I'd like to suggest Cannon as this weeks selected article. It's not in a great condition, and I recently acquired an interest in that subject. Also, mightn't it be better to have a fortnightly collaboration, rather than a weekly one, as it can take a while to improve an article satisfactorily. Oh yeah, and we might let each member have is/her turn choosing the article we're going to work on. That means AndonicO might choose it this time rather than me if we're going to do that and we can work our way down the member list :-)-- Phoenix - wiki 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello!!! He started the Auzzie Cabal!!! Has he defected? Justin Contribs User page 16:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
(indent) If you mean GP75, his request was denied. Place your bets! I say within the week he'll be asking to join. Justin (Gmail?) (u) 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I made a box informing others of what article is the target this week:
This weeks candidate for Tzatzikification is Cannon. |
Should we use it? Justin Contribs User page 20:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
First impressions:
(I've just gone through the lead section, so I might add more later... feel free to add to the list as well.) · AndonicO Hail! 02:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, we're thinking about going on holiday to Greece this summer. We normally go to England and we've been to France a few times, so this will be something new! I'll make sure to try some Tzatziki!-- Phoenix - wiki 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Just an idea for an article get to a featured standard, I was looking and Mozilla Firefox is already featured... so I thought why not get Internet Explorer featured too!
Any comments, ideas etc would be appreciated, although this would be future, not a present to do... we already have one of those!
-- The Helpful One 11:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Oh you know what? Apple has a much more stable OS, and for the things that they do (less than Microsoft, though. score one for Bill Gates), they're better and easier to use than a PC. However, if I had to use a computer for gaming, I'd choose a PC any day. And there's no way Microsoft could ever match the iPhone. Or the iPod. And Mac will never match the XBox. Justin (Gmail?) (u) 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure if users are trying to get this to FA standard, but this might also be a good one to do, seem to have a fair amount of information with references.... any comments again! :)
-- The Helpful One 12:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
As a joke, we should get Advance Australia Fair to FA status. It would be quite amusing, to say the least. In all seriousness, though, there's a whole bunch of references out there, as it was only made the national anthem in the last 25 years. Thoughts? Keilana| Parlez ici 03:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Can't be too sure.. but should we get this to FA standard? I think it might be already! -- The Helpful One (Review) 13:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out, my fellow Tzatzikians, that I have started the Gmail group. If you use Gmail and Google talk, please add yourself to the list. I created it to basically just be an alternative to IRC. I believe GTalk also has group chat now, so we could also use that to our advantage. This is not another cabal, just a contact list. Justin (c) (u) 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
I have thought that we should leave a message on an article's talk page saying that we are improving it. I have come up with this though you can't blame me if it is not good! I am not a 'formatter' so feel free to improve it!
Adding {{User:AndonicO/Tzatziki Squad/Notice}} to a talk page should create:
User:AndonicO/Tzatziki Squad/Notice
Feel free to improve it!
The Helpful One (Review) 15:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
We should have a dedicated place to organize collaborations. If this is it, I'll start by saying that anyone who wants to work on cannon should probably pick a section to work on, I think that if everyone has something specific to work on, it'll make things go much easier. (For what it's worth, I'm working on the Types of Cannons section...) Discuss/fling mud/throw stones here. Keilana| Parlez ici 17:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Another interesting sounding cabal that I do not qualify for! Cannot be in the Bathrobe Cabal, cannot plot against it! *sniff* I'll go look for another cabal that's plotting against all the others. Mwahauhah! • Anakin ( talk) 01:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yay, I gave someone a headache. *dances* Keilana| Parlez ici 23:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Lame? No. Childish? Perhaps. Already? Plz, AO, you really expected better of me? Justin (Gmail?) (u) 02:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any room for me to join the TS Squad, i don't have to follow the tasks do i. Terra Who are you? 08:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Automated peer review brings up this:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, · AndonicO Hail! 13:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That may help. :) · AndonicO Hail! 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I want this article to become GA for the moment, and possibly FA after, the main problems with this article is the references or rather the lack of them, the article could also do with a clean up, i have worked on this article for a while, i think this article needs more editors to have a try. It would be good to base this article on the Norwich City F.C. and Arsenal F.C. FA articles. Thanks you and good day. Sunder land 06 16:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I proposed that a page, History of watches, be merged with my project page, History of timekeeping devices over a week ago. I'd appreciate some input so that a real discussion can take place. Thanks! Justin (Gmail?) (u) 21:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
How I think we could organize our collaboration is for the 16 of us to give the articles we want collaboration for and then have others sign up to volunteer. For example, Andonic and I have worked extensively on the present collaboration, Cannon. Not all of us have contributed to the article, and that's fine. We all have different interests, after all. In this way, we could be more supportive of other people's interests and make sure we know who's working on what. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm, perhaps we should do some spamming whenever a new article becomes the main collaboration? It may improve turnout. Thoughts? Ideas? Rotten tomatoes? Keilana| Parlez ici 02:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Jeez... who added so many references to that article? Hard to convert them all to Template:Cite book (more informative). · AndonicO Hail! 02:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello all, I've put in for a peer review of the current main collaboration, cannon, located here. Hopefully this'll give us some outside opinions and good suggestions, helping us on the (long, arduous) road to FAC. In Tzatziki, Keilana| Parlez ici 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
See this post I started. It would make things easier, but I don't think it's receiving enough attention for such a big change. So just alerting the TSQUAD admins, and any others who'd like to participate. Justin (Gmail?) (u) 23:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have anywhere else to announce this, but our old friend Tree Biting Conspiracy just came back from a year-long wikibreak. Since I know there are a few of us who were acquaintanced with him, if you have the time, stop by to greet him. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
"Cannon have also found applications outside of warfare, such as water cannon, snow cannon, hail cannon, and cannon netting. These applications use neither traditional gunpowder or explosive-based propellants as a source of energy, however." I'm not sure that this sentence belongs in the article... those articles list them as "devices" rather than "cannon", and I don't think they're considered cannon (i.e. don't match the standard definition). Any thoughts? · AndonicO Hail! 13:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there!
