Archived talk is here

Appreciate your talking up this task. I depart Thursday morning for a week's vacation, so if cannot complete the effort I suggest it be put on hold until the 9th. David notMD (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And... we are off to a fast start! David notMD (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @David notMD: I have left you comments on my first read through here. No rush to respond if you are going to be away on vacation, I am happy to wait. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about deleting the "Definition" section? For vitamins that have vitamers such a section proven useful, but here it feels redundant. David notMD (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @David notMD: How about moving the "Chemical properties" section up the page and merging it into the "Definition" section? Mertbiol (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. David notMD (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me to slow this one down to after my return on the 8th, if we do not finish before you need to start to address the GA reviews for Weybridge and Leatherhead. David notMD (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed all the requests and suggestions in the first pass, including revisiting the table headings for dietary recommendations. Starting early Dec 2 through late Dec 8 I will be in a non-Wifi part of California, so will be able to continue this GA review starting the 9th. Looking forward to a night sky so dark that the Milky Way will be clearly visible (and hearing Great Horned Owls and Coyotes). David notMD (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Weybridge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Leatherhead you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Weybridge 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:Weybridge for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Leatherhead 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:Leatherhead for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Weybridge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Weybridge for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Leatherhead you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Leatherhead for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your diligence on Riboflavin. I will let you know if a Did You Know... reaches the Main Page. And congratulations on your two recent GAs. David notMD (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Haslemere you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Haslemere you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Haslemere for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Staines-upon-Thames you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Staines-upon-Thames you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Staines-upon-Thames for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mertbiol, I really appreciated your detailed feedback when we worked together a while back on a GAR. I was wondering if you'd have time to help review this article that I'm considering nominating for GA. ––FormalDude talk 04:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @FormalDude: It’s good to hear from you again and thanks for getting in touch.

I've read through the Susan B. Anthony article. I think it is very good and there should be no difficulty in getting it promoted to GA status. I have noted a few, very minor points:

• The second paragraph of the lead section has eight sentences that begin "In 18??," and this sounds a little repetitive. It would be good to rephrase if possible.
• References [2] and [15] should be linked to the Internet Archive if possible, to match the other Harper (1898-1908) references.
• Is "unhappily endured its severe atmosphere" a quotation (referring to the Quaker school that Anthony attended in 1837)? If it is a quote, then it should be in quotation marks. If not then I think this phrase needs a little more explanation.
• The sentence "The leadership of the new organization included such prominent activists as Lucretia Mott, Lucy Stone and Frederick Douglass." is missing a reference.
• The paragraph starting "Originally envisioned as a modest publication that could be produced quickly" appears to be unreferenced.
• Some of the longer paragraphs have only a single reference (e.g. paragraphs with references [5], [7], [17], [73], [133] and several more). I would prefer to see these split, rather than combining multiple source book pages into a single citation at the end of the paragraph.
• The Commemoration section could be made more readable if it was divided by subheadings - perhaps "sculptures", "projects", "banknotes, coins and stamps" etc. It would also also benefit from the addition of some pictures, possibly using some from the Gallery section immediately below it.

One additional issue I have is that you do not appear to have made any recent edits to the article. I would be concerned that you might not be able to respond fully to a reviewer's comments, without having done the detailed research involved in writing it. @Bilpen: is responsible for 73% of the article and if I were in their shoes, then I would expect to be consulted by another editor interested in nominating for WP:GAN before the article is put forward. (In all honestly, I think that you should have left a message on the talk page before approaching me for my comments.)

While it is true that the letter of Wikipedia law states that anyone can nominate any article (and indeed that no article belongs to any one person), the collaborative spirit of this project does require a discussion with a major contributor before a nomination is advanced. (See this paragraph of the nomination instructions.) I am sure that @Bilpen:, as an experienced editor, is well aware of the possibility of WP:GAN, but they may want to make further progress before seeking recognition for their efforts through the review process. (If this what they would like to do, then you should respect their wishes and wait.) Likewise, if they would prefer to nominate the article themselves, you should let them do just that.

Finally, if you are on the hunt for close-to-GA articles to nominate, simply so that you can claim "GA medals" on the back of someone else's work, then I would respectfully suggest that your intentions do not fit with the generous, collaborative spirit that is fostered here at Wikipedia.

Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. I have not started editing the article yet, but I should have reached out to Bilpen first. I didn't know how much they'd contributed to the article. I certainly am not trying to seek awards off the back of someone else. ––FormalDude talk 21:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mertbiol, thanks for the kind words. It's true that I have put a lot of work into the Susan B. Anthony article as well as some related articles. I probably am the best person to bring it up to GA standards since I have the books needed for references on my bookshelf. I am tied up with a non-Wikipedia project at the moment, but I should be able to work on it before too long. Meanwhile I will see if I can address some of the issues that you have raised here. Bilpen (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mertbiol. I will be able to begin working on this project shortly. I have already done some preliminary work. How should we handle it? Should I begin by simply working through your list of suggestions above? Bilpen (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bilpen: Thanks for getting in touch. I should explain that my involvement with this article came purely from the exchange above. I am from the UK and had not come across Susan B. Anthony before. If you would like to use my comments as a guide to prepare the article for a GA nomination, then please do go ahead. (It's already a very clear and well-written article.) I'd be very happy to review it at GAN - I don't think this would be a conflict of interest, but if you prefer for someone else to do this, then that's fine too. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mertbiol, I have worked through your preliminary list of suggested improvements to the Susan B. Anthony article, and I have now nominated it as a Good Article. If you would like to be the reviewer, that would be fine with me. Thanks. Bilpen (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mertbiol, sadly I don't have time to do a full review at the moment, but I saw the note on timing and thought I'd drop a note that the main issue I see at a quick look is MOS:OVERSECTION (GA1b). The article has quite a few single paragraph, and even single sentence, sections and subsections. A consolidation would likely help readability. Best, CMD (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to working with you. It's been a while since I nominated if, so I'll read through the article to refresh my memory. David notMD (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Just got over COVID (with help from Paxlovid). I will start my replies Thursday morning. David notMD (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed Degradation to Interference and added more content and references. Please let me know if this calls for more work before making a decision on the GA nomination. David notMD (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in again - any more requests before reaching a decision on this GA application? David notMD (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, and for putting up with my involuntary sabbatical/ghosting of the review process for October and much of November. David notMD (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christmas presents.jpg

Hello Mertbiol! I hope you enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world. Thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia.

––FormalDude (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora Mertbiol, could I check if you have any more thoughts on the West Auckland GA review? I feel like we're almost finished, and I'd love to get it sorted. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Woking you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Woking 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:Woking and Talk:Woking/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Woking you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Woking for comments about the article, and Talk:Woking/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Woking, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that H. G. Wells wrote the majority of The War of the Worlds while living in Woking, and much of the novel is set in the local area? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Woking. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Woking), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would a copy of a letter heading address - received by Frederick Marshman Bailey - be acceptable evidence for living in Dorking ? Charles.bowyer (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charles.bowyer: Thanks for your message. I'm afraid that a copy of a letter would not be acceptable, as this would be a primary source. Please see WP:Primary for more information. We would need a secondary source, such as a biography, for this to stand. I have checked ODNB, but there is no entry for Bethell and he is also not mentioned as a resident in the local history books that I have. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that I have checked the archives of the Times and Telegraph, but can't find any mention of Bethell in either. (I was hoping to find an obituary.) Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have the electoral roll for Dorking 1926 - I guess that would be OK ? Charles.bowyer (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charles.bowyer:. No sorry, it's also a primary source. You need a secondary source. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charles.bowyer: One possibility is for you to get in touch with Dorking Museum and to ask them if they would be willing to add Bethel to this page of notable Dorking people on their website. You could present the primary source information to them and they could then publish a summary. Bethel's connection to Dorking seems to have faded from local knowledge, so I am sure they would be interested to hear from you. They may be able to find some relevant local press articles.

The other point to consider is whether Bethel is suitable for inclusion in a deliberately short list of notable people. Since he appears to have moved to Dorking in retirement and, as I understand it, did not produce any new work while living in the town, we would generally leave him off a list of this type. (Compare Bethell to Vaughan Williams and Moule-Evans, who spent large portions of their working lives in the town.)

I hope this helps. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No - you may have misread the article - he left Dorking as part of his retirement plan. He did a good deal of work between 1926 and 1936 when he lived in Dorking. The reason he tends to be invisible in the record is his constant use of pseudonyms.

