I agree with your suggestion to archive the page - I've done so. You may want to re-post your very good summary of outstanding issues. Raul654 ( talk) 18:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Basic idea is you have a template that's only for substituting, say it's called Template:NewFAC. Let's say you want to nominate London. On the talk:London you would put {{subst:NewFAC}}, and when saved the substitution process would magically produce {{FAC|London/archive5}} in the wikitext (since /archive1 through /archive4 are already taken). Template:FAC would generate the same banner it currently does, and the link to "initiate the nominations" would go to WP:Featured article candidates/London/archive5, and WP:FAC/London/archive5 would need to be added to WP:FAC. This page wouldn't need moving whether it's a promote or not. Gimmetrow 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's see what Raul says. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. If you check Talk:History of computing hardware, you'll notice I've posted there several times already. I would have helped more, but I do have my own projects going on. And I did notice Ancheta Wis's hard work by awarding them a barnstar for it. — Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 18:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It is pretty obvious that you are one of the persons who dedicates the most time to WP. Why? Nergaal ( talk) 22:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I've this interesting problem, I was hoping you might be able to help me with it. I've been reading older editions of the US Navy magazine All Hands for information that I can use in the Iowa class battleship articles, but some of the article do not seem to have the names of the people who wrote them. Do you know how I should cite information from a magazine if the person who wrote the article I'm trying to cite isn't mentioned? TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I know Raul is responsible for promoting articles to FA status as well choosing article to be featured in the main page. Do Raul check articles before deciding? I see this article's three lines needing citations. Well, its not a big deal but its important. I proposed in the talk page to remove those if unresolved. Regards, -- Efe ( talk) 01:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I wanted to explain the new June 2008 PR stat at WP:FAS. This is a bit lower than the past few months, but we stopped allowing multiple submissions to PR by one nominator in one day, and limited people to four open PR requests at once. I think this explains the reduction compared to previous months.
I love the Tim Vicker's quote by the way (and if it is true, I hope I never learn your real name). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. There is an interesting discussion going on here at WT:PW regarding FA's and tables, with some arguments that plain text is more effective to get the point across and arguments to the contrary that it's unprofessional as plain text. Recently, the format for the "Results" section has been changed from plain text to a proper table. Is this outlined anywhere in FA how tables affect FAC's, because some at the discussion are confused about how it makes it look better. Your input is welcome at the first link. Thanks, D.M.N. ( talk) 13:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I had not seen that or any standard before. -- Carlaude ( talk) 16:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Got your note - ugh, that was a nasty situation. I've now learned to do image stuff (especially non-free image stuff) for short periods interspersed with long breaks doing other stuff. I'm busy in real life now, plus I'm trying to get an article started in my sandbox, but I promise to try to come by and do some more reviews. Who else is left? You should think about recruiting Quadell - he seems to have come back and there's nobody who knows more about copyright. Kelly hi! 20:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "this needs sorting"? --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 16:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, are you saying that I should strip the refs out of the lead? Guettarda ( talk) 16:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, some reviewers are contradicting each other again in this FAC. User:Biophys' comments are POV in my opinion and this was also adressed by another reviewer ( User:Krawndawg). Would you mind having a look and tell us if there is anything actionable within Biophys issues? Cheers, -- Eurocopter ( talk) 21:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you probably noticed that User:Laser brain/Dispatch is in a drafty-draft form and should be ready to use whenever needed within the next day or so. I will be getting back to reviewing FACs now that a major freelance project is completed. -- Laser brain (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. Can you withdraw this one please? Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I almost asked you before capping the Michael Gomez FAC but figured it would be OK because it would go in the July archive, not June where there was a problem. Does this mean that capping can no longer be used at all? Giants2008 ( talk) 02:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the nomination was a mistake, and I would like to withdraw it. The article is better off with its present class rating. For instance, the large, internally-captioned drawings are intended to be read as an integral part of the text. To shrink them down as thumbnails would nullify a major feature of the article, which presents potentially intimidating technical information to a general reader. I will continue adding footnotes for a while, even though the new footnotes will mostly cite the references that are already listed. HowardMorland ( talk) 03:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note to thank you for your tremendous patience while we worked to bring this article to featured status, Sandy. I think I can safely speak for Vintagekits as well on this point. Never did I anticipate having to respond to a FAC by email exchanges with the primary editor; it certainly slowed things down quite a bit. Your tolerance, and the thoughtful and helpful comments from fellow FAC reviewers, is most appreciated. Risker ( talk) 04:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Another one bites the dust. Where's my broom???? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing linked dates in an article that I am currently working on to combat overlinking. However, what is the general feeling towards linking cities? The article I'm working on currently has every city mentioned linked, which is about two dozen or so in the entire article. I'm thinking of removing the links because they don't add very much to the article, but what would you think I should do? Gary King ( talk) 06:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
April 1, 2009. Maggot cheese is indeed a worthy topic. However, tears!!! of mirth from this one:
Uranus has complex rings that have only been there for 600 million years. A British astronomer looking at Uranus reported noticing the rings of Uranus 200 years ago, but more likely they were observed in 1977 when satellite probes were sent to Uranus. The rings of Uranus were too dark to have been noticed that long ago. There are thirteen distinct rings of Uranus, which are composed of large particles of extremely dark, heavily processed material and ice, with dust bands in between some of the main rings. A few of the rings are eccentric. Some scientists examining Uranus thought that near Uranus were moons that affected the shape of the rings.
What, too base? -- Moni3 ( talk) 14:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Jagged85 expanded the article yesterday; I'll go through and check the new citations. · AndonicO Engage. 15:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, would you mind removing the Thriller album from the FA review list. I still have some work to do on it. Cheers. — Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 20:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Setting aside the THREE GAME SWEEP OF THE BOSOX, why are there no baseball team articles FA class? I thought, for fun, I'd work on the Florida Marlins article (you know, 2 in 10, not 6 in 88, which, of course, is mathematically worse). I keep digressing. Sorry. Anyways, I wanted to use an FA article as a template on how to do it. None. Nada. I figured you would know the reason why. Are there any sports' team articles that are FA? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Here Gary King ( talk) 03:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lufthansa was created but not transcluded. The creator is also not a major contributor. If I come across these, do you want me to bring them to your attention, or just leave them? I usually drop a note to the nominators telling them to transclude to WP:FAC if they want to nominate it. Gary King ( talk) 03:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit summary [3] at User:Deckiller/FAC urgents. I can volunteer for a task there. I can add new ones. However, in removing closed ones, I can do it but I wouldn't be as efficient as you in removing them (though the blue sac that Gimmebot envelopes them with helps if one is late in being removed). maclean 19:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sandy,
Would a very busy woman have the time to take another look? I have tried to implement your valued suggestions.