I was wondering if Windows Live Messenger would be classed as GA. If it is, please let me know so that I can nominate it - it would be my first nomination!
-- The Helpful One (Review) 21:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sunderland A.F.C. is big and i dont think i can do it by myself, so im going on a smaller project, Kenwyne Jones which i might be able to get to GA. Sunder land 06 15:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll wait my turn, then we can all improve it. :) Sunder land 06 01:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've had a few opinions from people, and they all think this would pass FA, so i'm going to do the honours :). Sunder land 06 14:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already put History of timekeeping devices through a relatively recent peer review, and I was wondering if other TSQUADers could check up on it, to see what needs to be done. Maybe organize a little collaboration inbetween Cannon improvements. Justin (Gmail?) (u) 20:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 39 inches, use 39 inches, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 39 inches.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, The Helpful One (Review) 20:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Just quickly, I want to put this article up for GAN, is there any last minute stuff I need to take care of? Also, would someone mind helping me set up the nomination? Justin (Gmail?) (u) 18:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Why aren't they always accurate? Do they at least comply with WP:RS? Because it seems to confirm some information that I've found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Justin (Gmail?) (u) 18:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
One of my longstanding projects, Komodo dragon, is undergoing peer review right now here. Please stop by and help me improve the article! bibliomaniac 1 5 I see no changes 21:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
We're working on cannon right now, but on a related topic, I think Early thermal weapons is a pretty nice read and nominated it for GA. If you can, stop by and read or even review, if possible. bibliomaniac 1 5 I see no changes 05:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys,
Just to let you know, I am going through the list of articles that are currently going to be done, and auto formatting them per WP:MoS - if you don't like - feel free to revert!
-- The Helpful One (Review) 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I've done a nomination, hope it's alright, located here. Putting it on your watchlists would help, so we can take care of concerns in a timely manner. Cheers! Keilana| Parlez ici 12:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Komodo dragon, which I've been a major contributor to, is now up for FAC! Come over and participate if you're not too busy with the Cannon nom! bibliomaniac 15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Come on guys, we all know the Guitar is the most powerful weapon!. And Biblio, are you on ESO for Age Of Empires 3? We gotta play sometime. Justin (Gmail?) (u) 16:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it's up at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Engineering. Please feel free to comment. Thanks! Justin (Gmail?) (u) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Woohoo! 1 down, 19 to go! bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 03:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
How many do we have so far from our members? I know I have two, and AO has three. bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm back, great to see you guys again, wow cannon's an FA! Anyway I've archived the talk page cos it waas a little long and I'm gonna start work on the next article now.-- Phoenix - wiki 19:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
One thing I spotted straight off the bat (don't have time to read it, just took a peek): the article goes from ancient timekeeping devices to GPS (i.e. modern ones, skipping everything in between) in "Timekeeping history". Actually, that section isn't really needed, as the whole article could fit into it (as it should, considering it's the title), making it redundant. Also, a lot of unsourced parts (try gbook'ing, for example, "military watches" to source the "wristwatches" section). I'll probably not be able to help much these days, as I'm quite busy in real life... I'll try to hurry. ;) · AndonicO Hail! 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked, there was no article set for 18 June. Did someone ask Raul directly, or what? And what does the Battle of Waterloo have to do with anything? Justin (Gmail?) (u) 16:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
History of timekeeping devices is now a GA. Good job, all. Justin (Gmail?) (u) 21:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll check that out. BTW, is HoTD a DYK thing? I've been working on it since december, so it's not really a candidate. Justin (Gmail?) (u) 00:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I've just started the 2nd peer review of the collab, and we're already getting comments. I'd like some input on History of timekeeping vs. history of timekeeping devices, as we should remove the Sumer section if it's the latter -- the material is irrelevant and little remains of their devices. IMO we should have both articles, as the history of timekeeping discusses devices but also discusses calendars; another option would be history of calendars and history of timekeeping devices, limiting the former to physical calendars and stuff like the sexagesimal system, and limiting the latter to actual clocks/watches/etc. Thoughts? Keilana| Parlez ici 03:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there!
