This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi Tony - I'm replying both here and on WP talk:Stub, since this does come up occasionally. There's no mandatory requirement for a stub icon, and, in fact, they were considered harmful to the servers in the past (see Wikipedia:Suspend use of stub icons), though that seems to have blown over with improvements to the servers. Though stub icons are nominally dealt with as part of WP:WSS, for the most part there is little control exercised over them except in cases where there may be controversy. Feel free to add your own (perhaps using some other iconned stub template as a guide), but please follow these simple guidelines:
Grutness... wha? 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Or, if you want an actual building, see the images on Wikimedia Commons under "Theatre buildings", and look for one that's free. I kinda like this one, but to each his/her own. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I compiled the Tree myself. Its already linked on one of the Categories for the Coppola family so I put it there... -- Xallium ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
Im glad that the Claudia photo has been removed,and the article still states that she is Miss Iraq, but as long as there are some additions that direct people to the commentary section, I guess that is good enough, as for the Assyrian page, I have no idea what changes you made,since they still seemto use the page to attract attention to propose that they are an ethnic group and contradict themselves within the Paragraphs
"Being stateless, Assyrians also learn the language or languages of their adopted country, usually Arabic, Persian or Turkish. In northern Iraq and western Iran, Kurdish is widely spoken."
the above is a great example, how can you say learning the language of their newly adopted states,which basically means you migrated to these states and the point they are trying to make is that they are the descendants of the Assyrians who once started a civilization in Mesopotamia over 3,000 years ago.
I rest my case Nimrod1976 10:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I started a merge proposal for World's Columbian Exposition. Thoughts? ChicagoPimp 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Tony, I appreciate your acting upon my comments and the desire to make this article a GA, but I am afraid it is not that easy. If all that was needed was a few small changes that could be made overnight by one editor, I would have put the article "on hold" rather than failed it. Unfortunately, there are some rather major issues that prevent this article from attaining the GA status, and I am afraid your edits did not address them.
As concerns WP:GAN, technically renominating it like that is rather improper, and you can even be accused of bad faith. I believe it would be good if you withdrew your nomination yourself. Please read my review again to see what else needs to be done (as I said, it will not be easy and I think it might be beyond one person to complete it, especially in a short time). Perhaps you might ask some experienced editors with expertise in the fields mentioned to help, or renominate it for CHICOTW. PrinceGloria 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tony. Why clog up a talk page with irrelevant tags? Ella Deloria spent one year, and by no means the most important one, of her long life in Chicago. It's not so much low as "vanishingly unimportant". Vizjim 05:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
In cases like that, I see them as equally reputable; I know some editors prize paper sources over online ones (and understandably so!), but once it's made clear that this is a digitized source from a major publishing house I doubt it will trouble anyone. (My area is music; we have the same problem with the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and its online counterpart.) Chubbles 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I will send you links that are reliable sources
as for Claudia Hanna I am glad that the bloggers corrected their information and this article here regarding her is valueless so if it remains or is deleted i guess at this point it doesnt make a difference, because its obvious that she is a fraud and so are her organizers who are being sued by the owners of MISS ARAB WORLD, so her title is void. I also contacted the TV stations who interviewed her and she posed as Miss Iraq and Miss Arab World and that has been taken care of.
She will be ignored and if she attempts to use the titles for personal gain I guess then she will end up being in jail soon, and she might be arrested for fraud and impersonating some one else.
