or a co-nom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I've discussed it with Deacon, who has no objection. If we were running longer cycles (which I do not propose), the old nom would still be going on, with the prose complaints addressed. This has the advantage of cleaning up the comments on text which no longer exists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • If there are content objections, I would have to do rather more research than Deacon to address them, but I should have the resources. But there weren't any last time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is, whose nom is it? A co-nom or your nom? RickBlock's script needs to know how to interpret this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear me, so many tweaks? but I've told Malleus too. He says he's done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Most of mine were from the PR. (I'm not sure about Malleus, he may multiple-edit.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
All of my edits were copyedits in response to comments made at the previous FAC, almost all of them made before the FAC was closed. I added no content whatsoever, just tidying up. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Two "large" sources for his life, Watt's Dictionary, which is two pages long (two columns per page, small font) and Cockburn's Medieval Bishops, which has a few more. The former is curt and the latter fluffy (would get slaughtered here). The Watt one is by far the most important, and covers almost everything about his life that's in this article. It is also so small I could prolly scan it and email it to anyone. The Dictionary itself is hard to buy unless you're rich, and difficult to borrow. It is though a work of magic ... it's difficult to believe D. E. R. Watt was only a man writing that all by himself! The benefice section could be fluffed up, but we are between a rock and a hard place. Wikiculture's semi-irrational veneration of conciseness is difficult to reconcile with listing bland information, a problem with the info is as inherently uninteresting as this! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, not sure how this works ... do I put co-nom on it? It'd be kinda absurd if I left a Support after all! ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to co-nom, you are of course welcome; if you do, please take an equal part in attending to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If that's a complaint, know that I would of course never leave any comment made here unaddressed indefinitely. You and Malleus have just been beating me to it. Just add "Co-nominating with [[User"Deacon etc" to the nominating line (well, that's how I've seen it done). I did ask Malleus before you nomed this if he wanted a co-nom, but he refused on the grounds of not adding content. Someone should've pointed out to him that FAs don't become FAs on content alone, they also require extensive copyediting that some people (;)) don't enjoy or have the patience, even if they have the skill, to do. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Not in the least a complaint; I thought you didn't want to be bothered with it for a while. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't need to be reminded about FAs how come about. I'm not particularly bothered about who gets the credit for any article, I've seen far too many editors claim credit for articles just to boost their RfA appeal. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)