This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jenks24. 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley munn until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Fly by Night(talk)02:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
No worries :) Bit sad to have a look at WikiProject Tasmania's talk page -- Aaroncrick leaving hasn't helped much. That said, Victoria isn't much better... Jenks24 (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jenks24. I just realized that a person (not just some automated function) put the welcome message on my talk page. Thanks a bunch, the links have been helpful. Salmoneus AiolidesΧαῖρε11:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. Sorry that I came across like an automaton (the curse of using a template), but I'm glad the links have been helpful. If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask me (though it looks like you've got the hang of things already!). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
Jenks24 - Thank you for spotting my mistake in creating "Kinnerton/UBX/Whitby" instead of "User:Kinnerton/UBX/Whitby" and correcting it. Very kind of you. Kinnerton (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually close that Big 12 Championship Game move request. I got distracted, it seems. Cheers. :) -GTBacchus(talk)23:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. I know it sounds a bit rude, but really, the quality of the discussion from that side is appalling. I'm trying to simply shock some people into thinking a little outside their very narrow boxes. I'll hope that it's achieved something by now, and ease back a bit. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the great feedback
I wanted to leave a short message on your talk page thanking you for helping me better understand what I thought was a wholesale violation of Wikipedia rules in this conversation. You are a great asset to Wikipedia. § Music Sorter § (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Talk:Valve Corporation. Message added 22:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Talk:Valve Corporation. Message added 03:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please be advised that your corrected edit regarding Wayne Carey handballing groceries into his shopping trolley is incorrect. This has been placed in his wikipedia article as fact - the second sentence is a humourous connection between the event and australian football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.69.225 (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
... an Aussie can always do with a beer, right? Just recently had a good reason to learn to use these tokens of good will and friendly intentions. Why be stingy with then? You showed me good faith some time ago, when I messed up a reversal. Thanks for that! Cheers, mate. MarB4•ɯɒɹ•13:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks mate! Having just returned from the pub, I think it would definitely be safe to say that an Aussie can always do with more beer :) We all make mistakes (I know I've made my fair share), and I hope this doesn't sound patronising, but I think it shows true character to admit you have made a mistake and apologise. Thanks again and if there is ever anything you think I can give you a hand with, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Not sure. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MosesBeacon for all his socks, many of which were blocked by MuZemike (a checkuser), so I'm not sure if he's been checkuser'd already. Stuff like this is way outside my area of expertise, so if you think it would be beneficial to start an SPI, then please go ahead. In the meantime, I'll report the latest sock to AIV, per WP:DUCK. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Gordian knot-incestuous-married-to keep-control-of-the colony-for protestant-english-and bugger-the-rest-of-theworld-we-knowhat-is-best families, hmmm Horgan cottoned on to them but they didnt let go - I know a few descendants, my parents knew a large number of them 50 years ago. SatuSuro07:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
glad you saw that - what i could have said is more toxic and not relatable at this level of gold fish bowl SatuSuro08:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Templates
Whilst I appreciate what you're doing, isn't it important that a navigation tempalate have links to every page it is used on? Maybe that's an old fashioned idea of mine, but I rather think that it would be more helpful to have the links to the club pages, since the templates are of course on those pages themselves. I really don't think this falls under overlinking. Cheers, ....16:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Firstly, thanks for creating all those templates—it's been on my to-do list for ages. I do agree, generally, that navigation templates should link to every article there used on. However, I would disagree that templates should be on the team articles in the first place. The articles already have a lot of navigation templates (some would say too many) and if they are interested about coaches, the general club templates, such as {{Melbourne Football Club}}, already have a link to the relevant list of coaches. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the tweaks at User:Richwales/Drafts/George E. Crothers. As it turns out, I was working on the page while you did your changes. I believe I managed to resolve the edit conflict, incorporating your changes as well as mine, but if you could take another look at the current draft and make sure I didn't miss anything, I'd be grateful.