I will get back to you regarding the Assyrians soon. here is one that supports my claims and proves that they are not descendants of the semitic Assyrians that once settled the plains of the Tigris and the Euphrates valley. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/religion-christian.htm Nimrod1976 12:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I passed Rock & Roll McDonald's for WP:GA. Made some suggestions for improvements on the talk page. Good job. Jazznutuva 08:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I did the wrong thing. However I don't really think Senator Obama is "top importance" in the study of the city of Chicago just because he lives there. If he is elected president he might be. I didn't mean to vandalize or say anything against him. Steve Dufour 22:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for the note on my talk page. I'm replying here in case you didn't see my reply over there. The discussion we were having has now been split (with thanks to Kingboyk) between this one on the scope of WikiProjects (ie. the talk page tagging issue) and this one on the banner issues. Hope that helps, and hope someone knows the answer to those banner questions you had. Carcharoth 01:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
On what basis did you assign a lower priority to the article? 17:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chicago articles by quality log.↔ NMajdan• talk 19:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Was I supposed to answer here? I'm a newb—this is what I wrote on my talk page:
Tony: Did you upload this image? Is it fair use or copright vio? It has been taken down and if it should be up, please help answer this.— Gaff ταλκ 01:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you read WP:OWN? And WP:NOT#Bureaucracy? I think you might be losing sight of a few fundamentals along the way. See WP:ANI right now, you'll see what I mean. Just a friendly note, Guy ( Help!) 22:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a pet peeve of mine, but with that javascript-based edit, I replaced all the __ with just a single _. Nishkid64 ( talk) 23:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Oddly, you removed the tag without correcting the problem. Either cite the claim or leave the tag. Contact me with questions. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 23:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Although he was not one of the Chicago Seven, Mailer gave testimony at the Chicago Seven trial: [1], so in that sense he does belong in the Chicago Seven category. I removed the Chicago project tag from the Mailer talk page because I didn't realize this was the Chicago connection it was in reference to. The only other significant Chicago connections out of Mailer's life are his writings on the '68 Democratic convention and his trysts in the mid-70s with Barbara Norris (later Norris Church) who would become Mailer's sixth wife, but whom he began a relationship with when he was still married to his fourth wife, Beverly Bentley. (A writer such as Saul Bellow is more clearly identified with Chicago--is he part of the Chicago project yet?) Please do restore the Chicago project template to the Mailer talk page if you believe his connections are significant enough. Qworty 19:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you were simply told that we don't do that; and we don't. If you want mediation against Radiant, you will have to ask him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I'm a little confused as to what you are referring to. Can you give me an example? Thanks. Patken4 20:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi TonyTheTiger, I stumbled upon this cool site while doing the stubification; the American Institute of Architects 150 Great Places in Illinois. They have a lot of pics and information, but I can't figure out how to link into their flash format for making refs. Anyway, I think it might come in handy. Speciate 01:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I do apologize for my absence lately from Wikipedia - reality has been a bit consuming! -- Ozgod 04:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
First, for the long hoped-for FA. Second, for the amazing coincidence of this being a day when i looked at the
Main page (which i almost never do). This is a testimony to your good judgment on the topic, your persistence, and the quality of your research and editing. I take a certain tiny measure of pride in the thot that i may have encouraged you more than i discouraged you! Thanks for your great work.
--
Jerzy•
t
22:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no requirement that the name appear in the article. The Pittsburgh WikiProject could probably help with the Andy Warhol article since there's information relevant to Pittsburgh there, but it's unlikely that the WikiProject would be able to help (at leasts, not better than any other) on the Campbell's Soup Cans article since there's not really any relevant information contained there. ShadowHalo 00:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS says A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. This applies to a WikiProject as well as any other small group.
Membership in a project gives no special privileges; all a WikiProject is is a place where editors with a common interest can communicate with each other. Therefore, if one editor thinks (based on a project programme or not) that a tag belongs somewhere, and several other editors think otherwise, it is uncivil and contrary to consensus for the one editor to push his POV. Bots don't count in this; bots don't think at all.
If several editors think any page on Wikipedia is harmful to the project, they have the right to make that argument. If they outweigh those who like it, they have the right and power to prevail. It would be preferable to reach an agreement; but sometimes, especially on yes/no questions, this is simply not possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Claude Monet,Meules, milieu du jour -Haystacks, midday- 1890, oil on canvas,65.6 (h) x 100.6 (w) cm.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Claude Monet, Haystack at Sunset near Giverny (Meule, Soleil Couchant), 1891, oil on canvas, 73.3 x 92.6 cm, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston..jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Claude Monet, Grainstack, Sun in the Mist, 1891, oil on canvas, Minneapolis Institute of Arts..jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I see you've been creating some articles on places listed on the National Register of Historic Places. You might be interested in a couple of resources. There's the main National Register of Historic Places site, along with the National Register database. I've loaded the database on my Web server at home and provided a few query tools that make it easier for Wikipedia access. You can find these tools here, where you can query by city, county, architect, and others, and you can create the {{ Infobox nrhp}} infobox. Also, you might be interested in the Historic American Buildings Survey photo database, located here. It has photos and data bases for the most notable structures.