Anyway - I will contact the museum. Charles.bowyer (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charles.bowyer:. Sorry, my apologies - I confused his retirement from the army with his retirement from writing. If the period of his residence in Dorking was a productive one, then I am sure that Dorking Museum will be very keen to hear from you and to develop an entry from their website. Once this is independently published, it can be cited on Wikipedia. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charles.bowyer:. One more thing - the other organisation to consider contacting is the Dorking and Leatherhead Advertiser, the local newspaper, which publishes online at SurreyLive. They often turn Wikipedia pages into their own articles... I'm sure that a "rediscovery of Leonard Arthur Bethell" as a "local Dorking hero" would be of great interest to them and would result in a suitable article. (Probably best to do this once your discussions with the museum are at an advanced stage.) Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent the following to the Museum - hope you find it fair. I await their reply.

To: Dorking Museum <[email protected]>

From: Charles Bowyer <[email protected]>

Erica

We communicated a while ago on the sale note for New Clan - you may remember.

I was writing a Wikipedia article for Leonard Arthur Bethell who lived in Dorking between 1926 and 1936. That article is now complete, accepted by Wikipedia editors, and published.

Consequently, I added Bethell to the list of 'Notable Dorking residents' on Wikipedia - at the end of their list, underneath Absolute Radio DJ Christian O'Connell. One of the Wikipedia editors has rejected my addition on the grounds that Bethell is not sufficiently notable.

I of course claim that he is - the editor has suggested that the Museum adjudicate - what do you think ?

The information on Bethell is at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Arthur_Bethell

Charles Charles.bowyer (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charles.bowyer: I'm afraid you have misrepresented my position. I certainly did not suggest that Dorking Museum adjudicate on the notability of Bethell. The problem is that you do not have any secondary sources to back up your claim that he lived in Dorking. All you have are primary sources, which I have explained are not acceptable on Wikipedia. See WP:Primary.

I suggested that you contact the museum and ask them to include an entry on their website for Bethell. This would be a secondary source which you could use as a reference on Wikipedia. I also suggested you could do the same for the local press.

Please email Erica back and correct the record. Mertbiol (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I misunderstood. And I may still be misunderstanding:

There seem to be 2 issues in point:

1. Did this person live in Dorking ?

I do not see how you can reject the evidence of the electoral register. This is a legal document, and it is a legal offence to make false entries on it. Therefore I find this a definitive proof that he lived in Dorking. Do you not agree ? (This document is referenced in the Bethell Wikipedia article).

2. Is this person sufficiently notable - a much more nuanced discussion. I can say that this very issue was discussed at length in regard to putting the article live - and the result was 'Yes'.

(I will forward the link to that discussion by next - I have to leave this page to go and locate it.)

Please clarify things for me. Charles.bowyer (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charles.bowyer:

1. Did this person live in Dorking ? You need a SECONDARY SOURCE to support your assertion that Bethell lived in Dorking for the period 1926 to 1936. An electoral roll is a PRIMARY SOURCE and only covers one year. A SECONDARY SOURCE would be: an article in a published book (I have looked in the ODNB and in my local history books but can't find anything), an obituary in a newspaper (I can't find one in either the Times or Telegraph archives) or a local newspaper article. By using only primary sources, you are carrying out ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which is not allowed on Wikipedia - see WP:OR.

2. Is this person sufficiently notable? I am not so concerned about this. If you can provide a SECONDARY SOURCE, which supports the majority of his written work being produced during the decade when Bethell lived in Dorking, then his inclusion would be justified. BUT you need a SECONDARY SOURCE.

A paragraph on Bethell on the Dorking Museum website would satisfy both of these points, but there are potentially other secondary sources that might do this - it's just that we can't find any.

Does this make things clear now? Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the notability discussion based on secondary sources as I understand it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leonard_Arthur_Bethell

As for the 'lived in Dorking' - will the electoral roll 1926 and the electoral roll 1936 together satsfy the 'lived in Dorking' question ?

For now I have to leave this discussion - but will return tomorrow. Charles.bowyer (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charles.bowyer: I'm sorry, no, the electoral rolls do not satisfy the 'lived in Dorking' question. You need a secondary source as I have described. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Always good to sleep on a problem.

Although I still do not agree with you: I do not agree that Electoral Rolls are invalid sources of address, and I cannot accept that Wikipedia policies ever intended that authoritative government data should be disallowed on Wikipedia, I have concluded that the effort arising from this one line addition to the Dorking website is not worth the value delivered.