Just to let you know that I have nominated Harry Potter for GA, and it is currently being reviewed. For more information on the review, please see Talk:Harry_Potter#GA_Review.
Thanks,
The Helpful One (Review) 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
While the Squad improved Cannon to become its first FA, the other articles in the series on cannon were barely touched. Since we made so many improvements to the series' core article, it would probably be a good idea for someone to go over the other articles in the series and reconcile them with the work we did. This is mainly copyediting to make the text between the various articles agree; the reference sections, for example, can be improved immensely based on the work we did with sourcing in Cannon. I feel this would have to be done before Cannon goes onto the main page: it would be embarrassing if readers clicked onto a section's "main article" and found it wasn't quite up to the same standard. The two articles that overlap the most are Cannon in the Middle Ages and History of cannon. Naval artillery in the Age of Sail and English cannon could also do with some copyediting from Cannon. There's not much that could be moved to Cannon operation, but I feel it is the weakest article in the series relative to its importance.
Admittedly it is an unglamorous and thankless task, and I don't want to slow down the editing process for other articles. However, for whomsoever takes up this job ("in a wiki-mercenary-like manner"), barnstars may be in order. (Or maybe just a nice "thank you", if the Squad's goals are to be followed). -- Grimhelm ( talk) 23:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for showing some interest, but since it seems none of us have managed to make more than an edit or two, shall we leave this until History of timekeeping devices gets to FA status? --
Grimhelm (
talk) 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Cannon in the Middle Ages for Tzatzikification, to bring it up to a standard similar to our featured article on Cannon. I think we have to admit that it would never get done unless we included it in the list. ;-) We should aim for A-class, to keep it as an interesting side-project.
Over the past two days, I think I have done pretty much all that I can do myself with this article. I have brought in the relevant material from the sections on Middle East and Medieval Europe in cannon and standardised the list of references. Uncited statements have been tagged, and the lede rewritten to summarise the article. Of course, I also added some new sources and material: technological limitations, culverins, bombards, Russian cannon, etc. The areas that need to be worked on are in verifying tagged statements, finding page numbers for some of the references, and some general expansion of the article. The section on Early use in China and East Asia could also be improved from the section on Early history in cannon.
I look forward to seeing this article improved once we finish the collaboration on History of timekeeping devices. :-) -- Grimhelm ( talk) 14:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Way to go! I think that the timekeeping collab has yielded the most associated DYKs, including History of timekeeping devices in Egypt and Merkhet. I've also created the article for Liang Lingzan, so that's another redlink taken down. bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 23:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Now on the main page... for only 24 hours. Don't get too caught up. ;) · AndonicO Engage. 03:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Time Times |
||
Issue Three • May 2008 •
About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
News
| ||
Archives • Newsroom | ||
If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name
here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. |
I'm working on some organizational changes here; it's a mess right now though, needs transitions... if this turns out alright, I'll leave another note here, and maybe we can implement the changes into the main article. · AndonicO Engage. 13:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
75 FLs and DYKs? We'll have to be passing this on to our children at this rate. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Just put it on the nifty chart. bibliomaniac 1 5 16:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, I have finished up List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I am going to bring it to WP:FLC with MFC soon, so if anyone wants to read-through it and make sure everything sounds alright, that would be helpful. Thanks!! « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was just wondering about this, "To write 50 good articles (49 remaining). To qualify as a Tzatziki GA, the article must have been improved to GA status by at least two squad members.", in the goals section. If a collaborated GA were to be promoted to FA would it mean that a number would be added back on, or would it simply count as both? Thanks. Sunderland06 ( talk) 20:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Tell me, do these new goals still mean that all collaborations are aiming to FA, or just GA if FA is deemed unlikely? -- Grimhelm ( talk) 04:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hooray!!!! The FAC for History of timekeeping devices passed! 2 FA's down and only 18 more to go :). -- Mifter ( talk) 03:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This year, there was a discussion on the WikiProject Years about rewriting all the year articles, so that they were actually good summary articles rather than unconnected lists of events. The original experiment was tested on the 1345 article, with the intention of moving it toward Featured status. A second article, 1346, was rewritten taking into account some of the further discussion. This project will probably take quite a long time to complete, as a high standard is necessary and will progress one decade at a time.