If you're even more interested, there's Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, which has more resources as well as editors who can answer questions. Happy editing! -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, TTT! I'm finally back online and able to contribute again. Stupid cable company took almost a week to get my internet!
In any case, I've just taken a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories#Cook County, and before I sic the bot on those cats, I wanted to make sure that was what you wanted.
As I get caught up, I'll start working on your other suggestions for tagging - I like them and would like to add them in.
Thanks! -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Most important player of his generation? Just wait until Bob Huggins and pals give Georgetown the smacking they deserve. :) (although I would have been much happier had John Beilein stayed) DarkAudit 18:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
On the talk pages for Chicago Community Areas and Chicago Neighborhoods, it looks like a concensus was reached where both would be used. The problem (in my view) is that the UofC Community Areas are rather like the post-colonial countries of Africa, in that they poorly reflected tribal boundaries when they were created in 1920, and history has moved on since then. Hyde Park the neighborhood and Hyde Park the community area are the same, but some community names have been forgotten. The neighborhoods of Pilsen and Bronzeville are particulary problematic. A number of people have issued maps of Chicago's modern neighborhoods in more recent times, but we cannot use them directly because of copyright, right? Many of the community area pages say "official," which in my view is untrue because the were created by a private institution. It says all this on the Community Area page. In no way would I advocate a complete changeover of our Chicago pages to mention only neighborhoods, but since Hyde Park community area and neighborhood are the same, I thought I would use the term "neighborhood" since it is what people say right after they say "Hyde Park." Speciate 02:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Hyde Park Township still exists [2]. The Cook County Tax Assessor's office are the only ones that care about Chicago's Townships [3]. Its borders are State Street, Pershing Rd (aka 39th, but not including the modern bend over the drive), Lake Michigan, the State of Indiana, and 138th St. The little messiness on the lower left corner is associated with a meander of the Calumet River. On that map note that they still have the old Indian Boundaries. Crazy. Speciate 07:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey,
Just wanted to let you know that there is already an article on the 860-880 Lake Shore Drive Apartments. (Go figure, no?) So you might want to consider merging the info in 860-880 Lake Shore Drive with that one.
By the way, I got your message about the Chicago Landmark Stubification process. I'll take a shot at the Noble-Seymour-Crippen House if I have some time later. Zagalejo 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, Zagalejo 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I assume these are new nominees for Top? Carol Mosley Braun deserves High, but not Top. Ditto with Marquette and La Salle. I have heard the names Bronko Nagurski and Red Grange, but did not associate them with Chicago, so no. If Ditka gets Top then so should Phil Jackson (perhaps High is plenty for them). Speciate 03:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly advise you to shorten you signature. Links in your signature such as User:TonyTheTiger/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM can be very confusing for a new editor requesting help at the Help desk. I advise you to read Wikipedia:Signatures again, and in particular WP:SIG#Length. ~ Spe bi 07:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, TonyTheTiger. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Busch-Adolphus 3rd obit.GIF) was found at the following location: User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 5. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 07:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's the image you asked for, is it OK?---- User:Rock2e Talk - Contribs 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the note on my talk page.
Thanks for your comment. It's funny that you used that link because I was in Chicago for the first time a few weeks ago, and went to Artropolis. (Maybe *that* needs its own page...) anyway thanks for the suggestions, looks like we have some outdoor sculpture articles to get cracking on. Cheers! pinotgris 21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I know that you do a lot with the Chicago Project, so I figured I would pass along a few Chicago articles that I find you might want to look over.-- Kranar drogin 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahmmm that's your call Tony - no offence taken. I was trying to help with some sound decision making relating to the size of the Chicago Landmark article - points to which I note in the following... (1) Gallery was only set up by me to retain the images somewhere for the time being or so that the pictures could be adjusted perhaps in the format shown in this FA article - or they could go to a gallery on commons with a pointer on this page however with respect the area quoted by you as policy is in fact not currently active and is no longer relevant - see top of that page?; (2) I understand the list article did not have a particularly impressive lead but that could be fixed quite easily, and finally but most importantly (3) this article will almost certainly have to be split to reach WP:FA and probably even WP:GA simply because to pass the first (and in most cases the second) editors must follow the WP:MOS. Part of that Manual of Style includes the policy that articles over 100KB (and this article is already well over that size before the extra details are added) almost certainly should be divided up Cheers!-- VS talk 18:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I had gone back to bed after my last message and just got yours now. Thanks for confirming my thoughts on splitting. The other way may be to remove all images to a specialised commons gallery?
