This page 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.
Awarded by this editor for a Did You Know contribution that appeared on the main page, a hook that was well written, referenced, and displayed irony, a fact related to a distinguishing characteristic of the subject of the article, or other notable property. AwardBot 15:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Notre Dame revision - minaret
Why don't you read posts before you erease something. I kindly asked if someone can change minaret into tower as info box won't let me do it. I guess ereasing is much easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.42.173 (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I did read the posts before changing, as I read the infobox docs before using it. I would recommend do the same. Unfortunately, you can not change the infobox to your needs. There is no custom field available. As you can not have a minaret in churches, you are left with two solutions: remove your contribution or move it to another fields (height in this case). I chose the latter. Hope this helps. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I owe you an apology, today I took a good look and realized what you did, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.45.165.62 (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Alberto, Thanks for your note re: the Schottenkirche, Vienna. Your distinction makes sense to me & I see the reason for maintaining separate articles for church & Stift. We might want to think whether the content of the two articles reflects that distinction, or whether some of it should be moved around. --Javits2000 (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
On 14 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul Troger, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Just noticed your recent improvements to St. Peter's. It's good to have somebody pick up on that sort of stuff, because I tend not to use full names whenn I'm writing and on a roll, and often don't pick up on it later.
Re boxes. It would be really useful if you/someone was to develop two or three new horizontal info boxes. As you know, I hate large vertical info boxes, but see a real value for tidying up standardised info by placing it in a standardised box.
I am not really into infoboxes creation. (Catholic) churches pages would benefit from using the template "Template:Infobox church" instead of "Infobox religious building". This template can accommodate all the information one may think about a church. I believe it is information overload.
A horizontal architectural specs box, that could be varied to suit a wide range of buildings. There is a clumsy attempt at one at Cologne Cathedral, and at St. Peter's Basilica I have combined all the specs into a two-column list. But a nice standardised horizontal box that could be inserted into the Architectural section of the text of many articles would be a real asset.
When possible, as it is a building, this should be coordinated with the architecture guys in order to have a "standardized" way of presenting dimensions. However it is very difficult to come up with a systematic way of presenting all the potentially interesting dimensions one could think off.
Religious personel. Having the entire current staff of any church/cathedral down the right side of the page is overkill. They don't even do that on the cathedral's home pages. However, a horizontal box with the facility to list all current staff in a couple of columns would be a goood way to go.
We are currently getting extensive lists of Cathedral Organists/Music Directors and Assistant Organists. A box would be good. Particularly a box which could be varied to suit different categories of personel. For example, St. Peter's has a very long list of archpriests which is bbeing regularly extended. At most cathedrals there could be a similar list of Bishops.
I agree with you that a systematic classification, per ecclesiastical province, per diocese of catholic churches and prelates is missing. Doing it would require to type all the Annuario Pontificio in Wikipedia. You should then get to something like http://www.gcatholic.com/dioceses/dioc-country.htm.
What I have in mind for the personel boxes is something like the following, both of which are so useful for providing a lot of info, and a lot of links.
OK, I've just had another idea. The Anglican Cathedral format could also be applied to a Gothic Cathedral box which would allow you to see at a glance all the Major Gothic Churches in different countries. Likewise a Major Romanesque Churches box. Wow! One could go straight from Peterborough Cathedral to Modena Cathedral to Autun Cathedral. What fun. Amandajm (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice idea. This could be easily done if one agrees on the top 20. ;-) Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Great improvements to the article. Glad to see you corrected the French errors. Obviously I do not know French or any other language other than English. I have trouble with English! Nice improvement to the picture also. Apparently you were able to do this with some sort of sophisticated Paint program. Sure made the article look better. My wife is from Groningen. --Doug Coldwelltalk 11:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I put in a request for a translation of the plaque at Cafe Procope. If it is not already answered, could you look it over at the reference desk. Thanks. --Doug Coldwelltalk 12:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is a "trick-of-the-trade" as to how to get pictures for articles. Obviously you already know Flickr is an excellent source. However, most are "all rights reserved". Don't let that scare you. I have found with the below form letter that I can get about 3/4 of the requests to lower their license accordingly. Just change the link and Subject accordingly in this example.
I write articles for Wikipedia. Your picture is interesting and would fit into one or more of the articles I am presently writing on.
www.flickr.com/photos/darkb4dawn/3344891781/
There is at least one tag in use that makes your picture not usable on Wikipedia.