It is an interesting and innovative concept, and one which I think would be worthy of Tzatziki collaboration. For this reason, I have chosen to nominate the 1340s as a future collaboration. It made sense because the only two years rewritten thus far are 1345 and 1346. As a decade article, it also has a more general scope than a single year, with the potential for "new" articles and DYKs in the other years of the 1340s.
The current draft is on a subpage of this project. I finished some preliminary research on the trends of the decade. We can work on this draft until it is of reasonable standard, and then move to mainspace and nominate for DYK. Long term, I think the article has a better chance of reaching FA than either of the two year articles. -- Grimhelm ( talk) 17:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
At present, the two sections, "War and decline in Western Europe" and "The Black Plague", are largely finished. "Architecture" just needs some sources; the "Reconquista" needs a small bit of expansion as well as sources. "Philosophy" has a solid basis. "Literature" and "Technology" need expansion. "Asia", "Eastern and Central Europe", "Africa" and "Americas" also need to be expanded. -- Grimhelm ( talk) 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello all. As the last collaboration has been successfully finished up, the time has come to pick a new collaboration. I've asked User:Animum because he's next on the list, but should he choose not to participate, it would be User:NikoSilver's turn. Unfortunately, according to his userpage, he is quite busy, and if he decides not to pick, I would assume that we would simply continue down the list. Keilana| Parlez ici 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
← I have not been involved in previous efforts by this group, but I am very willing to help out with any projects related to vital articles. Gary King ( talk) 22:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I always feel horrible just sticking my name under a membership list, so I'd just like to get a, I guess "clearance" of sorts, before I join. I first learned about this project when I saw it during my tenure a few months ago as an admin coachee of User:Bibliomaniac15, and I recently saw it just browsing through some talk pages. It lines up quite nicely that I happened upon this again actually, as I have been kind of offhandedly searching for a collaboration that differs from Wikipedia:WikiProject The Office (US), where almost all of my major contributions as of late have come from. I guess I fulfill all of the qualification, except I prefer Mac OS X over Windows, although my poor MacBook is currently in the shop after its hard drive crashed, so I'm forced to use a Windows machine for a while. So, as I stated, I'd just like some sort of "clearance" before I join. Happy editing, Mastrchf ( t/ c) 23:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
"Articles under Tzatzikification" is starting to get long. I thought the goal was to be focused on a small group of articles? However, the list has become long and some articles even only have one collaborator; those should be the first to go, otherwise things will eventually get out of hand. Gary King ( talk) 22:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the vote !vote debate drama discussion was keep doing
fatal hilarity. Which is essentially moot, since below everyone decided to give up on fatal hilarity. Interesting...
Nousernamesleft (
talk) 01:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, so there's been a bit of discussion on doing some work on the WP:VITAL articles and holding off on fatal hilarity for awhile. I personally think that a straw poll would help sort out who thinks what and may help us make a decision. Keilana| Parlez ici 23:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hold off on fatal hilarity and work on a WP:VITAL article, then return to fatal hilarity.
Go ahead with fatal hilarity and then do a WP:VITAL article.
Continue along as we have been.
Something else? Propose it here. :)
I'll not be editing much anymore; I don't know if you guys would be uncomfortable with keeping this page here, or if you would rather move TS to Keilana's userspace (or maybe wikipedia space... but that'll probably be overturned). · AndonicO Engage. 20:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I found some possible references... I don't think they could be used as main sources, though. If none are found soon, the collaboration will probably need to be changed (to something with more notable sources, i.e. important).
