User talk:AirshipJungleman29

Ref help

G'day

I need some magician help.

I added a new source on Byzantine Empire and nested the chapter authors, per our previous Talk discussion to help reduce the source duplication.

Two and a half issues now appear: chapter author Kazhdan has another book in 1990. And the editor Shepherd also wrote a chapter and has another book (different year). The citations pull the correct information (and works fine for the other chapter authors) but it's generating an error that I do not know how to fix.

Kazhdan I believe can be fixed by renaming the other book referenced as 1990a, but I can't solve the nested chapters so that (1) they do not point back to the Shepherd chapter (2) have it point to the book itself.

FWIW the book was published in 1992 but the content came from 1990, I played around with this to try to solve the abobev but alas nope.

• Shepherd, Jonathan; Franklin, Simon, eds. (1992). Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers of the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies. Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies. ISBN 9780860783381.

Biz (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Solved it. Probably could be done better, but no more errors. Biz (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Genghis Khan

Congratulations, AirshipJungleman29! The article you nominated, Genghis Khan, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Belated, but congratulations on this monumental achievement! Truly a pillar of WP's biographies. Aza24 (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Oghul Qaimish

The article Oghul Qaimish you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Oghul Qaimish and Talk:Oghul Qaimish/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Mongol Khans at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Politicians and leaders

Hello,

I undid your edit. We now require a discussion before adding articles to VA5. You are obviously welcome to propose their addition. _pbp 20:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Second opinion on Dia Bridgehampton

Hey, thanks for your comments at Vital articles. Thought provoking, I think I overstated some things which you helped me see, even though I still disagree. Anyway, the force at which you disagree makes me think, if you have time and care, you would be the perfect second set of eyes to look over a GAN I am having trouble with. I haven't requested a second opinion before, and I think it would be too early to request one before completing any part of the review process beyond #3 (maybe I'm wrong).

This is what it looked like when it was nominated. My concern was it was not clear if the subject of the article was the museum, or the building the museum is in. I think this was very apparent from the lead, but also from a history of the museum not mentioning the museum until halfway through.

In talking to the nominator, it has become clear the issue is complex. In their words: "Dia Bridgehampton, while ostensibly an art museum, is really a permanent, site-specific, art installation". The artist the museum is about oversaw the creation of the museum, renovating the building for it. The museum today features exhibits from previous uses of the building, and a post on the stairs, painted by the artist, is an exhibit. Still, this doesn't change that the article is about the museum, not the building. If it reads like its about the building then it's too broad and fails #3b.

I've been suggesting changes to make it clear to the reader what the subject of the article is (i.e., splitting the building history into a section later in the article). But it is clear to me now just how much of a rewrite is needed. The lead has been focused on in rewrites, and the subject of two out of the first three sentences is still the building/structure.

Again, if you have time and are okay with bypassing the second opinion feature in just this instance, I would be grateful for your insight into whether this is a problem, and where the article is now. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

DCWC August update

The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for a month, and we've already seen some momentous improvement in the quality of many articles about underrepresented subjects! So far, our top-scoring participants are:

• Magentic Manifestations (submissions) – 338 points, mainly from nine good articles. He's a contender for the "most submissions for a single country" specialty award, with nine submissions for India.
• Arconning (submissions) – 305 points, including from six seasonally-appropriate Olympics-related good articles.
• Generalissima (submissions) – 290 points, the bulk from her featured article about Greenlandic interpreter Qalaherriaq and two China-related good articles.
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) – 245 points, mostly from the achievement of bringing Genghis Khan to featured status.
• Thebiguglyalien (submissions) – 144 points from three good articles, including two about Kiribati elections, and four reviews of good article nominees.

Looking for ways to climb up the leaderboard yourself? Help out your fellow participants by answering a few review requests, particularly the older entries. Several more nominations needing attention are listed at eligible reviews, and highlighed entries receive a 1.5× multiplier! The coordinators would like to extend a special thanks to Thebiguglyalien (submissions) for his commitment to keeping these review pages up to date.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Removed DYK image

Why did you remove that DYK image? I don't see how it violated WP:DYKIMG, because it is crop of an image used in the second bolded article and I'm not sure how it is violating WP:DYKVAR either, because there was only one other sports-related hook in the set, but maybe I am missing something here. – Editør (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:DYKIMG: "Try to avoid images that divert readers from the bolded article into a side article – for example, taking a hook about a fictional character and picturing the character's also-linked portrayer." An image depicting Bol would have diverted a massive amount of attention away from the articles the hook was created to showcase.

WP:DYKVAR: "try to avoid having two images of people in adjacent sets." There was also an image of a person in the previous set. Given the DYKIMG problem, I chose to adjust this one.

Hope that helps Editør. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. – Editør (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Please restore your edit on Donald Bochkay

AirshipJungleman29

Your edit was reverted for lack of a reference. It is on page 54 of Yeager's eponymous book. Here are the words from the book:

    Don Bochkay was the old man. He was about twenty-five, a Californian who loved to tinker with cars. Silk panties or nylons were impossible to get in wartime London, and he had his mother send him some to use as bait. One night, five of us were in a West End pub getting drunk, while Ol' Boch made a play for one of the barmaids by giving her a pair of fancy silk panties. "Honey, "Boch said to her, "you stick with me and you'll be fartin' through silk." That line became famous throughout the entire Eighth Air Force.

I think that story and quote is an important part of anything about Donald Bochkay, especially since it was soon widely quoted in the Eighth Air Force.

Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Tupelo the typo fixer, not entirely sure what you're talking about. I have made one edit to Donald H. Bochkay, which was adding the words "propeller-driven" to a sentence. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

So sorry, I assumed that you had made the entry that was reverted right after you made your edit. Turns out that the that Toadboy123, who did the revert, was reverting his own edit!!

Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Latin tenses referencing

Can you please advise on how the referencing of Latin tenses could be brought up to a higher standard? Thanks. Kanjuzi (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kanjuzi, see UndercoverClassicist's comments in the GA review. Essentially, every bit that analyses, explains, or interprets the Latin language must be cited to a modern secondary source. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll accept your judgement. Of course the great majority of statements, certainly those which are the least likely to be challenged, are referenced to standard reference books such as Gildersleeve & Lodge. Other statements, which are common ground and well known to all students of Latin, it seems to me don't need a reference. However, it seems to me that a rating of "C" is rather low if we compare this article to the criteria in Wikipedia:Content assessment for grade C. Descriptions for class C such as "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study" seem far wide of the mark in this case. Kanjuzi (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Kanjuzi, C-class is defined at Wikipedia:Content assessment as failing "one or more of the criteria for B-Class." One of the B-class criteria is "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations." A Wikipedia article is not meant just for students of Latin—it is meant for readers of all experience. A "moderately detailed study" requires the article to satisfy the verifiability policy properly; at the moment, the article doesn't do that, but it shouldn't be much work at all to get it up to standard. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Patterson DYK

Thanks for your comment on the 'First person to do hooks' on Mary Jane Patterson. Good point. Where should I leave my ideas for alternative hooks? Balance person (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Balance person, on the nomination is best. See e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/David Fishwick for an example of how to format the alternative hooks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

OK I hope I have done it correctly. I have changed the main hook and explained why. Have left ALT1 hook and explained why. If something else is, needed do let me know? Thanks for your help. Balance person (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I see you have done it correctly for me. Thank you. I couldn't see how to add a new improved hook. I usually use visual editor and find the other editor hard to do! Could you tell me what happens next? Does an administrator have to decide now? Balance person (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genghis Khan#Identification of Genghis Khan with Minamoto no Yoshitsune

Can you do it?