Would you consider downgrading your copyright tags to "Attribution License" -or- "Attribution-ShareAlike License"
so I could use it on some Wikipedia articles. First one or last one on this list ONLY.
You have reverted the page to an earlier state and in doing so have reintroduced errors, and reverted edits that have been subject to discussion. It's hard to know why.
Amandajm (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't know what happened as most of my edits are still there (semantic tags, official name (papal)and website). sorry for that.Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
That un-named editor is very persistent. They are obviously under the misconception that St Peter's actually IS a cathedral, and probably think the rest of us are stupid. Since they seem to use the same compueter regularly, I'll try leaving a message. Amandajm (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for fixing my accidental removal of content from the Hertzel article. I've repeated my edit only this time I checked that nothing got removed. Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 22:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, since you are doing churches, do you have a photo of Basilica of St. Louis de Montfort? Also his birthplace photo etc. was deleted and if you have French images it will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Can't help you sorry. There is no free picture available in wikipedia or flickr. Only panoramio has one but the author should be contacted to downgrade the picture's license. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I had checked wikimedia anyway, and asked because I could not find one either. History2007 (talk)
Thanks
A word of sincere appreciation for fixing the Famous logo. On your recommendation, I went ahead and added competing retailers to the == See Also == section. I'll do the same for those other retailers as well. Please let me know if you find any other issues. Cheers! --Hayward Tenney (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, History2007 (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
What is wrong with citing the ethnicity (Flemish) of Henry van der Velde apart from his Belgian nationality?
What is wrong with citing the ethnicity (Flemish) of Henry van der Velde apart from his Belgian nationality?
Just as th ethnic distinction is classified in Wikipedia articles of UK personalities (English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish), or Spanish personalities (Basque, Catalan, Galician) the same applies for Belgian personalities in Wikipedia.
The ethnicity among Flemings and Walloons is very much important to them and they tend to indentify thermselves first as Walloons or Flemings, Belgians second or none at all. Very similar position among the UK people as well.
And in Wikipedia articles the ethnic background of Belgian personalities is put. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.151.173 (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Ethnicity is a touchy point. Feel to edit the page of Barack Obama anytime.
Regarding Belgium, should we talk about the Flemish ethnic group or the Dutch ethnic group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_(ethnic_group)#Flemings). On top of that, here is what the article you cite mentions: The Flemish once formed a single ethnic group with what are currently the Dutch. When the split occurred is a matter of debate; in fact, there are people who dispute whether the Flemish form a distinct ethnic group at all.[8] For a fuller treatment, see the Flemish section of the article about the Dutch.
The only things that matter is that is was born in Flanders.
I modified the article to follow the one from a Herman van Rompuy. Let me know when you come to Brussels for a discussion around a good coffee.
Excellent job on the addition of the plague-church source into Il Redentore and San Sebastiano, Venice. It looks like there is quite a bit of information in it that can be disseminated into various other Venice articles. Nick Ottery (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Please don't "improve" "wikicoding of references", as you did at Cross of Justin II. WP:CITE lays down that articles should maintain the style set by the first significant contributor. It makes it difficult to continue adding to an article if the style changes. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't particularly care about "styles" but I do prefer templates to plain text., like in most FA articles. Short citations can be written manually, or by using the {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} templates. : It is pretty straighforward to add structured reference using the User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar (partially broken with the new Beta) . Is this relevant? No but IMHO, it gives a consistent and professional look across Wikipedia and eventually help build a list of books cited that would prevent users to type and retype always the same books. If you add to this the evolution towards e-books and on-line library, the future looks pretty bright.
I took the time to read the WP:CITE. Nice piece of work. Next time I start an article I may decide to cite all the reference: "John Smith. 2010 etc". And prevent you from improving or adding missing information arguing that it is " the style set by the first significant contributor until editors reach consensus"... This would then escalate until admin or experienced editors would ally to crunch the young editors that would eventually stop contributing. Technically speaking, WP:About is above WP:CITE. It lays down "Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references, or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard." Based on that, I will continue contributing to wikipedia, adding reference using the tools . Style comes after. But if what I did on your article upset you, I do apologize.
I hope that the usability improvements of wikipedia will provide soon an interface to add easily references in a structured way and allow user to chose, in his preferences the way, he wants all the citations formated (or any template). In other words, more a user-centric that a article centric display of citations (and templates in general). Some people like templates, navboxes, infoboxes. Others don't. Let everybody decide in his preference panel.
Check your article Cross of Lothair as some references are not correct.