Best wishes,
Graham,
GrahamColm
Talk
21:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I did? I don't recall doing that... I have absolutely no idea why I would have done that. Most likely it was a combination of my incompetence and some automated tool that allows you to revert back to an old revision with one click - I was looking at an old revision of his page earlier, if I remember correctly. Sorry about that. Nousernamesleft ( talk) 00:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Clarification please on two points
Thanks, jimfbleak ( talk) 05:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I just had not had a chance to reply to you yet. I will take a look at the article and see what I can do with it. I will also post it on the WikiProject Food and Drink Cheeses task force page. As for butter, I have been wanting to take a look at it for a while, but I'm not sure what I have in my library on butter, I will have to take a look at the article and my books.-- Chef Tanner ( talk) 20:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, what to say. I think the perceived fall in quality of A-Class articles that you speak of, is more related to shifting goalposts at FAC. FAC now looks for perfection in prose, something that ACR was not originally designed for; it is more about checking the facts, highlighting some common MOS problems etc. I think that is at the core of any problem, do we want ACR to become purely a pre-FAC process, or a CE? I think if you look at A-Class articles from a year ago and compare them to output now, I don't think there is any change in quality.
To me, I don't see the link between MilCon and any perceived fall in quality output from Milhist's ACR process. Whilst I can see how the "Awards center" was not beneficial to the Wikipedia, and I understand your vociferous opinions on that subject, I don't see how MilCon has any tangible effect on article quality, particularly A-Class ones. It is more based around quantity, acting as some tangible measure of article output; harmless fun, a small incentive to go through the maelstrom of FAC/FLC/ACR. I don't see it having any link to the quality of articles. In a couple of cases, it has highlighted editors trying to game the system; editors shouldn't review their own articles and those that do, generally mark up, which can be found and discussed. It is a set of targets to reach, a motivational factor. Whether that will ever assuage your concern, I don't know. Perhaps open up a discussion on MHCOORD with any specific grievances? Best regards. Woody ( talk) 21:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Greetings: This article has already been a featured article - do you wish to feature it again? ("return to FA status") Also contact User:Samuel Wantman
- Leonard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonard G. ( talk • contribs) 21:20, July 5, 2008
Sandy! Read the talk page! ALL of the FA-Team was just waiting for Hrothgar. He IS the main editor. Wrad ( talk) 02:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI, server lag ia preventing bot from working. Gimmetrow 02:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I rarely raise larger issues on any page, mainly because I don't want to get involved in long discussions that go nowhere. I only do when I see a serious problem in an area where I work. Until today, I had thought that the "primary contributor" clause was going to be interpreted loosely, not strictly. Since that is not the case, however, I would like to have a larger discussion about it, as I see some potential problems with it. I think it would be good if you contributed to this discussion. It is not just about one incident. Thanks. Awadewit ( talk) 04:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I meant to bring this up when I did it on the San Francisco FAR cleanup but it felt like a waste of time to worry about it at the time. Is there any reason why institutional authors aren't used where there would be no author, such as when citing US Census data? I'm used to it from APA style, and it looks better to me to have all author fields populated, but I assume there is some reason why this isn't the case in the current MOS. - Optigan13 ( talk) 11:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
... those new accounts are. This one's a sleeper, at least. MastCell Talk 23:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ubuntu Gary King ( talk) 03:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Sandy. Your statement there, while it agrees with three other editors, it disagrees with two others. In my mind, you are probably the most qualified to comment on what is a RS thus far in that discussion. When I asked the question, I held the same opinion as DGG, and, subsequently, ImperfectlyInformed. Are you sure about what you said there? For instance, our article on About.com asserts the writers have at least some degree of knowledge of what they're writing about. (And the website itself calls them experts, as well as asserting their content is reliable). Would you mind revisiting what you said, and adjusting if you change your mind? I generally trust your opinions on these matters. Thanks. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I got rid of the "etc." but asked for wording help on Talk:Autism#ADHD, Tourette's, etc. The comorbid diagnoses point is important, but also is hard to word well as this is an area where there's a mismatch between official terminology and reality. Eubulides ( talk) 08:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Sandy.
Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Stolen Earth? It's been used by a disruptive user to push his interpretation of NFCC (and an admin to push ad hominem to support that user). See also: WP:ANI#Fasach Nua and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua. Thanks, Sceptre ( talk) 14:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
How long do FAR's normally last at their shortest? D.M.N. ( talk) 18:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at the FAR; the main issue at this point is Tony's prose concerns. If you can assure that is addressed before you travel, the FAR could be closed without moving to FARC. What is the status on that front? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a link to where "Date linking was discussed? Someone was asking here for a link saying they have looked around but cannot find one. D.M.N. ( talk) 07:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I have a question. When one has nominated an article for FAC for a second time, is it considered appropriate to contact all of the commenters from the previous FAC (supporters, opposers, and neithers), telling them the article is up again? Or is that considered a form of canvassing? I looked in the FAC talk archives but couldn't find any clear answer. Thx. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I went to this FAC expecting to see you there trying to put your Red Sox Nation POV there. Found out it was Boston, but wrong sport, and a sport I don't even like. Meh. Bill Russell (baseball) might have been much more fun. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how involved you typically are with these types of discussions, but I figure I'd bring it to your attention. There has been a discussion (at Template_talk:Cite_web#adminisrator_asked_to_implement_Gary.27s_sandbox_change) about adding a new option to citation templates, starting with {{ cite web}}, to delink the date and access date fields so that they don't appear as blue links. Gary King ( talk) 20:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Argh, all this date linking business; Gary, what are we supposed to do, for example, at December to Dismember (2006)? I delinked the dates in the text, but the cite templates automatically link the dates. Does that pass The Tony Test, or is there something else we need to do? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for giving a little extra time for copyediting on my FAC. I'm surprised because I had hoped that I would have learned enough lessons from my previous FACs that this one would make it through easier. (I was much prouder of it than any of the other ones that I've significantly contributed to.) Oh well. Maybe the next one will go easier. (I look back now at my earlier FACs and I can't understand why they made it when work that I'm much more proud of didn't. I guess criteria are also getting narrower.) Thanks though for letting me take some extra time on this. JRP ( talk) 20:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I'm done as much as I can for now. I'm waiting for Markus to (hopefully) approve of my responses to his questions. I have a very full day at the lab tomorrow, so I will catch-up with the FAC in about 20 hours. Best, Graham. GrahamColm Talk 22:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, it's Hap. I've decided to go through with my RfA, which Balloonman started at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Happyme22. You indicated to me back in May that you would be willing to co-nominate me when the time came, and so it has. Are you still up for that? And if so, I would greatly appreciate it; I will accept the nom when all the co-noms are in. Best as always, Happyme22 ( talk) 23:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You might find this to be mildly interesting.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boy Scouts of America
Would you please review the Origins stuff and give me a sanity check. I am just so confused here. --——
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk -
02:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for the support! | |
SandyGeorgia, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC) |
I think thrombosis in cattle is indeed a major problem! JFW | T@lk 05:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Bartman (2nd nomination) showed up through Wikiproject Baseball. Anyways, I was thinking how to make the article a GA, and someone is deleting it. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Only a few more sections to go and his page will be completed cited and verified. I started a basis for his "psychology". If you want to add in more "modern" diagnosis, then that would be appreciated. The lead will have to be worked on, the prose fixed some, and some better organization, but it appears to be on track. Ottava Rima ( talk) 17:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Just looked, still needs work, gave you one beefy link on his Tourette syndrome. Relies a lot on quotes, needs a MoS tune-up, and if you don't find a better section heading than "Psychology", I might climb out of my skin :-) Tourette syndrome is not psychological, it's neurological. I really dislike the referencing setup; best to leave full website sources directly in the Notes, and not repeat them in References (no need to split out websites in References, just leave the full citation in Notes). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
OR, it still needs a lot of work (notice by edit summaries, I did my changes one by one so I could describe each in detail). I suggest the following steps:
These steps will help assure many eyes on the article before you come to FAC. It still needs work. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, when did they remove the date linking in order to adjust to user preference? Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Quick way to find dates - search for [[17. I did just that and found some. :D Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It was such an impressive name that I didn't have the faintest clue where to chop. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 04:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I added six scenes from Boswell that flesh out some of the account in the main prose. There are a few more that I can add. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
—
and –
.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
16:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Rant - SandyGeorgia, how dare you perform amazing edits on a page that gets a significant amount of views but was left in tatters for many years! Who do you think you are?! Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Which one is better? Blue boxes or blue boxes with quotes? Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Is that enough images? I believe there is one from every important moment of his life, and most of the well known/important Boswell quotes. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
As an academic, I live and die by the Chicago method. I can't ever change, and the aesthetics of the trendy versions on wikipedia are distressing for many reasons. Although the guidelines state that it should be based on the first method, people seem to wish for all sorts of craziness for whatever reason (Harvard style? No one uses that!). Chicago was first. Chicago will be last. I'm withdrawing myself as the first "referencer" and as a major editor so people can go in and choose whatever preference they want. After all, that is the policy that trumped all the others (but no one remembers that anymore). I added material and clarified on my additions. I've done all that I can do. Use this diff in the future if anyone questions any future changes from my version to the next. Ottava Rima ( talk) 03:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I hit every major one I could go through. I'm sure I missed a few, mostly using the find function. I think I added in some junk to the ref name = function, but it shows up because I added it in equally. My eyes are starting to blur and I can't distinguish text because of how much I just had to scroll through. I'll hit the rest tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. Ottava Rima ( talk) 05:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Excuse my getting slightly off-topic, but I think it's usually wiser to stay in a thread in order to comment on something said there. Anyway, it's your comment on script-aided de-linking that prompts this rant. I simply want to make sure that people realise that de-linking in the case of dates is not simply removing the links, but also straightening out any inconsistencies in the formatting, such as missing (or redundant) commas and missing spaces (not to speak of entirely different formats). Although these are lost in the auto-formatting process, a plain de-linking would expose them and litter any article with tens of style errors. Could a script take care of these issues? I honestly have no idea and would be quite interested to know. Waltham, The Duke of 14:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy - thanks for being so helpful in pointing us to the relevant mental health contributors as well as assisting in clearing up any copyright confusion we may have drummed up. Cheers Mindsite ( talk) 18:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It was suggested to me by another editor that I speak with you concerning the article on heterosexuality. Is it possible if you could please consider giving this page a detailed Peer Review? Thanks. Caden S ( talk) 01:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what your immediate goal is, but if you are aiming for WP:GA, there is quite a bit of work to be done still, so I recommend opening a peer review and using the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to locate and invite editors to the peer review to comment. The three biggest issues I see now are that 1) there are entire sections in the article that are undeveloped, 2) there are numerous cite needed tags and the article is largely uncited, and 3) the quality of some of the sources isn't the best. I agree with the comment on your talk page that the article is currently more about sexual orientation than heterosexuality, so the article content is going to need a lot of beefing up. There are also basic rewriting and copyedit needs (there is a sentence that says: "The history of heterosexuality is part of the history of sexuality"), and there was a strange citation format. There is a lot of basic manual of style cleanup needed, and a mixture of three different citation styles (for example: Heterosexuality is first recorded in 1900. [1] [2] "Heterosexual" was first listed ... normal sexuality". (p.92, Katz) ) You may want to work with someone who has access to high-quality sources and will help write the bulk of the article, which is pretty slim. You can find general information about sources here, and specific tips for accessing good bio/medical research material here. Good luck with it! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks ok on my computer. Buc ( talk) 20:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Um, hi. What is your expertise in Lyme Disease? Can you give me a reason for removing what I wrote? Did you even read the link? That's not the only place it was reported. If you think it's unbalanced, qualify my statements, or remove the last sentence if you think that's too provocative. I don't have an axe to grind, I just think that this is an important piece of information that anyone interested in Lyme Disease would probably want to research further. Thanks, Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.75.244 ( talk) 20:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. It will be under "Biowarfare". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amdurbin ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
...check your email. I sent a similar message to Balloonman. Best, Happyme22 ( talk) 02:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Mind taking a look? Might not need FARC. Marskell ( talk) 14:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, not to do your job for you, but I didn't know if you'd looked at this FAC lately. The nominator stated several times that s/he is not planning to implement most of the requested changes until after the FAC closes. It seems like it is just on FAC right now for a peer review. Since the list is getting long, I thought this might be an easy entry to sacrifice. Karanacs ( talk) 17:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
My test results came in qt 4:28pm CET, and were negative. I am celebrating with several perfectly home brewed Vodka Gimlets and chicken sandwiches. Was watching a YouTube video (self made) when I suddenly thought of you: This song encompasses you to a "T". Thanks for always sticking by me, no matter what a Cowardly Lion I might be. Love, Jeffpw ( talk) 17:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I've racked my brains but I can't figure out this [4] comment. Did you post to the wrong talk, or is a very subtle and sly dig ;) If the latter, hats off. ( Ceoil sláinte 18:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I've run into a bit of a problem. Remember the New York State Route 32 FAC? Well - the shields have become a problem again. One group, U.S. Roads want them in, per THEIR standards. The people at FAC want them gone for violating WP:MOSFLAG. US Roads now wants to changes their own standards so if someone or I remove the shields (images) from an article, they will oppose for the point of not meeting WikiProject standards.