And then some on a laughter epidemic in Africa:
I think you might need a backup plan, Animum, unless someone can find more reliable sources than I did. · AndonicO Engage. 12:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind with Fatal hilarity; I realized my error about a day after I said I wanted it to be our collaboration. I'll pass the recommendation to the next person in line, NikoSilver, as I don't think I've been active enough here to choose. Thanks, — Animum ( talk) 00:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
And it wasn't even requested! I think... Nousernamesleft ( talk) 02:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking... why is history of timekeeping a redirect? It could easily be an article, with one section on the history of calendars and another on devices. If Tzatziki could bring that and history of calendars (which isn't all that far, methinks), they'd have a viable featured topic: I can think of no other necessary articles for the series. (Indeed, I can think of no other articles for the series at all, but that's probably just me.) I realise that Cannon and its subarticles are coming along, but that series is huge and disorganized, lacking articles specific for cannon's history in entire time periods and having articles for cannon's use in specific battles. Would anyone be interested in creating the history of timekeeping article? Nousernamesleft ( talk) 01:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest Cannon as this weeks selected article. It's not in a great condition, and I recently acquired an interest in that subject. Also, mightn't it be better to have a fortnightly collaboration, rather than a weekly one, as it can take a while to improve an article satisfactorily. Oh yeah, and we might let each member have is/her turn choosing the article we're going to work on. That means AndonicO might choose it this time rather than me if we're going to do that and we can work our way down the member list :-)-- Phoenix - wiki 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello!!! He started the Auzzie Cabal!!! Has he defected? Justin Contribs User page 16:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
(indent) If you mean GP75, his request was denied. Place your bets! I say within the week he'll be asking to join. Justin (Gmail?) (u) 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I made a box informing others of what article is the target this week:
This weeks candidate for Tzatzikification is Cannon. |
Should we use it? Justin Contribs User page 20:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
First impressions:
(I've just gone through the lead section, so I might add more later... feel free to add to the list as well.) · AndonicO Hail! 02:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, we're thinking about going on holiday to Greece this summer. We normally go to England and we've been to France a few times, so this will be something new! I'll make sure to try some Tzatziki!-- Phoenix - wiki 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Just an idea for an article get to a featured standard, I was looking and Mozilla Firefox is already featured... so I thought why not get Internet Explorer featured too!
Any comments, ideas etc would be appreciated, although this would be future, not a present to do... we already have one of those!
-- The Helpful One 11:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Oh you know what? Apple has a much more stable OS, and for the things that they do (less than Microsoft, though. score one for Bill Gates), they're better and easier to use than a PC. However, if I had to use a computer for gaming, I'd choose a PC any day. And there's no way Microsoft could ever match the iPhone. Or the iPod. And Mac will never match the XBox. Justin (Gmail?) (u) 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure if users are trying to get this to FA standard, but this might also be a good one to do, seem to have a fair amount of information with references.... any comments again! :)
-- The Helpful One 12:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
As a joke, we should get Advance Australia Fair to FA status. It would be quite amusing, to say the least. In all seriousness, though, there's a whole bunch of references out there, as it was only made the national anthem in the last 25 years. Thoughts? Keilana| Parlez ici 03:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Can't be too sure.. but should we get this to FA standard? I think it might be already! -- The Helpful One (Review) 13:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out, my fellow Tzatzikians, that I have started the Gmail group. If you use Gmail and Google talk, please add yourself to the list. I created it to basically just be an alternative to IRC. I believe GTalk also has group chat now, so we could also use that to our advantage. This is not another cabal, just a contact list. Justin (c) (u) 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
I have thought that we should leave a message on an article's talk page saying that we are improving it. I have come up with this though you can't blame me if it is not good! I am not a 'formatter' so feel free to improve it!
Adding {{User:AndonicO/Tzatziki Squad/Notice}} to a talk page should create:
User:AndonicO/Tzatziki Squad/Notice
Feel free to improve it!
The Helpful One (Review) 15:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
We should have a dedicated place to organize collaborations. If this is it, I'll start by saying that anyone who wants to work on cannon should probably pick a section to work on, I think that if everyone has something specific to work on, it'll make things go much easier. (For what it's worth, I'm working on the Types of Cannons section...) Discuss/fling mud/throw stones here. Keilana| Parlez ici 17:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Another interesting sounding cabal that I do not qualify for! Cannot be in the Bathrobe Cabal, cannot plot against it! *sniff* I'll go look for another cabal that's plotting against all the others. Mwahauhah! • Anakin ( talk) 01:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yay, I gave someone a headache. *dances* Keilana| Parlez ici 23:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Lame? No. Childish? Perhaps. Already? Plz, AO, you really expected better of me? Justin (Gmail?) (u) 02:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any room for me to join the TS Squad, i don't have to follow the tasks do i. Terra Who are you? 08:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Automated peer review brings up this:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, · AndonicO Hail! 13:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That may help. :) · AndonicO Hail! 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I want this article to become GA for the moment, and possibly FA after, the main problems with this article is the references or rather the lack of them, the article could also do with a clean up, i have worked on this article for a while, i think this article needs more editors to have a try. It would be good to base this article on the Norwich City F.C. and Arsenal F.C. FA articles. Thanks you and good day. Sunder land 06 16:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I proposed that a page, History of watches, be merged with my project page, History of timekeeping devices over a week ago. I'd appreciate some input so that a real discussion can take place. Thanks! Justin (Gmail?) (u) 21:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
How I think we could organize our collaboration is for the 16 of us to give the articles we want collaboration for and then have others sign up to volunteer. For example, Andonic and I have worked extensively on the present collaboration, Cannon. Not all of us have contributed to the article, and that's fine. We all have different interests, after all. In this way, we could be more supportive of other people's interests and make sure we know who's working on what. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm, perhaps we should do some spamming whenever a new article becomes the main collaboration? It may improve turnout. Thoughts? Ideas? Rotten tomatoes? Keilana| Parlez ici 02:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Jeez... who added so many references to that article? Hard to convert them all to Template:Cite book (more informative). · AndonicO Hail! 02:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello all, I've put in for a peer review of the current main collaboration, cannon, located here. Hopefully this'll give us some outside opinions and good suggestions, helping us on the (long, arduous) road to FAC. In Tzatziki, Keilana| Parlez ici 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
See this post I started. It would make things easier, but I don't think it's receiving enough attention for such a big change. So just alerting the TSQUAD admins, and any others who'd like to participate. Justin (Gmail?) (u) 23:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have anywhere else to announce this, but our old friend Tree Biting Conspiracy just came back from a year-long wikibreak. Since I know there are a few of us who were acquaintanced with him, if you have the time, stop by to greet him. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
"Cannon have also found applications outside of warfare, such as water cannon, snow cannon, hail cannon, and cannon netting. These applications use neither traditional gunpowder or explosive-based propellants as a source of energy, however." I'm not sure that this sentence belongs in the article... those articles list them as "devices" rather than "cannon", and I don't think they're considered cannon (i.e. don't match the standard definition). Any thoughts? · AndonicO Hail! 13:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there!