Where can I find something about renaming an article like Agate Casket of Oviedo without, first reaching consensus with the significant contributors ;-)
See WP:MOVE. If you have an alternative name, by all means raise it at the talk page, but the old name was clearly inadequate. Also raise any issues with the Lothair cross at the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
re malta
Thanks for offering your images! All of them would be useful but right now, any images you may have of Hagar Qim temple complex would be very much appreciated. There is the possibility some hugely important images may be removed from that article. Thank you, Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Google book links
I don't know why they are coming out like that now, they didn't use to - I'm not doing anything different so far as I know. Is there a quick way to template them? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Apparently a bug in Mediawiki. When you do a search with "" in google books, G. Books generates a link (in the browser: e.g. "Titulus+crucis") with "" (which highlights your search terms in google books). This breaks wikipedia formatting. In addition to that, you typed "od=" instead of "id=" for the book id in the first citation.
IMHO it is always safer to use the link button appearing at the right hand side of the browser, next to "Feedback". It always generate the shorter link.
For a quick citation formating using the Cite template, I use the Wikipedia:RefToolbar. You can add the stable version of this script through the Gadgets tab in your user Preferences, click the checkbox for "refTools" under the "Editing gadgets" section, then click the "Save" button.
It helps a lot. The 'od' was a botched attempt at fixing it, deleted an 'i' and accidentally reinstated it as 'o'. I'll try the toolbar thing, but toolsbars are flaky in Chrome, sometimes they are there, a lot of the time they just vanish. It looks good though. And I hadn't noticed the link in Google, they keep adding things and I don't notice them! And either different browsers display different goodies in Google or they change from day to day, I haven't figured out which. I use 4 different browsers (FF, Chrome, IE, Opera) which adds to the confusion. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Temple of Human Passions Victor horta 1898.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Temple of Human Passions Victor horta 1898.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
San Cassiano
Hi Alberto. I hope you are well. Just to let you know I've finally got another Venetian church off the ground (so to speak!). I was wondering whether you would mind taking a quick look over San Cassiano (Venice) and seeing if you have anything else to add? My main concern at the moment is that a lot of the article is referenced to a website - if you know of any book sources for any material that would be great. Any other additions, changes or comments would also be welcome. Thanks. Nick Ottery (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In March you added a reference to a book from the "Webster's Quotations" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [1]). I've only removed the reference, not any of the text of the article. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 00:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thanks for improvements
Thanks for your improvements on Regina Coeli Church, Mexico City. I like to write articles but Im not so good with infoboxes and a lot of the little stuff.Thelmadatter (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I have just created a page in my working space User:JWBE/Basilica minor to create the articles "Basilica minor" and "Basilica maior". The germen an even some other-language articles will be used to separate the facts. If it will be finished, the part "Ecclesiastical basilicas" will be very shortened. With kind regards --JWBE (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I have been looking for while into this classification. The problem is how to handle the confusion in nomenclature. Specially when it comes to Papal vs Pontifical because you have at the same pontifical prelatures getting into the picture.
The best systematic classification and structure have found until now is
thank you for creating the page. The main problem I have is that is not 100% correct IMHO to say, as stated in German wikipedia, that Major Basilica = Patriarchal Basilica because not all the Patriarchal basilicas are major basilicas. A counter-example is St Mark in Venice. The statement in the German article is contradicted by one of his source:
Kardinal Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo kündigte an, dass die vier „Basilicae Maiores“ (St. Johannes im Lateran, St. Peter, St. Paul vor den Mauern und St. Maria Maggiore) von „Patriarchalbasiliken“ in „Päpstliche Basiliken“ umbenannt werden. Darüber hinaus berichtete der Kardinal vom Programm der Neuordnung der Anlage der Basilika St. Paul vor den Mauern.
There are only 4 major basilicas (see Cathency http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02325a.htm). They happen to also have the title of Patriarchal basilicas together with the (Minor) Basilica of St Laurent outside the walls in Rome, the two churches from the Franciscans.
I think, that the outsourcing in "Basilica minor" and "Basilica maior" will help to short the article "Basilica" to its main architectual intention. If both articles exist, then they could be developed. I agree to the problem Patriarchal Basilica/Papal Basilica/Basilica maior, so your suggestion of the four chapters looks good. If the article "Basilica minor" exist, even the gallery will be then automatically outsourced. This help the main arcticle "Basilica" to appear better. I would be pleased, if you could do some edits in User:JWBE/Basilica minor. With kind regards --JWBE (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Basilica minor (including the gallery) had also been outsourced, but there is still work to do. Feel free to improve or rearrange the article. With kind regards and many thanks --JWBE (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that having a separate article that can be linked to the architectural basilica is a good way to go. However:
My opinion is that the article {{Basilica major]] and the article Basilica minor ought to be combined under the single heading Basilica (Ecclesiastical) or some such.