I therefore drop out of this debate, and allow your removal of the said line.! ::::::::::::::: (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charles.bowyer: Thank you for your message. I would advise you to look very closely at your article, which is very heavily reliant on primary sources. Ask yourself: How can I be sure that the person who lived at New Clan is the same person who wrote the literary works you have listed? As far as I can tell, the only thing supporting the link is private correspondence, which is a primary source. The electoral rolls do not prove that the occupant of New Clan in Dorking is the same person as the writer. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Here's a Barnstar to acknowledge your excellent work on Surrey related articles and to say thanks for contributing to the South East England group of portals WaggersTALK 08:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Reigate you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Reigate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Reigate for comments about the article, and Talk:Reigate/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Godalming you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Llewee -- Llewee (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Godalming at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Andrew🐉(talk) 23:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've passed details of your good work to a contact at the local authority. If you'd like to communicate with them and perhaps get some useful contacts for local history and photography, please email me. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Epsom riot has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have uploaded some imagery of Boxhill onto Wikimedia Commons. They're not as good as you would have hoped, don't know if it was because I was too late, but she was sandwiched between a Class 20 and a Class 31, not on the turntable, which made 3/4 shots from the front unworkable. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) The joy of all things (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @The joy of all things: Thanks for your message and for your photos. It's really great to see Boxhill in the Great Hall. (She was stuck in the Learning Platform for the best part of two decades.) I think she was only on the turntable for a month or so and unfortunately I wasn't able to get up to York to photograph her then. I hope you enjoyed your visit to the NRM and I will try to get there myself in the near future. Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Reigate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first road tunnel in England, opened in 1823 in Reigate, Surrey, runs under the site of a medieval castle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Reigate. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Reigate), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Godalming, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the old town hall in Godalming, Surrey, is nicknamed "The Pepperpot" (pictured) after its distinctive cupola? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Godalming. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Godalming), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MertbiolWhat is it you don't understand about rounding. The straight line distance by google earth is 51.7 km which gave a distance of 32 miles, by road it's more using google maps. the preceding word is "about" so it's roughly this distance. So you state an incorrect value in kilometres to give a rounded 30 miles? You are rounding the value in miles but not kilometres contrary to MOS:CONVERT. Avi8tor (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avi8tor: The straight line distance from the junction of Godalming High Street and Bridge Street to the south side of Trafalgar Square in central London is 49 km. I do not know where you are measuring from and to. (As you do not appear to be from the UK, you may not know that all distances to/from London are measured from the site of the Charing Cross, which was on the south side of Trafalgar Square.) Convert from 49 km and you get to 30 miles. We round to 2 sig fig and use "about" to show that a rounding has taken place. The road distance is irrelevant. Mertbiol (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used Google Earth which has a measuring tool, it does not matter where I am, it works worldwide. 2 significant figures would be the two digits after the decimal point, we are just measuring whole miles or whole kilometres. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding

The original figures (plural) rounded would be 30 mi or 50 km. Wikipedia is read worldwide, except for the UK and the US they all use kilometres. Use 50 km and it will give you 30 miles with a -1 rounding in the formula. Keeps everyone happy. Avi8tor (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avi8tor: you have not understood what I wrote. Which point are you taking as the centre of London? You should be using the site of the former Charing Cross, which is on the south side of Trafalgar Square. If you measure from there to Godalming, you get a distance of 49.02 km. Convert this value and you get 30.46 miles. Round both values and you get 49 km and 30 miles.
Using 50 km would be the wrong initial measurement.
You are wrong to say "2 significant figures would be the two digits after the decimal point" 49.02 km is FOUR significant figures. 49 km is two significant figures. Mertbiol (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between April and June 2023. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...which has just popped up on my watchlist! Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Hassocks5489!! Mertbiol (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Your noteworthy contribution (7 points total) helped reduce the backlog by more than 250 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts at Goddards inspired me to make a start on Berrydown Court. Given that he reputedly worked on over 500 buildings, we still have a way to go! All the best with the GA. KJP1 (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent KJP1! I'd like to have a go at improving Munstead Wood, but I think it's worth waiting for the National Trust to open it to the public (hopefully this coming summer!), before doing serious work on the article. Mertbiol (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Goddards you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Goddards 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:Goddards and Talk:Goddards/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Goddards you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Goddards for comments about the article, and Talk:Goddards/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Redhill–Tonbridge line you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Redhill–Tonbridge line you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Redhill–Tonbridge line for comments about the article, and Talk:Redhill–Tonbridge line/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on this article! As promised, more details about adding an interactive map. You can see both in use on Newton Lower Falls Branch - the KML map is the "Map" icon at upper right, while the maplink map is the box in the "Route" section. Either or both can be used on any given article. This is how I add them:

1. Create a .kml file with the geographic coordinates of the line. I typically do so in Google My Maps, which has a one-click way to export to KML.
2. Add {{Attached KML}} to the bottom of the article. Click the "edit" link in that box and paste the contents of the KML file in the template subpage that is created.
3. Convert the KML file to GeoJSON. I use the script at User:Evad37/kmlToJson, but there are online converters as well. Alternately, if you don't want the KML map, you can create the GeoJSON data directly here.
4. Add the map data either to a .map page at Commons (preferred) or a data subpage on enwiki (see Wikipedia:Map data)
5. Use {{maplink}} (or {{maplink-road}} in an infobox) to add the map to the article.

Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Pi.1415926535: this is very helpful. Thanks also for your review. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help! Feel free to ping me if you have any trouble with this. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Oxted line you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Steelkamp -- Steelkamp (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Oxted line 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:Oxted line and Talk:Oxted line/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Steelkamp -- Steelkamp (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Oxted line you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Oxted line for comments about the article, and Talk:Oxted line/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Steelkamp -- Steelkamp (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article North Downs Line you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Downs Line 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:North Downs Line and Talk:North Downs Line/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Downs Line you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:North Downs Line for comments about the article, and Talk:North Downs Line/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks to your good self there are now the majority of war memorials in Surrey listed on the List of public art in Surrey page. I was wondering whether it might be a good idea to split them off onto their own page? Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Murgatroyd49: Thanks for your message and Happy New Year. Your suggestion to split off the War Memorials from the List of public art in Surrey is timely, as I have been thinking much the same. I am not sure how many memorials there are in total in the county, but there are currently 73 in the list and there may be another 50 (and perhaps more) that are not yet included. Moving the current table to its own page would also give the opportunity to include "indoor" memorials, which are excluded from the remit of the public art list. (I am aware of around a dozen villages that have memorial plaques inside their churches, but don't have outdoor memorials.)

It would be very easy to take the current table and move it to its own page, leaving a hatnote behind, but the current format may not be the best. If we do create a List of war memorials in Surrey page, we should consider splitting the table (e.g. into memorial crosses, tablets, statues etc) rather than keeping it as a single list. (Another possibility might be to split by borough/district, but as Surrey is likely to be reorganised into either one or two unitary authorities in the near future, this is probably not the way forward.) Whatever categorisation method we choose, we should make sure that we are able to accommodate perhaps an additional 50-100 memorials.

We should also consider whether the current columns are arranged appropriately, and/or if additional columns should be added. Would it be worth trying to include a longer description, incorporating the materials used?

Overall, I think I am in favour of a split, but I think we should try to work something up as a draft, before we make a formal proposal. There are other editors that we should consult as well, including Hassocks5489 and H.J. Mitchell. Perhaps, as you have made the suggestion, you might like to start a page in your sandbox (maybe start with a dozen or so memorials) and then we can get a feel for how the new list might look? Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite willing to sand box a trial page. Splitting it into types might work, but I wouldn't split into districts, as these are likely to change as you mention, nd the actual changes might not take effect for a while!

Happy New Year Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Murgatroyd49: It might be worth merging the "Subject" and "Location" columns and adding a "description" column (which could be merged with the "Sculptor/Artist" column). I'd also suggest swapping the "Source" and "Coordinates" columns around, so that the references are on the far right hand side.

I think it's worth putting some time in to experiment with layout, before formally proposing the split. Mertbiol (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree. I've copied the section to User:Murgatroyd49/sandbox3 and will start playing with the layout. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up a single item demo, using the above suggestions, though I have moved the source to a ref tag in the description column. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I've added a couple of alternative layouts and and also some possible categories. Let's continue the conversation at the sandbox talk page: User_talk:Murgatroyd49/sandbox3. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]