I was wondering if Windows Live Messenger would be classed as GA. If it is, please let me know so that I can nominate it - it would be my first nomination!
-- The Helpful One (Review) 21:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sunderland A.F.C. is big and i dont think i can do it by myself, so im going on a smaller project, Kenwyne Jones which i might be able to get to GA. Sunder land 06 15:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll wait my turn, then we can all improve it. :) Sunder land 06 01:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've had a few opinions from people, and they all think this would pass FA, so i'm going to do the honours :). Sunder land 06 14:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already put History of timekeeping devices through a relatively recent peer review, and I was wondering if other TSQUADers could check up on it, to see what needs to be done. Maybe organize a little collaboration inbetween Cannon improvements. Justin (Gmail?) (u) 20:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 39 inches, use 39 inches, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 39 inches.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, The Helpful One (Review) 20:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Just quickly, I want to put this article up for GAN, is there any last minute stuff I need to take care of? Also, would someone mind helping me set up the nomination? Justin (Gmail?) (u) 18:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Why aren't they always accurate? Do they at least comply with WP:RS? Because it seems to confirm some information that I've found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Justin (Gmail?) (u) 18:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
One of my longstanding projects, Komodo dragon, is undergoing peer review right now here. Please stop by and help me improve the article! bibliomaniac 1 5 I see no changes 21:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
We're working on cannon right now, but on a related topic, I think Early thermal weapons is a pretty nice read and nominated it for GA. If you can, stop by and read or even review, if possible. bibliomaniac 1 5 I see no changes 05:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys,
Just to let you know, I am going through the list of articles that are currently going to be done, and auto formatting them per WP:MoS - if you don't like - feel free to revert!
-- The Helpful One (Review) 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I've done a nomination, hope it's alright, located here. Putting it on your watchlists would help, so we can take care of concerns in a timely manner. Cheers! Keilana| Parlez ici 12:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Komodo dragon, which I've been a major contributor to, is now up for FAC! Come over and participate if you're not too busy with the Cannon nom! bibliomaniac 15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Come on guys, we all know the Guitar is the most powerful weapon!. And Biblio, are you on ESO for Age Of Empires 3? We gotta play sometime. Justin (Gmail?) (u) 16:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it's up at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Engineering. Please feel free to comment. Thanks! Justin (Gmail?) (u) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Woohoo! 1 down, 19 to go! bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 03:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
How many do we have so far from our members? I know I have two, and AO has three. bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm back, great to see you guys again, wow cannon's an FA! Anyway I've archived the talk page cos it waas a little long and I'm gonna start work on the next article now.-- Phoenix - wiki 19:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
One thing I spotted straight off the bat (don't have time to read it, just took a peek): the article goes from ancient timekeeping devices to GPS (i.e. modern ones, skipping everything in between) in "Timekeeping history". Actually, that section isn't really needed, as the whole article could fit into it (as it should, considering it's the title), making it redundant. Also, a lot of unsourced parts (try gbook'ing, for example, "military watches" to source the "wristwatches" section). I'll probably not be able to help much these days, as I'm quite busy in real life... I'll try to hurry. ;) · AndonicO Hail! 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked, there was no article set for 18 June. Did someone ask Raul directly, or what? And what does the Battle of Waterloo have to do with anything? Justin (Gmail?) (u) 16:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
History of timekeeping devices is now a GA. Good job, all. Justin (Gmail?) (u) 21:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll check that out. BTW, is HoTD a DYK thing? I've been working on it since december, so it's not really a candidate. Justin (Gmail?) (u) 00:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I've just started the 2nd peer review of the collab, and we're already getting comments. I'd like some input on History of timekeeping vs. history of timekeeping devices, as we should remove the Sumer section if it's the latter -- the material is irrelevant and little remains of their devices. IMO we should have both articles, as the history of timekeeping discusses devices but also discusses calendars; another option would be history of calendars and history of timekeeping devices, limiting the former to physical calendars and stuff like the sexagesimal system, and limiting the latter to actual clocks/watches/etc. Thoughts? Keilana| Parlez ici 03:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there!