Having two articles is overkill and leads to confusion rather than clarity. The fact is that all those "minor" basilicas are just known as "basilica", with the notion of "minor" being a technicality that is only relevant to the notion of "major" and then not essential,
I'm not suggesting that you scrap the term "minor" which is a proper designation, but rather than for the purpose of finding out what a basilica is, "Basilica minor" is not a useful main heading.
It may seem to be overkill. You could have a single article with the following structure
*Patriarchal --> Papal (during BXVI papacy at least)
*Major
*Minor (after 1783) + Immemorial (before 1783)
*Special Categories Of minor Basilicas (Pontifical)
The main limitations of this structure is that is biased IMHO. It is a catholic classification/hierarchy/ranking. If you want to discuss the recognition (or not) of the Major/patriarchal/ancient basilicas by the rest of the christian churches, separating both articles would make sense.
@Afernand74: As this discussion affects the article "Basilica" itself it should be copied to Talk:Basilica. What do You think? --JWBE (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Done. Please continue this discussion on Talk:Basilica
You are very welcome. I am quite an addict to infoboxes for catholic churches. ;-) I created the page of the co-cathedral. It is a stub waiting for expansion.
Hi! No problem... thanks instead for your quick help. As you can see lately, since it seems I covered enough Italian marvels which were missing here (while it's full of articles about useless Bible Belt American malls or sport centres!), so I'm devoting to Spain, which it's the only country which can race with us as for historical heritage (although it seems you're losing... check UNESCO World Heritage Site classification! Joking...). I really wonder why so many Spanish articles here are in such a poor state. It seems Spanish editors contribute in the Spanish version mostly. Aside from art stuff, I'm speaking for example of the communal infoboxes which are messy and not uniform: for example, in many the municipality is called "XXXX, Spain" which is very stupid. Of course the name is not, say, Zaragoza, Spain, but simply Zaragoza. And so on. I think a BOT would be welcome to solve such matters, but I'm not into them for now. Another unpleasant aspect is that many coastal tourist cities' articles are seen from a very "British tourism" point of view: few (often confused) lines about history and important things, and many blabbing lines about how to arrive, how many German or British live there, which coffee or disco to go, everywhere POV ("pleasant beaches", "impressive view" etc). I think these are all stuff which, the most, is for tourist websites, not an encyclopedia. Let me know your opinion. In the meantime, good work and thanks again for the help. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
translator
Hello Alberto Fernandez, thank you very much for helping to expand articles such as the basilica of Saint Mary of the Chorus and the Cathedral of San Sebastian. I helped me with the google translation, it is true, but also I make an effort to translate and that is legible to the English-speaking Wikipedian, because that if it checks into google translator is really very difficult to understand. Later, in every paragraph I translate it manually. With the limited knowledge I have with the language, I try to make it the better possible traduction.--Venerock (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you alberto, you're also doing a so great job because not only fix and enhance my edits, but many others too, and that is very grateful .. always i have time, during every vacation, i am improving articles related to Spain although i am not spaniard .. Well, Good health and have a good Christmas --Venerock (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Sagrat Cor (new article)
Hi fernando to see if you could help me with Sagrat Cor article that was the original at the Spanish Wikipedia, please, thank you. Happy Hollidays !! :) --Venerock (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Cathedral of St. John Berchmans
Thanks for your additions to the infobox on the article Cathedral of St. John Berchmans. Do you have citation for those dates you added, and if so, would you mind adding those dates into the prose section of the article with the concomitant citations? I have always been of the opinion that infoboxes are nothing more than a digestion of information contained in the article, and so if there are facts in the infobox, they should (ideally) be in the article as well. But at the very least, citations would help the quality of the article. — AlekJDStalk 03:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure to understand. All the dates were already in the article. I moved them to infobox and add semantic formatting. I checked the dates on the official website (after correcting the deadlink). If I missed something, feel free to shoot ;-)
Nice article. Still wondering if there is only 8 churches dedicated to St John Berchmans in the world (oratories, chapels,... aside). Time to create a disamb page as I did for St. Francis Xavier Cathedral. Thanks for triggering the idea. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. So they were. Sorry, I must have missed that! Thanks for your edits. — AlekJDStalk 12:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The Cathedral of the Good Shepherd, San Sebastian.