I have a lot of roads I wanna get up there but no one can seem to compromise. I really want to keep getting GAs and FAs, but no one wants to make a good deal. What is your take on this and is there something we can do about it?Mitch32( UP) 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what your edit summary "third time's a charm" meant. It seems like this is headed for a second restart. That is not a bad solution. As the nominator, I will summarize my thoughts on the progress. First off, there has been a lot of struck comments and editorial action on the article for a statement such as "If there is anything that has been resolved, caps could be used on this FAC, but it doesn't appear that issues are being resolved." The main concern really seems to be the extent of links in the article. The guidance in the MOS seems to suggest the article has the right amount of links according to WP:OVERLINK#Link_density's acceptable example. I have pointed this out repeatedly. This has resulted in lists of words which have been contested. When I explain reasoning behind the words in the list the arguments against them seem to focus on whether it is "silly" to link certain words than a circumspect analysis of a given link's propriety. To date the only words where there has been substantial debate have been swizzle sticks, spa, and sushi. There has also been a debate on the propriety of linking full date, which seems unresolved. Yesterday, I got a neutral party, User:Dank55 to come in and review prose and help resolve debates. He has informed me of the current opinion on date links, which seems to support current usage in the article. The other minor issue is the floor use diagram. I had cropped an original source for fair use. The text was small in the thumbnail version and I attempted to correct this with Microsoft Paint. We have a request in at WP:GL for a better diagram.
WRT, the dates, and the diagram your opinion would be quite helpful. Dan is going through the article and I think he will help with links. Hope the summary is helpful.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Was that normal, what all those awful, awful people did to my article? Or was that free-for-all reserved for an article that every English-speaking person recognizes? Because if that's normal, I'm quite tempted to take the citations out of all my FAs right now to save myself the effort of ever requesting another one again on the main page... That was insane. I'm going to have dreams of my house burning and me running around in the flames naked, trying to find clothes, but they're all going to be on fire. -- Moni3 ( talk) 01:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
As a contributor to information about Johnson's psychological / neurological state, I would like your permission to spin that off into a separate article about his "personality" in general, which would include most of the character sketch. It would reduce the section to four paragraphs. It could be called Personality of Samuel Johnson or Samuel Johnson's personality. I find that this and a page called Contemporary Biographies of Samuel Johnson would allow for important information to be accessible to the page without cluttering the page. Such a place will have discussion of Boswell's work along with Hawkins's, Mrs Thrale/Piozzi's, Fanny Burney's, Anna Seward's, Mrs Montagu's, Hannah More's, and Horace Walpole's. In particular, it will talk about the differences between Hawkin's, Piozzi's, and Boswell's (the others were minor). What do you think? Ottava Rima ( talk) 13:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
There should probably be a category for 18th century writers with various disorders, illnesses, and "madness". I can think of eight major individuals that would fit such a descriptive off the top of my head. Perhaps it is the strain of genius? The Romantics thought the "madness" liberated them from the constraints of 18th century life and allowed them to achieve creative and intellectual feats that a "sane" person would be incapable of. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, Samuel Johnson is still only at 48KB readable prose, within WP:SIZE and the norm for FAs; why must we split? A separate article can be written, but this article is still fine. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Cough - would you know where he is quoting by chance (midway down his entry)? It completely baffles me. Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, thanks for your essential peer review of Introduction to virus; its FA status could have not been achieved without it. Best, Graham. GrahamColm Talk 19:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been meaning to liven up my username's appearance, which is rather bland at the moment. Do you know how this is done? If not, is there a how-to page about this on the site? In honor of my favorite NFL team, I want a darker blue for my name. I also want my talk page link to be a red 17–14, in order to torture any fans of New England sports teams that I come across. You wouldn't know anyone like that, would you :-):-) Giants2008 ( talk) 23:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you know a tech wiz who could help? [5] None of my business really, but that never slowed me down. :-) Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
In fact, yes I have checked the article for copyright violations. I also wrote the original text and didn't copy it from other sources. There are couple of sentences that are similar to those in articles elsewhere but most of those are Wikipedia mirrors. The way you replaced the whole article with the copyvio notice is the one that is used to say that the whole article is a copyvio and therefore should be removed. That means that you accuse me and the rest of the people who have contributed to the article afterwards for that violation - Skysmith ( talk) 07:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy, but that was already there under a different heading! (link). :) Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it sounds like an organism? The Lesser Spotted Keratoconus, or Keratoconus bowmanii? :) — BillC talk 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to cite pages in a book which is basically a collection of papers by a number of different authors, published under the name of the editor. So for instance, chapter 3 might be written by Smith, chapter 4 by Jones, and so on, but I'm unsure of the best way to cite, for example, page 120 of the book, which might be in Jones' chapter. Do you have any suggestions, or can you think of an example I could follow?
BTW, since coming across Samuel Johnson I've become quite a fan of {{Harvnb}}, but don't tell jbmurray. :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thought you might want to know that the nominator of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake, Editorofthewiki ( talk · contribs), has been MIA since July 3. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It strikes me that one omission from this article is any discussion of the possible relationships between Johnson's posthumously diagnosed conditions and his work. Would you agree? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 21:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. Long time no see :-)
I have a bunch of problems (well, two): Mitch put up a mediation request up for the Route 32 issues, which I picked up. I'm having some difficulty figuring out what the exact problem is, though. All I know is there's a slow revert war over the shields because of the "not decoration" clause of MOSFLAG that was brought up in the FAC. On the other hand, there's the MOS for highway exits, which most highway articles follow (it has the standards for shields). Is that guideline (ELG) considered a part of FA review? If it were, the guideline would probably put an end to the revert wars, as the warring stems from the guidelines brought up during FAC.