Just to let you know that I have nominated Harry Potter for GA, and it is currently being reviewed. For more information on the review, please see Talk:Harry_Potter#GA_Review.
Thanks,
The Helpful One (Review) 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
While the Squad improved Cannon to become its first FA, the other articles in the series on cannon were barely touched. Since we made so many improvements to the series' core article, it would probably be a good idea for someone to go over the other articles in the series and reconcile them with the work we did. This is mainly copyediting to make the text between the various articles agree; the reference sections, for example, can be improved immensely based on the work we did with sourcing in Cannon. I feel this would have to be done before Cannon goes onto the main page: it would be embarrassing if readers clicked onto a section's "main article" and found it wasn't quite up to the same standard. The two articles that overlap the most are Cannon in the Middle Ages and History of cannon. Naval artillery in the Age of Sail and English cannon could also do with some copyediting from Cannon. There's not much that could be moved to Cannon operation, but I feel it is the weakest article in the series relative to its importance.
Admittedly it is an unglamorous and thankless task, and I don't want to slow down the editing process for other articles. However, for whomsoever takes up this job ("in a wiki-mercenary-like manner"), barnstars may be in order. (Or maybe just a nice "thank you", if the Squad's goals are to be followed). -- Grimhelm ( talk) 23:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for showing some interest, but since it seems none of us have managed to make more than an edit or two, shall we leave this until History of timekeeping devices gets to FA status? --
Grimhelm (
talk) 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Cannon in the Middle Ages for Tzatzikification, to bring it up to a standard similar to our featured article on Cannon. I think we have to admit that it would never get done unless we included it in the list. ;-) We should aim for A-class, to keep it as an interesting side-project.
Over the past two days, I think I have done pretty much all that I can do myself with this article. I have brought in the relevant material from the sections on Middle East and Medieval Europe in cannon and standardised the list of references. Uncited statements have been tagged, and the lede rewritten to summarise the article. Of course, I also added some new sources and material: technological limitations, culverins, bombards, Russian cannon, etc. The areas that need to be worked on are in verifying tagged statements, finding page numbers for some of the references, and some general expansion of the article. The section on Early use in China and East Asia could also be improved from the section on Early history in cannon.
I look forward to seeing this article improved once we finish the collaboration on History of timekeeping devices. :-) -- Grimhelm ( talk) 14:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Way to go! I think that the timekeeping collab has yielded the most associated DYKs, including History of timekeeping devices in Egypt and Merkhet. I've also created the article for Liang Lingzan, so that's another redlink taken down. bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 23:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Now on the main page... for only 24 hours. Don't get too caught up. ;) · AndonicO Engage. 03:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Time Times |
||
Issue Three • May 2008 •
About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
News
| ||
Archives • Newsroom | ||
If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name
here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. |
I'm working on some organizational changes here; it's a mess right now though, needs transitions... if this turns out alright, I'll leave another note here, and maybe we can implement the changes into the main article. · AndonicO Engage. 13:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
75 FLs and DYKs? We'll have to be passing this on to our children at this rate. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Just put it on the nifty chart. bibliomaniac 1 5 16:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, I have finished up List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I am going to bring it to WP:FLC with MFC soon, so if anyone wants to read-through it and make sure everything sounds alright, that would be helpful. Thanks!! « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was just wondering about this, "To write 50 good articles (49 remaining). To qualify as a Tzatziki GA, the article must have been improved to GA status by at least two squad members.", in the goals section. If a collaborated GA were to be promoted to FA would it mean that a number would be added back on, or would it simply count as both? Thanks. Sunderland06 ( talk) 20:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Tell me, do these new goals still mean that all collaborations are aiming to FA, or just GA if FA is deemed unlikely? -- Grimhelm ( talk) 04:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hooray!!!! The FAC for History of timekeeping devices passed! 2 FA's down and only 18 more to go :). -- Mifter ( talk) 03:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This year, there was a discussion on the WikiProject Years about rewriting all the year articles, so that they were actually good summary articles rather than unconnected lists of events. The original experiment was tested on the 1345 article, with the intention of moving it toward Featured status. A second article, 1346, was rewritten taking into account some of the further discussion. This project will probably take quite a long time to complete, as a high standard is necessary and will progress one decade at a time.