Fernando
I have been through this article and tidied up the grammar. The architectural terms are mostly sorted except for 'barlongas', I have no idea what that means, and nor has Google. Hmm, strange. I think the translation request can be removed. I have left a similar note on the 'translation request' page. Saludos Richard Avery (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the improvements. After searching on Spanish Google, it appeared that a "Boveda barlonga" is a 4-part ribbed vault over a RECTANGULAR space. Somewhere between a traditional 4-part ribbed vault and a sexpartite gothic vault... Thanks again --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Theophilus Levett
Thank you for your edits to Theophilus Levett. However, I don't think I've ever seen so many footnotes removed in the course of an edit. (Generally at wikipedia the object is to add more sources, not subtract.) Could you explain your reasoning? Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
No reasonning at all. Just a bug when moving parts of the article around. It should be ok now. Sorry. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for letting me know. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
I'm very sorry... in hindsight it makes sense that you'd be working on an article for that particular church. I should have asked you beforehand. Looking at your sandbox, I see you have a lot of nice scholarly material. Feel free to edit/add/expand the existing article. Apologies once again for treading on your turf, so to speak. Keep up the good edits. — AlekJDStalk 00:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Disney bomb
I have just discovered that three of us are working simlutaenously on an article on the Disney bomb. You, me and User:Catsmeat (User:Catsmeat/test). Mine is nowhere near as good as either of yours but I think you two should ccompare notes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Wow... great minds think alike and all that. I think mine is pretty much done, but am more than happy to see any improvements. The only thing I was planning to add was a still I found from the actual Disney movie, showing the fictional bomb. I imagine people would find the tenuous connection to Walt Disney interesting. By the way, I think the 2400 feet per second impact speed is wrong. Although some sources to state it. This report is the most detailed informaion I've found on Disney and does state the impact speed is 1450fps, only about 30% faster than the bomb would have hit without the rockets.
I saw one (forum post I think) that made the Disney link through the rockets - like the fireworks bursting over the castle. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Had a quick look. Bit I'd be wary of linking to youtube, since the film may not be out of copyright. I came across a user draft of an article on Edward Terrell at User:Gaius Cornelius/Edward Terrell. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I think this article is good to go onto to the main space, unless there's anything you can think to add. My only issue is the bit in the opening paragraph - "At 5,000 feet (1,500 m) a barometric fuze fired the rocket in the tail to give it a velocity at impact of up to 2400 ft per second (730 m/s, 1,635 mph, 2,633 km/h) )" I'm quite sure that impact speed is wrong. And the correct speed is 1450 feet per second, as listed in the Project Ruby report. So, if it's OK with you guys, I'll delete that, stick the article up, and put in a self-nomination for DYK. Catsmeat (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Article has now been moved to Disney bomb. I've de-orphaned and reinserted the Disney image, as that gives credability to the claim that the bomb was inspired by a cartoon. I also slimmed down the introduction a bit, to keep it concise, and because I felt it was duplicating a little too much information from the body of the article. I agree that the Disney cartoon angle gives the best DYK hook. Something like....
Fantastic! A great team effort! :) Now, I really want to track down a copy of Tyrell's book, as it sounds fascinating.Catsmeat (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice work indeed. I will never visit again Watten/Eperlecques with the same mindset after contributing to this article. I suggested another hook on DYK page. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, because if you visited Watten before 2009, you would have been only a few metres away from one of the things, sticking in the roof! I've tried to find out what happened to it but have found nothing. I can only asume it was live and destroyed for safety reasons, because if it was inert, they would have certainly kept it as an exhibit.Catsmeat (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Disney made GA! Congratulations, you did most of the work that got it there!Catsmeat (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Fortress of Mimoyecques
Thank you for your excellent work on sorting out the references on Fortress of Mimoyecques and the other V-weapon sites. I've nominated the article for DYK (and named you as co-creator, as you started the current version). I'll do Siracourt next to complete the set.
Ideally I'd like to nominate the articles for GA status - would you be willing to be help with that? Prioryman (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This is really impressive! La Coupole has become one of the all-time most viewed DYKs: [2],[3] It's a good sign for GA - perhaps we can take it further and make the V-weapons site articles a featured topic in due course? Prioryman (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the material you added to Fortress of Mimoyecques is excellent, really interesting... however, I wonder if it would belong better in the V-3 cannon article? I deliberately tried to avoid going into too much detail about the V-3's technical workings in the Mimoyecques article (bearing in mind that the V-3 was never actually installed at Mimoyecques). In any case, the V-3 article needs to be improved, so would you mind if I moved your contribution into that article? Prioryman (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Fortress of Mimoyecques
On 29 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fortress of Mimoyecques, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the underground Fortress of Mimoyecques(pictured) was built by Nazi Germany to bombard London with 10 shells a minute using the V-3 supergun? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to 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.