The two guidelines are counter to each other. Maybe all that's needed is some more documentation? Any thoughts much appreciated; I don't usually wander into featured territory, so not quite sure what works and what doesn't. Xavexgoem ( talk) 00:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I apologize in advance for my poor grammar :-p
I'm sure you meant good but please don't interfere when I'm asking a direct question to Happyme22. No offence. Thanks -- Floridianed ( talk) 02:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Nothing changed that I know of. You're just using {{ citation}} instead of {{ cite web}}. I hate {{ citation}} :) Gary King ( talk) 05:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've noticed that there have been some changes to date formatting. I would be happy to implement the formatting changes, but I'm still trying to figure out what needs to be different now. How should I write out release dates (fairly prominent) in film articles? What about a filming start date (not as prominent)? How about the date=
attributes in {{
cite news}} and {{
cite journal}}? How should I apply
WP:NBSP for dates in the article body, if at all? If you could take the time to briefly answer these questions, I can make the appropriate changes and try to spread the example among WP:FILM editors. Thanks,
Erik (
talk •
contrib) -
13:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This is interesting to me. Is it interesting to you? I have a feeling that you will triple my edit count shortly. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hrothgar was asking me on my talkpage how long FACs run, so I advised him to give you a ping. qp10qp ( talk) 15:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
anything further is redundant. Jeffpw ( talk) 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy; Since you're involved quite a bit in cleaning and formatting that page I would like to ask you to go over it again after I changed my vote again and left a little (just a little) format mess there. Thanks -- Floridianed ( talk) 23:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion to archive the page - I've done so. You may want to re-post your very good summary of outstanding issues. Raul654 ( talk) 18:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Basic idea is you have a template that's only for substituting, say it's called Template:NewFAC. Let's say you want to nominate London. On the talk:London you would put {{subst:NewFAC}}, and when saved the substitution process would magically produce {{FAC|London/archive5}} in the wikitext (since /archive1 through /archive4 are already taken). Template:FAC would generate the same banner it currently does, and the link to "initiate the nominations" would go to WP:Featured article candidates/London/archive5, and WP:FAC/London/archive5 would need to be added to WP:FAC. This page wouldn't need moving whether it's a promote or not. Gimmetrow 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's see what Raul says. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. If you check Talk:History of computing hardware, you'll notice I've posted there several times already. I would have helped more, but I do have my own projects going on. And I did notice Ancheta Wis's hard work by awarding them a barnstar for it. — Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 18:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It is pretty obvious that you are one of the persons who dedicates the most time to WP. Why? Nergaal ( talk) 22:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I've this interesting problem, I was hoping you might be able to help me with it. I've been reading older editions of the US Navy magazine All Hands for information that I can use in the Iowa class battleship articles, but some of the article do not seem to have the names of the people who wrote them. Do you know how I should cite information from a magazine if the person who wrote the article I'm trying to cite isn't mentioned? TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I know Raul is responsible for promoting articles to FA status as well choosing article to be featured in the main page. Do Raul check articles before deciding? I see this article's three lines needing citations. Well, its not a big deal but its important. I proposed in the talk page to remove those if unresolved. Regards, -- Efe ( talk) 01:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I wanted to explain the new June 2008 PR stat at WP:FAS. This is a bit lower than the past few months, but we stopped allowing multiple submissions to PR by one nominator in one day, and limited people to four open PR requests at once. I think this explains the reduction compared to previous months.
I love the Tim Vicker's quote by the way (and if it is true, I hope I never learn your real name). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. There is an interesting discussion going on here at WT:PW regarding FA's and tables, with some arguments that plain text is more effective to get the point across and arguments to the contrary that it's unprofessional as plain text. Recently, the format for the "Results" section has been changed from plain text to a proper table. Is this outlined anywhere in FA how tables affect FAC's, because some at the discussion are confused about how it makes it look better. Your input is welcome at the first link. Thanks, D.M.N. ( talk) 13:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I had not seen that or any standard before. -- Carlaude ( talk) 16:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Got your note - ugh, that was a nasty situation. I've now learned to do image stuff (especially non-free image stuff) for short periods interspersed with long breaks doing other stuff. I'm busy in real life now, plus I'm trying to get an article started in my sandbox, but I promise to try to come by and do some more reviews. Who else is left? You should think about recruiting Quadell - he seems to have come back and there's nobody who knows more about copyright. Kelly hi! 20:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "this needs sorting"? --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 16:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, are you saying that I should strip the refs out of the lead? Guettarda ( talk) 16:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, some reviewers are contradicting each other again in this FAC. User:Biophys' comments are POV in my opinion and this was also adressed by another reviewer ( User:Krawndawg). Would you mind having a look and tell us if there is anything actionable within Biophys issues? Cheers, -- Eurocopter ( talk) 21:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you probably noticed that User:Laser brain/Dispatch is in a drafty-draft form and should be ready to use whenever needed within the next day or so. I will be getting back to reviewing FACs now that a major freelance project is completed. -- Laser brain (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. Can you withdraw this one please? Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I almost asked you before capping the Michael Gomez FAC but figured it would be OK because it would go in the July archive, not June where there was a problem. Does this mean that capping can no longer be used at all? Giants2008 ( talk) 02:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the nomination was a mistake, and I would like to withdraw it. The article is better off with its present class rating. For instance, the large, internally-captioned drawings are intended to be read as an integral part of the text. To shrink them down as thumbnails would nullify a major feature of the article, which presents potentially intimidating technical information to a general reader. I will continue adding footnotes for a while, even though the new footnotes will mostly cite the references that are already listed. HowardMorland ( talk) 03:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note to thank you for your tremendous patience while we worked to bring this article to featured status, Sandy. I think I can safely speak for Vintagekits as well on this point. Never did I anticipate having to respond to a FAC by email exchanges with the primary editor; it certainly slowed things down quite a bit. Your tolerance, and the thoughtful and helpful comments from fellow FAC reviewers, is most appreciated. Risker ( talk) 04:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Another one bites the dust. Where's my broom???? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing linked dates in an article that I am currently working on to combat overlinking. However, what is the general feeling towards linking cities? The article I'm working on currently has every city mentioned linked, which is about two dozen or so in the entire article. I'm thinking of removing the links because they don't add very much to the article, but what would you think I should do? Gary King ( talk) 06:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
April 1, 2009. Maggot cheese is indeed a worthy topic. However, tears!!! of mirth from this one:
Uranus has complex rings that have only been there for 600 million years. A British astronomer looking at Uranus reported noticing the rings of Uranus 200 years ago, but more likely they were observed in 1977 when satellite probes were sent to Uranus. The rings of Uranus were too dark to have been noticed that long ago. There are thirteen distinct rings of Uranus, which are composed of large particles of extremely dark, heavily processed material and ice, with dust bands in between some of the main rings. A few of the rings are eccentric. Some scientists examining Uranus thought that near Uranus were moons that affected the shape of the rings.
What, too base? -- Moni3 ( talk) 14:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Jagged85 expanded the article yesterday; I'll go through and check the new citations. · AndonicO Engage. 15:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, would you mind removing the Thriller album from the FA review list. I still have some work to do on it. Cheers. — Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 20:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Setting aside the THREE GAME SWEEP OF THE BOSOX, why are there no baseball team articles FA class? I thought, for fun, I'd work on the Florida Marlins article (you know, 2 in 10, not 6 in 88, which, of course, is mathematically worse). I keep digressing. Sorry. Anyways, I wanted to use an FA article as a template on how to do it. None. Nada. I figured you would know the reason why. Are there any sports' team articles that are FA? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Here Gary King ( talk) 03:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lufthansa was created but not transcluded. The creator is also not a major contributor. If I come across these, do you want me to bring them to your attention, or just leave them? I usually drop a note to the nominators telling them to transclude to WP:FAC if they want to nominate it. Gary King ( talk) 03:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit summary [3] at User:Deckiller/FAC urgents. I can volunteer for a task there. I can add new ones. However, in removing closed ones, I can do it but I wouldn't be as efficient as you in removing them (though the blue sac that Gimmebot envelopes them with helps if one is late in being removed). maclean 19:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sandy,
Would a very busy woman have the time to take another look? I have tried to implement your valued suggestions.