I would also welcome any comments you might have on the question of whether the sources I'm currently using are sufficient (in quality and quantity) to establish Crothers' notability. I'd like to make this article as AfD-proof as I can before moving it into the main space. Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, didn't realise you were still working on it. Sorry for the edit conflict, I know what a pain they can be. Yep, I think you did incorporate all my changes (except one tiny thing which I fixed just now). Regarding notability, I'd say it's probably borderline, mainly because all sources associated with Crothers or Stanford wouldn't be considered independent. To be frank, I doubt it would ever get taken to AfD because of how well-written and sourced it is, so I think if you moved it to mainspace, it wouldn't get deleted. That said, I think Cothers probably passes the general notability guideline anyway. The obit in the Chronicle is good and he gets a few mentions in The New York Times ([1], [2]) and the Los Angeles Times ([3], [4], [5])—though I can't see any of them due to paywalls. Also, this book (p. 344) gives an interesting account of how Crothers proved that his uncle had not married Mrs. Craven. Add to that the 1580 hits (I only glanced at the first page of that search—you might find some good stuff if you go further) in a google books search and I think it's pretty clear that he's notable. If there's anything I can do to help, feel free to ask. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I replaced my original source for the forensic handwriting analysis incident (the Clausen book, which I'm already using more times than I would prefer) with the History of the Bench and Bar of California source you gave me. Based on the titles of the L.A. and New York Times articles, it's not obvious to me how useful they would be; I'll probably not worry about them unless someone takes this article to AfD demanding more outside, independent sources to prove notability (which, as you said, is not all that likely, but a little bit of paranoia can't hurt). Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
No worries. Yeah, the NY Times and LA Times articles weren't so much suggestions to be used in the article, but more something you could bring up on the very off chance this goes to AfD, to reinforce notability. Glad you found the History of the Bench and Bar of California book useful. The article looks pretty good from my perspective and I look forward to seeing it in mainspace. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate your support regarding DW. If there's anything specific on there that you want to know/can't find etc.. I'd be happy to help out. supermercado (talk).
Jenks24, you are correct, certainly to the letter, and I probably should make sure that I say "importance" whenever I say "notability" in such discussions. In my defense: I place the threshold for notability fairly low (certainly in A7 tagging, where I prefer to err on the side of caution), so for me, practically speaking, notability and importance are the same thing. In this case, of the 13-yr old bike mechanic, I still don't see a credible claim to importance, let alone notability. Now, I will grant you immediately that admins may differ here--and that's why a. it's a good thing that we have a lot of admins and b. it's important that we explain these things, as I urged Robert to do with the other two tags, which in my opinion were incorrect. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. In regards to notability vs importance I'm sure your judgements on A7 are still correct. The only problem is that many new/inexperienced users who patrol the new pages log often confuse CSD's A7 "importance" with our general "notability" criteria and make incorrect and bite-y A7 taggings (to clarify: I'm sure that's not you). In this case, I do think the bike mechanic makes a credible claim of importance, though I'm willing to accept that I probably set the A7 lower than most (and if other admins agree with you that A7 was applicable in this case, perhaps I will have to adjust my bar). I will agree with you that Robert's answer to the question was sub-optimal (he also used "notability" when he should have used "importance") and could have used further explanation, which is why I'm not in the support column. However, I think the A10 answer was understandable, as there are technically duplicate articles. Jenks24 (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but looking at them as duplicate articles defeats the purpose of the question. I wish, though, that Salvio would have clarified. I think the problem of what should you do with an incorrectly tagged article is really interesting and speaks to an admin/editor's character. I also see a lot of bitey speedies and have no problem declining them--and in many cases it's just a question of laziness. A French person will know what "Medicis" means--and a non-French person will simply have to take the trouble to learn (that's also the fun of Wikipedia). I get the feeling sometimes that being on Recent Patrol (is that what it's called?) is taken as a badge of honor (look at me! I am a vandal fighter!)--but it's only if you've been on the other side of a speedy or an AfD that you know what it's like. Content creation is hard, and if someone wrote that short article on that writer who won that prize, I would honor even that little bit of work (there's a lot more work in that one than in the bike repair kid, IMO). BTW, if you ever have questions about CSDing, you can do what I used to do: ask DGG! All the best, Drmies (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, taking them as A10s really does kill the question and it would have been better for Robert to write a more than one sentence along the lines of "Under the assumption that neither #2 or #3 had dupes existing". I do agree with you about the vandal fighters (I'm afraid I don't know if Recent Patrol is the correct term either) and that content creation can often be undervalued. Another thing we agree on is that DGG is certainly an excellent admin to ask CSD questions to (and PROD/AfD questions as well). Best to you too, Jenks24 (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Would you please explain to me the reasons to delete the list? I don't understand how the list violates Wikipedia:OR when there clearly is a reliable source from the Swedish Football Association, I can to some extent understand that the list violates Wikipedia:NOTSTATS but if it does so does a LOT of other lists, basically every football and club season article on WP. Please explain the reason so I can understand why it should be deleted. Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Reckless. I completely agree with you that it is not original research and that it's reliably sourced. However, I think it does fail WP:NOTSTATS. There may be other lists that also fail NOTSTATS, but we do not keep articles just because other stuff exists. Also season articles generally include some prose and could be expanded. I fail to see how All-time Allsvenskan table and other "All-time" articles could ever be anything other than statistics. The real clincher, though, is that I don't think the All-time table is notable. Does it have significant coverage in independent reliable sources? If you can show that it does, I will be happy to remove the PROD tag. That all said, as it is only a PROD tag, you are well within your rights to remove it if you wish (I apologise if you know this and that came across as patronising). As a side note, you may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"All-time" tables. All the best, Jenks24 (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey thanks for explaining it to me. I will probably participate in the deletion discussion in some way. I understand and accept your point of view. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi again! Regarding your discussion with Moonriddengirl, what exactly do you mean with the term "creative"? I have never dealt with copyvios before so I'm a bit confused. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm no copyright expert, the (few) copyvios I've dealt with before were basically just clear-cut copy/pastes, which this is obviously not. I will try to answer though; basically, data and statistics are not subject to copyright, but the question is whether the data/stats/info was creatively expressed. I did some googling on the matter and found User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists (which is similar to our issue about tables) and a good link (I thought) from the University of Michigan (see here). I'd recommend having a read of those if you have the time. At the moment, I'm leaning to think that the table is not creatively expressed, it is simply listing data in a standard order for football statistics. I'll wait for MRG's response on her talk, but I'd say things are looking positive at the moment. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the interesting links, they were both a good read! I'd also say that the design of the table is standard for these sorts of lists, nothing creative. Hopefully we can keep the table by merging it to Allsvenskan. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I've just commented at the AfD that I think the table isn't a copyvio and that I'd be fine with a merge. Jenks24 (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional sources at Imaan Hadchiti! I had a look at Newsbank.com with a view to joining, but there does not seem to be any easily accessible information about how to subscribe, or the costs. Do you know if they offer a personal subscription service of any kind?
No problem :) As I have access through my university, I'm afraid I don't know if they offer a personal subscription service. I had a look around NewsBank.com as well, and I couldn't find anything about personal subscriptions. The one thing I did find was when looking at the Australian Newspapers part of the site [6], it had a note at the bottom reading "For more information, contact a NewsBank representative by calling us collect at 802.875.2910 or emailing [email protected]", which you could follow up on if you are so inclined. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Cheers for fixing that template error. I must admit I'm a bit of a newbie with these more complicated templates, so if you spot any more mistakes, feel free to fix them :) IgnorantArmies?!12:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
No worries. To be honest, a lot of template code is actually gibberish to me and I only get through by copying things that work elsewhere and using preview a lot :) Jenks24 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Bernard Tomic
I have reverted your edit on Bernard Tomic to Yugoslavia. I realise you and User:Absconded Northerner have your heads twisted around what is says in "sources" but there is more to the situation than that. Sources, even reliable ones, have also been known to provide incorrect information and we never have to look far to find them. To clear the issue, several years before 1992, Croatia was in Yugloslavia, it delcared independence on 25 June 1991 and joined the UN in early 1992. Although Croatia had existed as an entity even within Yugoslavia, the article's reference to both Germany and Australia mean that sovereign nations were the topic of the section. In this case, this would be Yugoslavia as the code of practice is to observe historical accuracy. Please also note that Croatia is mostly about the independent country after 1991 and that separate articles exist for each period, and for the pre-1991 period we have Socialist Republic of Croatia and it would have been this that his parents left. One alternative on the article would be to state (left Croatia, then part of Yugoslavia) or something to that effect. But regarding the plain source itself just saying "Croatia", this is redolent of those that may say a person was born in Veles, Republic of Macedonia in 1980 when the city was then known as Titov Veles and was within the Socialist Republic of Macedonia in SFR Yugoslavia. The source can reflect the modern status but then its publisher is not tasked with providing a historical analysis. On here, we aim for everything to be as accurate as possible. I admit the Andrea Petkovic talk is a true dispute, but this is something that carries far less ambiguity. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. The convoluted history of Balkans politics is not something I have a lot of knowledge on, so it was not immediately apparent to me that Croatia was not a sovereign nation at that time – I only saw that you were changing the article in a way that apparently contradicted the source. Yes, not every newspaper article is 100% correct (though I see no evidence to assume that this particular article is wrong) and, yes, the article in question does mention only sovereign nations before mentioning that his parents left Croatia, but I still think it would at least be bordering on original research change it to Yugoslavia because Croatia was a part of Yugoslavia at that time. We can not know for sure that the author was deliberately referring to Croatia as a part of Yugoslavia. As to linking, I do not think it necessary to link Croatia or Yugoslavia at all – Australia isn't linked in the lead. I like your suggested alternative of using "Croatia, then part of Yugoslavia," which is both correct and a good compromise. On a side note, please don't refer to good faith editors as "trolls" in edit summaries. I've got a pretty thick skin, so it doesn't really bother me, but other editors would take it as a personal attack. Your dialogue here is very polite and constructive, so I can't see why your edit summaries couldn't be the same. Also, this is an inappropriate use of the rollback tool. Again, it doesn't bother me too much, but other editors may report you for it. That said, thanks for taking this to discussion. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Jenks24, I thank you for your alternative stand on Bernard Tomic and you have my fullest apologies for the manner in which I used rollback to your first edit and for the reference to trolling. Never again will I assume bad faith when you have made an edit or reverted me and that is a sure promise. I hope you realise that this activity clashed with the Talk:Andrea Petkovic discussion where we presented opposing arguments, so there I just felt for the moment that you were merely reverting me for the sake of it - and when the summary came up "source", I thought "aaarrgghh, not again!!!". And then before you could respond to the message above, what happens? Absconded Northerner joins the parade! I did feel for a few moments that I was up against two hostile editors. Your edit to Tomic assured me though that this is not the case, and you are right, why go into overlink? As for OR - you could be right there too. The source may not have been accurate from any aspect, I guess we all just took it as precise. October 1992 may actually have seen September 1992 - or 1992 might really have been 1993 but someone got it wrong! What are year(s)? Plural, but the time hey left may have been 14 months when which Croatia was - to international eyes - in transition from one entity and the next! This is why I say, it's best we all take sources with a pinch of salt - use them for their positive information but let's not brandish them as though they were the Human Rights Act! And also, if you see my past edits, no I am not normally unfriendly - so I apologise for appearing to be in a way I'm not usually. Concerning Talk:Andrea Petkovic, we've all said pretty much all we can for the moment and until others engage in the talk, I have no need to return to it. The business of diacritics I appreciate you look at from a universal angle and it may be best to abolish them - particularly if we can't have them everywhere! My view - although it generally favours them - is that we shouldn't have half-measures but then nothing is 100% consistent on WP. Thanks again and I hope we can work constructively together on future projects, regardless of views. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your apology, I appreciate it. I only just realised that this did clash with our disagreement at on the Andrea Petkovic talk page, so I do understand how it could seem like I'd just come out of nowhere to revert you, but I have had Tomic's article on my watchlist for a while now (though perhaps I should have dropped a note on your talkpage the first time I reverted you to make this clear). I'm glad we were able to reach a compromise so easily and I agree we should take sources with a pinch of salt. It is highly probable that, like me, the author of that article is not an expert on the Balkans and does not know the year that Croatia became independent. But to start reading into sources like that does veer into OR territory – which is why I think the compromise is great. Regarding the diacritics issue, I agree that most of us have probably said all we can (or should). Your view about half-measures is interesting. I have taken a pretty "anti-diacritic" approach in some recent requested moves, but I agree it would be great if the community could decide either "yes, always use diacritics if that is the person's name in their home country" or "no, we only use diacritics if all (or most) English sources do". Alas, the recent RfC (don't know if you participated there?) ended in no consensus, which is how the majority of requested moves end as well. Oh well. Yes, I also hope we can work constructively together in the future. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Pennsylvania townships
I realize that category talk pages are not the usual place for discussions, but I think this is the best place for this discussion. It covers all of the townships in Pennsylvania. There has been much discussion lately about how township names in Pennsylvania should be titled. Some go for X Township, Pennsylvania. Others want X Township, Y County, Pennsylvania. Of course there are many Washington Townships in Pennsylvania so they and others like it will need to include the county name in the title. The townships in question are the unique ones like Horton Township and Plunketts Creek Township. I think it is best to limit this discussion to Pennsylvania. If other wikiprojects want to do it differently that is fine. The status of townships vary greatly from state to state.