I'd love a cup cake or two! Its 12.08 in the Great South Land, and I have run out of coffee! Well, maybe I should rootle around in the back of the fridge........ Ta! Amandajm (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the engagement on these topics. -- Хрюша 09:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriusha (talk • contribs)
Good Article promotion
Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making Disney bomb a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. Though I half-expected the article to be about The Black Cauldron (film), I learned a lot from the actual article. All the best, – Quadell(talk)
Lockenhaus, tricky German
Sorry, I missed answering your question, was busy with Messiah (on the Main page for the rest of the day). The German problem is: different "Artikel" for singular and plural + four "Fälle" (nom gen dat akk) + three "Geschlecht" (masc fem neutr), but then some are the same for different purposes, worst "der", which is "singular nom masc", but also "singular gen+dat fem" and "plural gen" as in your example of two Saints, whereas "singular gen masc" is "des" (only one Saint). Does that help? The German source has none of those, but the (old fashioned) "zum" (short for "zu dem"). The most frequently used name of the church in international sources seems to be the name of the concert location, "St. Nikolaus Lockenhaus", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I took your highly successful Fortress to the DYK of the Portal:Germany, it's in the archive now. If you have other DYK related to Germany please feel free to take it there yourself! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
La Coupole references
Would it be possible for you to reformat the references for La Coupole as you did so successfully with the Fortress and Blockhaus articles? You did a great job there but I'm honestly not sure I know enough yet about the "harv" format to get it to work properly. Prioryman (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Something very strange has happened to the references in Blockhaus d'Éperlecques (please see the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Blockhaus d'Éperlecques). Various books are listed in the references but not cited in the article. Do you have any idea what has happened here? I think it may have happened when you were reformatting the article's references to convert them to the "harv" format. Prioryman (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Mechelen-SS-Sammellager - Dossin Casern.jpg
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Stoclet Palace
Thanks for your message! It is such a fascinating building. I have looked at it with longing ever since I was a high school student and began to study the History of Architecture. I spent five days in Brussels in 2001 and really enjoyed looking at the buildings and artworks. I hope that you can achieve your aim of seeing inside it. You never know how it might happen. Amandajm (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Afernand, thanks for your work on the refs in Robert Frascino. You know, {{citeweb}} is not required for use in articles. As a matter of fact, I formatted the citations to appear exactly as they would with the template, mainly because bots can get confused and make small errors. Do you feel very strongly for the template's use? If not, I'd prefer to keep the article the way it was. The decision not to use the template was conscious. I'm open to thoughts, though. Armadillopteryxtalk 16:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Afernand74. You have new messages at Talk:Robert Frascino. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Survey for new page patrollers
New page patrol – Survey Invitation
Hello Afernand74/Archives/2013/August! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
You moved Marktkirche. Right, there are many in Germany. But the timing: to move it while on the Main page was not so helpful, as part of the "hook" (which I wrote) was the funny fact that in English there was just this one. Also the name: I would understand "Marktkirche, Hannover" or "Market Church, Hanover", but don't like the mix of languages. I won't make another move now, but would like this to be considered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Afernand74, I removed the {{Wikicommons}} from the article as the content has been incorporated into the article. Another user placed all the content from commons in a {{listen}} box under Glenn Gould#Recordings and compositions. As far as I can tell, it would be a duplication. Regards, Argolin (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikicommons links to a page, which is indeed duplication. commonscat links to a category. Useful to discover new media uploaded even outside en wiki, while the common page may not be updated. Hope this helps. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The link new you've inserted links to the category [4]. Original box [5].Argolin (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes. It does but it is not a duplicate as it is not even a "page"... The Category page is automatically generated by commons while the latter is manually created and maintained by users. Linking to the category is more useful as it allows editors to discover new media uploaded the Glenn Gould category and incorporate it to the article if suitable. The original box linked to a page that belong to the category "Glenn Gould". --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I understand now; we were talking about two different things. You said in the edit summary you didn't know why I removed it. Later... Argolin (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC) ps please don't shout!
How'd you know?