Best wishes,
Graham,
GrahamColm
Talk
21:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I did? I don't recall doing that... I have absolutely no idea why I would have done that. Most likely it was a combination of my incompetence and some automated tool that allows you to revert back to an old revision with one click - I was looking at an old revision of his page earlier, if I remember correctly. Sorry about that. Nousernamesleft ( talk) 00:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Clarification please on two points
Thanks, jimfbleak ( talk) 05:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I just had not had a chance to reply to you yet. I will take a look at the article and see what I can do with it. I will also post it on the WikiProject Food and Drink Cheeses task force page. As for butter, I have been wanting to take a look at it for a while, but I'm not sure what I have in my library on butter, I will have to take a look at the article and my books.-- Chef Tanner ( talk) 20:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, what to say. I think the perceived fall in quality of A-Class articles that you speak of, is more related to shifting goalposts at FAC. FAC now looks for perfection in prose, something that ACR was not originally designed for; it is more about checking the facts, highlighting some common MOS problems etc. I think that is at the core of any problem, do we want ACR to become purely a pre-FAC process, or a CE? I think if you look at A-Class articles from a year ago and compare them to output now, I don't think there is any change in quality.
To me, I don't see the link between MilCon and any perceived fall in quality output from Milhist's ACR process. Whilst I can see how the "Awards center" was not beneficial to the Wikipedia, and I understand your vociferous opinions on that subject, I don't see how MilCon has any tangible effect on article quality, particularly A-Class ones. It is more based around quantity, acting as some tangible measure of article output; harmless fun, a small incentive to go through the maelstrom of FAC/FLC/ACR. I don't see it having any link to the quality of articles. In a couple of cases, it has highlighted editors trying to game the system; editors shouldn't review their own articles and those that do, generally mark up, which can be found and discussed. It is a set of targets to reach, a motivational factor. Whether that will ever assuage your concern, I don't know. Perhaps open up a discussion on MHCOORD with any specific grievances? Best regards. Woody ( talk) 21:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Greetings: This article has already been a featured article - do you wish to feature it again? ("return to FA status") Also contact User:Samuel Wantman
- Leonard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonard G. ( talk • contribs) 21:20, July 5, 2008
Sandy! Read the talk page! ALL of the FA-Team was just waiting for Hrothgar. He IS the main editor. Wrad ( talk) 02:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI, server lag ia preventing bot from working. Gimmetrow 02:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I rarely raise larger issues on any page, mainly because I don't want to get involved in long discussions that go nowhere. I only do when I see a serious problem in an area where I work. Until today, I had thought that the "primary contributor" clause was going to be interpreted loosely, not strictly. Since that is not the case, however, I would like to have a larger discussion about it, as I see some potential problems with it. I think it would be good if you contributed to this discussion. It is not just about one incident. Thanks. Awadewit ( talk) 04:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I meant to bring this up when I did it on the San Francisco FAR cleanup but it felt like a waste of time to worry about it at the time. Is there any reason why institutional authors aren't used where there would be no author, such as when citing US Census data? I'm used to it from APA style, and it looks better to me to have all author fields populated, but I assume there is some reason why this isn't the case in the current MOS. - Optigan13 ( talk) 11:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
... those new accounts are. This one's a sleeper, at least. MastCell Talk 23:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ubuntu Gary King ( talk) 03:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Sandy. Your statement there, while it agrees with three other editors, it disagrees with two others. In my mind, you are probably the most qualified to comment on what is a RS thus far in that discussion. When I asked the question, I held the same opinion as DGG, and, subsequently, ImperfectlyInformed. Are you sure about what you said there? For instance, our article on About.com asserts the writers have at least some degree of knowledge of what they're writing about. (And the website itself calls them experts, as well as asserting their content is reliable). Would you mind revisiting what you said, and adjusting if you change your mind? I generally trust your opinions on these matters. Thanks. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I got rid of the "etc." but asked for wording help on Talk:Autism#ADHD, Tourette's, etc. The comorbid diagnoses point is important, but also is hard to word well as this is an area where there's a mismatch between official terminology and reality. Eubulides ( talk) 08:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Sandy.
Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Stolen Earth? It's been used by a disruptive user to push his interpretation of NFCC (and an admin to push ad hominem to support that user). See also: WP:ANI#Fasach Nua and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua. Thanks, Sceptre ( talk) 14:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
How long do FAR's normally last at their shortest? D.M.N. ( talk) 18:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at the FAR; the main issue at this point is Tony's prose concerns. If you can assure that is addressed before you travel, the FAR could be closed without moving to FARC. What is the status on that front? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a link to where "Date linking was discussed? Someone was asking here for a link saying they have looked around but cannot find one. D.M.N. ( talk) 07:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I have a question. When one has nominated an article for FAC for a second time, is it considered appropriate to contact all of the commenters from the previous FAC (supporters, opposers, and neithers), telling them the article is up again? Or is that considered a form of canvassing? I looked in the FAC talk archives but couldn't find any clear answer. Thx. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I went to this FAC expecting to see you there trying to put your Red Sox Nation POV there. Found out it was Boston, but wrong sport, and a sport I don't even like. Meh. Bill Russell (baseball) might have been much more fun. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how involved you typically are with these types of discussions, but I figure I'd bring it to your attention. There has been a discussion (at Template_talk:Cite_web#adminisrator_asked_to_implement_Gary.27s_sandbox_change) about adding a new option to citation templates, starting with {{ cite web}}, to delink the date and access date fields so that they don't appear as blue links. Gary King ( talk) 20:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Argh, all this date linking business; Gary, what are we supposed to do, for example, at December to Dismember (2006)? I delinked the dates in the text, but the cite templates automatically link the dates. Does that pass The Tony Test, or is there something else we need to do? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for giving a little extra time for copyediting on my FAC. I'm surprised because I had hoped that I would have learned enough lessons from my previous FACs that this one would make it through easier. (I was much prouder of it than any of the other ones that I've significantly contributed to.) Oh well. Maybe the next one will go easier. (I look back now at my earlier FACs and I can't understand why they made it when work that I'm much more proud of didn't. I guess criteria are also getting narrower.) Thanks though for letting me take some extra time on this. JRP ( talk) 20:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I'm done as much as I can for now. I'm waiting for Markus to (hopefully) approve of my responses to his questions. I have a very full day at the lab tomorrow, so I will catch-up with the FAC in about 20 hours. Best, Graham. GrahamColm Talk 22:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, it's Hap. I've decided to go through with my RfA, which Balloonman started at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Happyme22. You indicated to me back in May that you would be willing to co-nominate me when the time came, and so it has. Are you still up for that? And if so, I would greatly appreciate it; I will accept the nom when all the co-noms are in. Best as always, Happyme22 ( talk) 23:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You might find this to be mildly interesting.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boy Scouts of America
Would you please review the Origins stuff and give me a sanity check. I am just so confused here. --——
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk -
02:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for the support! | |
SandyGeorgia, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC) |
I think thrombosis in cattle is indeed a major problem! JFW | T@lk 05:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Bartman (2nd nomination) showed up through Wikiproject Baseball. Anyways, I was thinking how to make the article a GA, and someone is deleting it. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Only a few more sections to go and his page will be completed cited and verified. I started a basis for his "psychology". If you want to add in more "modern" diagnosis, then that would be appreciated. The lead will have to be worked on, the prose fixed some, and some better organization, but it appears to be on track. Ottava Rima ( talk) 17:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Just looked, still needs work, gave you one beefy link on his Tourette syndrome. Relies a lot on quotes, needs a MoS tune-up, and if you don't find a better section heading than "Psychology", I might climb out of my skin :-) Tourette syndrome is not psychological, it's neurological. I really dislike the referencing setup; best to leave full website sources directly in the Notes, and not repeat them in References (no need to split out websites in References, just leave the full citation in Notes). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
OR, it still needs a lot of work (notice by edit summaries, I did my changes one by one so I could describe each in detail). I suggest the following steps:
These steps will help assure many eyes on the article before you come to FAC. It still needs work. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, when did they remove the date linking in order to adjust to user preference? Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Quick way to find dates - search for [[17. I did just that and found some. :D Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It was such an impressive name that I didn't have the faintest clue where to chop. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 04:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I added six scenes from Boswell that flesh out some of the account in the main prose. There are a few more that I can add. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
—
and –
.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
16:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Rant - SandyGeorgia, how dare you perform amazing edits on a page that gets a significant amount of views but was left in tatters for many years! Who do you think you are?! Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Which one is better? Blue boxes or blue boxes with quotes? Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Is that enough images? I believe there is one from every important moment of his life, and most of the well known/important Boswell quotes. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
As an academic, I live and die by the Chicago method. I can't ever change, and the aesthetics of the trendy versions on wikipedia are distressing for many reasons. Although the guidelines state that it should be based on the first method, people seem to wish for all sorts of craziness for whatever reason (Harvard style? No one uses that!). Chicago was first. Chicago will be last. I'm withdrawing myself as the first "referencer" and as a major editor so people can go in and choose whatever preference they want. After all, that is the policy that trumped all the others (but no one remembers that anymore). I added material and clarified on my additions. I've done all that I can do. Use this diff in the future if anyone questions any future changes from my version to the next. Ottava Rima ( talk) 03:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I hit every major one I could go through. I'm sure I missed a few, mostly using the find function. I think I added in some junk to the ref name = function, but it shows up because I added it in equally. My eyes are starting to blur and I can't distinguish text because of how much I just had to scroll through. I'll hit the rest tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. Ottava Rima ( talk) 05:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Excuse my getting slightly off-topic, but I think it's usually wiser to stay in a thread in order to comment on something said there. Anyway, it's your comment on script-aided de-linking that prompts this rant. I simply want to make sure that people realise that de-linking in the case of dates is not simply removing the links, but also straightening out any inconsistencies in the formatting, such as missing (or redundant) commas and missing spaces (not to speak of entirely different formats). Although these are lost in the auto-formatting process, a plain de-linking would expose them and litter any article with tens of style errors. Could a script take care of these issues? I honestly have no idea and would be quite interested to know. Waltham, The Duke of 14:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy - thanks for being so helpful in pointing us to the relevant mental health contributors as well as assisting in clearing up any copyright confusion we may have drummed up. Cheers Mindsite ( talk) 18:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It was suggested to me by another editor that I speak with you concerning the article on heterosexuality. Is it possible if you could please consider giving this page a detailed Peer Review? Thanks. Caden S ( talk) 01:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what your immediate goal is, but if you are aiming for WP:GA, there is quite a bit of work to be done still, so I recommend opening a peer review and using the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to locate and invite editors to the peer review to comment. The three biggest issues I see now are that 1) there are entire sections in the article that are undeveloped, 2) there are numerous cite needed tags and the article is largely uncited, and 3) the quality of some of the sources isn't the best. I agree with the comment on your talk page that the article is currently more about sexual orientation than heterosexuality, so the article content is going to need a lot of beefing up. There are also basic rewriting and copyedit needs (there is a sentence that says: "The history of heterosexuality is part of the history of sexuality"), and there was a strange citation format. There is a lot of basic manual of style cleanup needed, and a mixture of three different citation styles (for example: Heterosexuality is first recorded in 1900. [1] [2] "Heterosexual" was first listed ... normal sexuality". (p.92, Katz) ) You may want to work with someone who has access to high-quality sources and will help write the bulk of the article, which is pretty slim. You can find general information about sources here, and specific tips for accessing good bio/medical research material here. Good luck with it! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks ok on my computer. Buc ( talk) 20:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Um, hi. What is your expertise in Lyme Disease? Can you give me a reason for removing what I wrote? Did you even read the link? That's not the only place it was reported. If you think it's unbalanced, qualify my statements, or remove the last sentence if you think that's too provocative. I don't have an axe to grind, I just think that this is an important piece of information that anyone interested in Lyme Disease would probably want to research further. Thanks, Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.75.244 ( talk) 20:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. It will be under "Biowarfare". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amdurbin ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
...check your email. I sent a similar message to Balloonman. Best, Happyme22 ( talk) 02:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Mind taking a look? Might not need FARC. Marskell ( talk) 14:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, not to do your job for you, but I didn't know if you'd looked at this FAC lately. The nominator stated several times that s/he is not planning to implement most of the requested changes until after the FAC closes. It seems like it is just on FAC right now for a peer review. Since the list is getting long, I thought this might be an easy entry to sacrifice. Karanacs ( talk) 17:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
My test results came in qt 4:28pm CET, and were negative. I am celebrating with several perfectly home brewed Vodka Gimlets and chicken sandwiches. Was watching a YouTube video (self made) when I suddenly thought of you: This song encompasses you to a "T". Thanks for always sticking by me, no matter what a Cowardly Lion I might be. Love, Jeffpw ( talk) 17:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I've racked my brains but I can't figure out this [4] comment. Did you post to the wrong talk, or is a very subtle and sly dig ;) If the latter, hats off. ( Ceoil sláinte 18:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I've run into a bit of a problem. Remember the New York State Route 32 FAC? Well - the shields have become a problem again. One group, U.S. Roads want them in, per THEIR standards. The people at FAC want them gone for violating WP:MOSFLAG. US Roads now wants to changes their own standards so if someone or I remove the shields (images) from an article, they will oppose for the point of not meeting WikiProject standards.