It is an interesting and innovative concept, and one which I think would be worthy of Tzatziki collaboration. For this reason, I have chosen to nominate the 1340s as a future collaboration. It made sense because the only two years rewritten thus far are 1345 and 1346. As a decade article, it also has a more general scope than a single year, with the potential for "new" articles and DYKs in the other years of the 1340s.
The current draft is on a subpage of this project. I finished some preliminary research on the trends of the decade. We can work on this draft until it is of reasonable standard, and then move to mainspace and nominate for DYK. Long term, I think the article has a better chance of reaching FA than either of the two year articles. -- Grimhelm ( talk) 17:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
At present, the two sections, "War and decline in Western Europe" and "The Black Plague", are largely finished. "Architecture" just needs some sources; the "Reconquista" needs a small bit of expansion as well as sources. "Philosophy" has a solid basis. "Literature" and "Technology" need expansion. "Asia", "Eastern and Central Europe", "Africa" and "Americas" also need to be expanded. -- Grimhelm ( talk) 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello all. As the last collaboration has been successfully finished up, the time has come to pick a new collaboration. I've asked User:Animum because he's next on the list, but should he choose not to participate, it would be User:NikoSilver's turn. Unfortunately, according to his userpage, he is quite busy, and if he decides not to pick, I would assume that we would simply continue down the list. Keilana| Parlez ici 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
← I have not been involved in previous efforts by this group, but I am very willing to help out with any projects related to vital articles. Gary King ( talk) 22:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I always feel horrible just sticking my name under a membership list, so I'd just like to get a, I guess "clearance" of sorts, before I join. I first learned about this project when I saw it during my tenure a few months ago as an admin coachee of User:Bibliomaniac15, and I recently saw it just browsing through some talk pages. It lines up quite nicely that I happened upon this again actually, as I have been kind of offhandedly searching for a collaboration that differs from Wikipedia:WikiProject The Office (US), where almost all of my major contributions as of late have come from. I guess I fulfill all of the qualification, except I prefer Mac OS X over Windows, although my poor MacBook is currently in the shop after its hard drive crashed, so I'm forced to use a Windows machine for a while. So, as I stated, I'd just like some sort of "clearance" before I join. Happy editing, Mastrchf ( t/ c) 23:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
"Articles under Tzatzikification" is starting to get long. I thought the goal was to be focused on a small group of articles? However, the list has become long and some articles even only have one collaborator; those should be the first to go, otherwise things will eventually get out of hand. Gary King ( talk) 22:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the vote !vote debate drama discussion was keep doing
fatal hilarity. Which is essentially moot, since below everyone decided to give up on fatal hilarity. Interesting...
Nousernamesleft (
talk) 01:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, so there's been a bit of discussion on doing some work on the WP:VITAL articles and holding off on fatal hilarity for awhile. I personally think that a straw poll would help sort out who thinks what and may help us make a decision. Keilana| Parlez ici 23:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hold off on fatal hilarity and work on a WP:VITAL article, then return to fatal hilarity.
Go ahead with fatal hilarity and then do a WP:VITAL article.
Continue along as we have been.
Something else? Propose it here. :)
I'll not be editing much anymore; I don't know if you guys would be uncomfortable with keeping this page here, or if you would rather move TS to Keilana's userspace (or maybe wikipedia space... but that'll probably be overturned). · AndonicO Engage. 20:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I found some possible references... I don't think they could be used as main sources, though. If none are found soon, the collaboration will probably need to be changed (to something with more notable sources, i.e. important).
And then some on a laughter epidemic in Africa:
I think you might need a backup plan, Animum, unless someone can find more reliable sources than I did. · AndonicO Engage. 12:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind with Fatal hilarity; I realized my error about a day after I said I wanted it to be our collaboration. I'll pass the recommendation to the next person in line, NikoSilver, as I don't think I've been active enough here to choose. Thanks, — Animum ( talk) 00:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
And it wasn't even requested! I think... Nousernamesleft ( talk) 02:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking... why is history of timekeeping a redirect? It could easily be an article, with one section on the history of calendars and another on devices. If Tzatziki could bring that and history of calendars (which isn't all that far, methinks), they'd have a viable featured topic: I can think of no other necessary articles for the series. (Indeed, I can think of no other articles for the series at all, but that's probably just me.) I realise that Cannon and its subarticles are coming along, but that series is huge and disorganized, lacking articles specific for cannon's history in entire time periods and having articles for cannon's use in specific battles. Would anyone be interested in creating the history of timekeeping article? Nousernamesleft ( talk) 01:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)