Afernand74, how did you know there was a smaller url link in the Glenn Gould article. I'm always looking for better ways to do things. Argolin (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I am using a gadget called Citation Expander that cleans up/consolidate/tune the code of references in articles. It is very convenient to use when you are in the middle of major article expansion as you are with Gould's.
You can activate it in your preferences > gadgets >Citation expander: Automatically expand and format citations (uses "Citation bot"). Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets
A new link will appear on your toolbox section called "expand citations". You can click on it whenever you want. It is also very useful in conjunction with the template {{cite DOI|}} to expand automatically, through DOI query, the full references without needing to type it . It is also very handy to clean up Google books links that tend to be very long while only book ID and page number are needed. Hope this helps. Merry Christmas --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll check the gadget out. I have a "Sources" page with citations that I regularly use. I'm about to roll it out to the Canadian music project. And thanks for the reminder to look at the DOI thing. Finally, yes a very Merry Christmas to you too. Argolin (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
RE60
Hi Afernand74. Fair point on the RE60 dablinks. I wasn't aware that Renault had any involvement in the Bajaj RE60 (it's not mentioned at Bajaj RE60, although I now see that it is mentioned at Bajaj Auto). If I had known that, I probably wouldn't have removed the dablinks in the first place. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
North American XB-70 Valkyrie
Please do not make major changes to the long established reference system of articles without obtaining consensus on the talk page - see WP:RETAIN - and don't edit war to force your preference on everybody else like you appear to be doing on North American XB-70 Valkyrie.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
IMHO you are missing the point of the discussion. The article is using the harvard style for its citations (See Parenthetical referencing#How to cite). I kept the same style but hardcoded references using the wiki Template:Harvnb which seems to generate an inappropriate format with "&". Should the template have generated "and" instead of "&" we won't be having this discussion. So let's hope this will be changed in the future.
By the way, I made the changes in good faith and there is little about citation styles in WP:RETAIN. Enjoy your Sunday. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a moot point, Harvard citations were written out correctly before, were changed arbitrarily, reverted back, and then changed again, that seems to be the point. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC).
Noted your edit on Nuclear propulsion#Cars and wondered whether it would not be more accurate to say there were four cars in 1958, leaving out the Seattle-ite. This was built in 1962 and is dealt with later in the paragraph? Also, thanks for correcting my typo and adding a link to the Simca brochureNealeFamily (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your hard work :) NealeFamily (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. When you recently edited Nuclear power in Indonesia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ci (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) 10:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
File:Heizel Stadium Disaster 29 May 1985.jpg listed for deletion
Hi! I think the title you added to Amanda's box is not proper: it's not a vast collection that deserves the title "Works by ...", it's just two of them. I think it's nicer at it is. If you've time, can you give a check to Saint Fina Chapel new article (also by Ghirlandaio)? Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
for your collaboration on Santa Fina! It's getting rather late here in the Land of Oz. Time to check the emails and turn in. :-) Amandajm (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I have put Santa Fina up for a DYK! Amandajm (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Ehm... who is that "Filipino"?!?! ;) --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Filippo Lippi called his son Filippo... There are two Filippo Lippi in Vasari's book. His son received the nickame of Filippino. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Ehm... of course I know Filippino Lippi. He's even better than his father as a painter. I was just joking about the single "P"... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
For your fine contributions to expand the article Bhangmeter. Anir1uph (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Romanesque architecture
I am very pleased with you addition! I have turned the quote into body text as it supports the notion of a pan Euro style. I added a bit from Tav O'Keefe, and found myself dreaming about it all night. He argues against the universality. So, I ask, why does a Romanesque church in Hungary look so much like a Romanesque church in England or Sicily?
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Monasterio de Santa María de Óvila
Thank you for helping with the Spanish language style of the article Santa Maria de Ovila. There are aspects of Spanish I will never understand!
With your proficiency, you might consider going to es:Monasterio de Santa María de Óvila to increase the quality and coverage of that article, taking text and references from the English article. My language skills are not good enough. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Jeanne Geneviève Labrosse
Hi Afernand74,
Thank you for improving Jeanne Geneviève Labrosse, ...and Citoyenne Henri. I have recently been working on Ateliers de Construction Mecanique l'Aster but struggled with 'souspapes commandee for automobiles' . Manual valves? - I would struggle to understand obscure Belle Epoque engineering even if I read it in English. Do you have any ideas? (Apologies for my English keyboard's lack of accents, and my lack of French). Regards Chienlit (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
"Soupape commandée" means "remotely operated/controlled valves". The best translation I could think of is "poppet valve" which moves bodily in response to remote motion. (NB I am not a specialist of pre-1910 engines... I assume it was flathead engine with sidevalves) In the case of Aster, I don't know what triggered the valves to open and shut: crank, external camshaft,... Hope this helps Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense, I shall go with poppet valves, the same as my first (fifth-hand) side-valve car 40 years ago/ :) Many thanks. Chienlit (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
Thanks for fiddling with the radar articles I started! I think I've found all the articles with the wrong DOI now :-) Secretlondon (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Not quite done yet!