I have a lot of roads I wanna get up there but no one can seem to compromise. I really want to keep getting GAs and FAs, but no one wants to make a good deal. What is your take on this and is there something we can do about it?Mitch32( UP) 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what your edit summary "third time's a charm" meant. It seems like this is headed for a second restart. That is not a bad solution. As the nominator, I will summarize my thoughts on the progress. First off, there has been a lot of struck comments and editorial action on the article for a statement such as "If there is anything that has been resolved, caps could be used on this FAC, but it doesn't appear that issues are being resolved." The main concern really seems to be the extent of links in the article. The guidance in the MOS seems to suggest the article has the right amount of links according to WP:OVERLINK#Link_density's acceptable example. I have pointed this out repeatedly. This has resulted in lists of words which have been contested. When I explain reasoning behind the words in the list the arguments against them seem to focus on whether it is "silly" to link certain words than a circumspect analysis of a given link's propriety. To date the only words where there has been substantial debate have been swizzle sticks, spa, and sushi. There has also been a debate on the propriety of linking full date, which seems unresolved. Yesterday, I got a neutral party, User:Dank55 to come in and review prose and help resolve debates. He has informed me of the current opinion on date links, which seems to support current usage in the article. The other minor issue is the floor use diagram. I had cropped an original source for fair use. The text was small in the thumbnail version and I attempted to correct this with Microsoft Paint. We have a request in at WP:GL for a better diagram.
WRT, the dates, and the diagram your opinion would be quite helpful. Dan is going through the article and I think he will help with links. Hope the summary is helpful.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Was that normal, what all those awful, awful people did to my article? Or was that free-for-all reserved for an article that every English-speaking person recognizes? Because if that's normal, I'm quite tempted to take the citations out of all my FAs right now to save myself the effort of ever requesting another one again on the main page... That was insane. I'm going to have dreams of my house burning and me running around in the flames naked, trying to find clothes, but they're all going to be on fire. -- Moni3 ( talk) 01:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
As a contributor to information about Johnson's psychological / neurological state, I would like your permission to spin that off into a separate article about his "personality" in general, which would include most of the character sketch. It would reduce the section to four paragraphs. It could be called Personality of Samuel Johnson or Samuel Johnson's personality. I find that this and a page called Contemporary Biographies of Samuel Johnson would allow for important information to be accessible to the page without cluttering the page. Such a place will have discussion of Boswell's work along with Hawkins's, Mrs Thrale/Piozzi's, Fanny Burney's, Anna Seward's, Mrs Montagu's, Hannah More's, and Horace Walpole's. In particular, it will talk about the differences between Hawkin's, Piozzi's, and Boswell's (the others were minor). What do you think? Ottava Rima ( talk) 13:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
There should probably be a category for 18th century writers with various disorders, illnesses, and "madness". I can think of eight major individuals that would fit such a descriptive off the top of my head. Perhaps it is the strain of genius? The Romantics thought the "madness" liberated them from the constraints of 18th century life and allowed them to achieve creative and intellectual feats that a "sane" person would be incapable of. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, Samuel Johnson is still only at 48KB readable prose, within WP:SIZE and the norm for FAs; why must we split? A separate article can be written, but this article is still fine. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Cough - would you know where he is quoting by chance (midway down his entry)? It completely baffles me. Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, thanks for your essential peer review of Introduction to virus; its FA status could have not been achieved without it. Best, Graham. GrahamColm Talk 19:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been meaning to liven up my username's appearance, which is rather bland at the moment. Do you know how this is done? If not, is there a how-to page about this on the site? In honor of my favorite NFL team, I want a darker blue for my name. I also want my talk page link to be a red 17–14, in order to torture any fans of New England sports teams that I come across. You wouldn't know anyone like that, would you :-):-) Giants2008 ( talk) 23:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you know a tech wiz who could help? [5] None of my business really, but that never slowed me down. :-) Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
In fact, yes I have checked the article for copyright violations. I also wrote the original text and didn't copy it from other sources. There are couple of sentences that are similar to those in articles elsewhere but most of those are Wikipedia mirrors. The way you replaced the whole article with the copyvio notice is the one that is used to say that the whole article is a copyvio and therefore should be removed. That means that you accuse me and the rest of the people who have contributed to the article afterwards for that violation - Skysmith ( talk) 07:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy, but that was already there under a different heading! (link). :) Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it sounds like an organism? The Lesser Spotted Keratoconus, or Keratoconus bowmanii? :) — BillC talk 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to cite pages in a book which is basically a collection of papers by a number of different authors, published under the name of the editor. So for instance, chapter 3 might be written by Smith, chapter 4 by Jones, and so on, but I'm unsure of the best way to cite, for example, page 120 of the book, which might be in Jones' chapter. Do you have any suggestions, or can you think of an example I could follow?
BTW, since coming across Samuel Johnson I've become quite a fan of {{Harvnb}}, but don't tell jbmurray. :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thought you might want to know that the nominator of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake, Editorofthewiki ( talk · contribs), has been MIA since July 3. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It strikes me that one omission from this article is any discussion of the possible relationships between Johnson's posthumously diagnosed conditions and his work. Would you agree? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 21:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. Long time no see :-)
I have a bunch of problems (well, two): Mitch put up a mediation request up for the Route 32 issues, which I picked up. I'm having some difficulty figuring out what the exact problem is, though. All I know is there's a slow revert war over the shields because of the "not decoration" clause of MOSFLAG that was brought up in the FAC. On the other hand, there's the MOS for highway exits, which most highway articles follow (it has the standards for shields). Is that guideline (ELG) considered a part of FA review? If it were, the guideline would probably put an end to the revert wars, as the warring stems from the guidelines brought up during FAC.
The two guidelines are counter to each other. Maybe all that's needed is some more documentation? Any thoughts much appreciated; I don't usually wander into featured territory, so not quite sure what works and what doesn't. Xavexgoem ( talk) 00:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I apologize in advance for my poor grammar :-p
I'm sure you meant good but please don't interfere when I'm asking a direct question to Happyme22. No offence. Thanks -- Floridianed ( talk) 02:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Nothing changed that I know of. You're just using {{ citation}} instead of {{ cite web}}. I hate {{ citation}} :) Gary King ( talk) 05:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've noticed that there have been some changes to date formatting. I would be happy to implement the formatting changes, but I'm still trying to figure out what needs to be different now. How should I write out release dates (fairly prominent) in film articles? What about a filming start date (not as prominent)? How about the date=
attributes in {{
cite news}} and {{
cite journal}}? How should I apply
WP:NBSP for dates in the article body, if at all? If you could take the time to briefly answer these questions, I can make the appropriate changes and try to spread the example among WP:FILM editors. Thanks,
Erik (
talk •
contrib) -
13:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This is interesting to me. Is it interesting to you? I have a feeling that you will triple my edit count shortly. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hrothgar was asking me on my talkpage how long FACs run, so I advised him to give you a ping. qp10qp ( talk) 15:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
anything further is redundant. Jeffpw ( talk) 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy; Since you're involved quite a bit in cleaning and formatting that page I would like to ask you to go over it again after I changed my vote again and left a little (just a little) format mess there. Thanks -- Floridianed ( talk) 23:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)