I like the picture you chose to put on your userpage. The red and blue colours are so stark that it seems like the bird was "printed" with two-colour printing process. Cool! ;-) --Ohconfucius¡digame!04:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I know what you mean about the colours, the crimson rosella is an absolutely beautiful bird and red and blue have the added bonus of being the colours of my favourite footy club. The image on your userpage is pretty spectacular as well ;) Jenks24 (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, just like Melbourne. And yes, a truly custom image that my kid drew after seeing TV footage of an elephant giving birth. Kinda difficult to beat, really! --Ohconfucius¡digame!06:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This time it was accidently. If u look at the pages I created, between my previous warning and this one, u'll see this time, it was an accident. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 15:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Having a one page category looks pointless. There appear to have been one-page categories for most caribbean nations a long time ago. Apart from these last four countries, all the others were cleared and deleted long ago. At present Telephone numbers in Barbados redirects to Area code 246 and the same redirect system is already in place for several dozen other area codes. That seems a much cleaner way of doing things, especially when looking at Category:Telephone numbers by country. -- 14:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.236.111 (talk)
Ok, thanks for the explanation – it makes sense. Basically, there are two options: we could nominate the four categories for deletion at Categories for discussion, or we could just wait for them to be deleted as empty categories. I'd prefer the latter option because it will only take four days, compared to the seven that a CfD would take. Jenks24 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense. I had no idea there were so many different ways to do things. I'll let "the process" clean it up; and hope no-one comes along and undeletes them in the meantime. (By the way, apologies for the double "the the" in one of the page names - I would have asked for a redirect to single "the" if I had spotted it earlier. That would have preserved the old talk page too.) -- 80.42.236.111 (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the myriad of processes on Wikipedia can take a while to get used to. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on these categories to see if someone adds them back to the articles, but hopefully it should be uncontroversial. No worries about "the the" – I should have spotted it before creating the redirect. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jivesh. I don't edit music articles much so I'm not sure how much use I would be, but I'll try and leave some comments if I get some time in the next few hours. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
No worries about the late reply, I've been meaning to put one of those banners up at the top of my talk page that says I will generally reply here. I do copyedit articles every now and again, but it depends on what quality you want the prose to be. If an article's in reasonably good shape, I could probably help it get to GA, but the same can't be said for FA. Jenks24 (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Very well. I'll see what I can do for the 1+1 article shortly. Regarding Single Ladies, if I still have some time left, I'll have a look at it, but I've never taken an article to FA and I'd wouldn't feel comfortable telling you whether I think it is/isn't FA quality. Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Do whatever you can. I have already requested more than 30 people for a copy-edit and none of them have agreed. Seriously!!! Jivesh boodhun (talk / Make sure you give 4 a try!!!)11:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've just finished going through 1+1 (and thanks for catching the errors I introduced). There were some issues that I was either unsure about or unable to fix myself and I've left comments in the text using <!-- -->. Hope you can get around to them; for example, all quotes must be footnoted, even in the lead, but if you have any questions, feel free to ask. I might have a look at that Single Ladies section, but not tonight. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh My Goodness. Thanks for that amazing copy-edit. You are simply great and very reliable!!!
Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Talk:Cheers (Drink to That). Message added 15:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Great minds think alike! I saw you working on it and was going to ask if you wanted me to look over it. I should be able to have a read sometime tonight :) Jenks24 (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
If you're any good with making footnotes and think that it's a good idea, I'd like you to help me to eject the following phrase into one, rather than have it clutter up the lede: "several Chinese scientists have previously received Nobel Prizes for work done outside the country, and Chinese-born French national Gao Xingjian was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2000)". --Ohconfucius¡digame!09:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Done the footnote, I agree it did clutter the lead. The note appears as [n 1], but I can change that to [note 1], [nb 1], etc. if you want. Will look over the article in the next few hours. Jenks24 (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Two issues: Since the article was written, The Times has put up a paywall. The South China Morning Post already has that. I prepared the article using online subscription, but the site does not display page numbers in the printed version; they have a strange way of archiving after a few weeks and articles are no longer available using urls even with a subscription. I have tried to find alternative sources where possible, but some seem to be exclusives or otherwise no longer exist. What do you suggest? --Ohconfucius¡digame!08:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
For The Times ref(s), just add "(subscription required)" after the title of the article (see ref 117 for an example). The SCMP is harder and I honestly don't know. My two suggestions would be, either (a) when you submit this for FAC, note what you've just told me at the top of the FAC and hope people will take your word, or (b) ask Nikkimaria (talk·contribs), who reviews every FAC for reference consistency, if she can think of a solution. Sorry I couldn't be of more help, Jenks24 (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