You were too quick off the block! You'll have to start again!
I've put up the inuse banner, so you don't have to search out all my problem formatting individually!
That all looks so nice and tidy! Now I'm about to make a mess of it again. I don't think I have finished with Francis Bumpus and Uncle Nick yet. Amandajm (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Boxed list.... No... Elsewhere on Wikipedia there is a List of Romanesque buildings, which could have identifying pictures of as many buildings as possible. But this is not a list of buildings. It is a list of distinguishing regional characteristics. The pictures have been selected in each case to illustrate the characteristics described in the text. This is the reason why there are both exterior and interior views in each regional gallery.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saint Joseph's Oratory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oratory (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) 11:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I am targetting folk who have altered the entry before.
Rococo1700 (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your wonderful edits on Victor Maghakian. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Precious
advanced references and templates
Thank you for quality contributions to articles on saints, churches and the pope, for uploading related images, for help with advanced referencing, as in Blockhaus d'Éperlecques, and with template knowledge, as in St. Peter und Paul, Weimar, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Hi, I've never seen that template for references before, I've always just copied the way I saw someone do it ages ago; your way looks much easier so I'll try that in future (the emphasis has to be on 'try' though!). Thank you, all help/guidance is always much appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
A beer for you to say 'thank you'
Thank you so much for correcting things for me! Also for sorting out the isbn etc on Luo Yigu. I really do appreciate your help. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 22:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Saturday 29 June: edit-a-thon about First World War in Leuven
Hello Afernand74, You wrote on Meta that you are interested in participation in the edit-a-thon in Leuven about the First World War on 29 June. I wote about it on the mailing list, see the message below. Romaine (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
On Saturday 29 June there are several edit-a-thons organized in several countries in Europe with the subject World War I. This World War had Belgium as chess board so it is great to announce an edit-a-thon in Belgium. This event where new and existing users can write and expand articles is held in Leuven (Louvain). The location is KU Leuven - AGORA Leercentrum and is located at the E. Van Evenstraat 4 on 15 minutes walking from the train station Leuven.
What is an edit-a-thon?
An edit-a-thon is a (small) event where people come together and work on articles on a particular topic. Often such edit-a-thon is organized for people relatively new to Wikipedia and held at an organization.
What are the ingredients?
A short explanation/presentation about Wikipedia (encyclopaedia), the principles: a neutral point of view, free licensing, no original research, mentioning available sources.
Cheatsheets/antisèche/spiekbriefjes
Some literature, you may take it to the event and is very welcome
An internet connection is present
How can I sign up?
Signing up is needed at wmbewikimedia.org
Be welcome! Romaine (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Belgian Congo in WWII
Dear Afernand,
Thank you for your edits to this article & their spirit is much appreciated. Unfortunately, I've had to make some significant alterations to the text which you added and felt it would only be polite to give you my reasons. As you might have seen, the article is up for GA review and I'm anxious that it is as good as possible! The uranium from the Congo does, of course, play a big part in the Congo's history during the conflict, but please remember that this is only supposed to be a general article on a wider (but overlapping topic). There's also a real temptation to be extremely detailed and technical in this particular topic, however that makes reading such a general article difficult, hence my modifications. I've also had some reservations about a couple of uncited sentences (the 30,000 tons figure for instance) which will hamper its passage through GA review and which I have not found reputable sources to support.
Please don't take my comments the wrong way & as I say your feedback is much appreciated.
File copyright problem with File:Museum van Buuren Brussels Belgium.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Museum van Buuren Brussels Belgium.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The building is in the public domain in the United States as the building was made before 1990 (see Commons:Template:PD-US-architecture). Also, photos of buildings are explicitly permitted by US copyright law. English Wikipedia only cares about the copyright law of the United States (see Template talk:FoP-USonly#RFC: Does US FoP apply to foreign works?) and treats these images as free. However, they should be marked with {{FoP-USonly}} so that no one accidentally moves the image to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Done Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you --Doug Coldwell talk 12:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
wikimedia.org