I've been slightly iffy about having the list at Chicago Landmark fromthe start. My suggestion would be to split the list into 2, possibly 3 List of Chicago Landmarks (?-?), which can be referred to from the main article. The resulting parts should be listable as a group nom at WP:FLC (and, alongside Chicago Landmark, at WP:FTC). Does that make sense? Circeus 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're wondering about the length of the Chicago Landmark list, check out List of important operas -- it's pretty long, with 319 citations, yet it managed to make it to Wikipedia:Featured lists. It's not as long, though -- just 68 KB -- but the featured list review seemed to make it through with no concerns about its length.
Oh, and I never replied to you about your question about {{ ChicagoWikiProject}}. The short answer is that I don't know of a way to make parameters case-insensitive (i.e. make "Class" be the same as "class"). I took a look through the template documentation and nothing obvious popped out, though there may be other template experts who would know a way around this. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems unreasonable to include a film under a city project if only a part of it is filmed there. With this line of thinking, this film should fall under WikiProject London and WikiProject Hong Kong. I've never seen any articles on films filmed in multiple locations having projects addressing each location. Do you really feel it is appropriate to include it? I would suggest bringing up the matter on the talk page, since one other editor and myself have removed the project template. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 01:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
See edit summary? You couldn't have just told me directly? That seems pretty rude, I am not a child, not too mention there was a discussion about the tag on the Reagan talk page which you simply ignored. IvoShandor 13:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent message; moved discussion (w/ my reply) from my talk page to Talk:Paul Wolfowitz#Chicago?, where more people interested in that subject can benefit from reading your explanation. --NYScholar 21:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that you did a lot of work. You did your part and it's a better article, but the guy working on the history section says he may not be able to get it done so readily. That 1860-1890 graf still needs more citations, and the use of all three verb tenses in the timeline still needs to be fixed. Daniel Case 19:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The Chicago WikiProject Barnstar | ||
For outstanding direction and commitment to the Chicago WikiProject please allow me to present the Chicago Barnstar award to you? -- VS talk 06:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
The bot is removing all nonfree images that aren't in the article namespace. I'm not sure if this applies to past TFA's though. ShadowHalo 02:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Right now, I don't really have a query set up in my NRHP database query tools to query by multiple property submission name. However, if you do a query by city, it will list the Multiple Property Submission names under "multname". For example, this query for Chicago lists the following properties within the Black Metropolis Thematic Resources:
I think I linked to the PDF for the Multiple Property Submission when I did the Wabash Avenue YMCA article. If you have any other questions, let me know. At some point, I'll see about writing a query by MPS -- it would be useful. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Antonio,
I seldom log in, so just got your message about Rob Pelinka. I was able to verify that he is a Ross alum, so I've added him to the Ross page, and wikilinked his personal back back to the Ross page. I don't know if he went UM for law school, so I haven't done that linking as of yet. Again, thanks for the pick-up.
Wolvve85 Wolvve85 19:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your question on the Help desk. There are featured article userboxes available at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia#Other - scroll down and watch for the userboxes with the FA stars in their id box. Nihiltres( t. c. s) 04:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I addressed some of your concerns on the Hasek FAC page. I couldn't find a specific box score or two, however. Please take a look when you get a chance. Sportskido8 07:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Tony,
In reply to your message, I actually do not know the current "pass rate" - perhaps you could dig one out of the GA statistics somewhere... I didn't take that much interest in it, I'll let you know if I come accross it. That said, I believe it is pretty irrelevant - such number means nothing and trying to match up against it is pretty much pointless. What is important is submitting really high-quality GACs, especially in view of the wildly varying standards of reviewers, some of whom seem not to be aware of the WP:WIAGA at all, or at least hold it in high disregard, to say so. That results in the fact that a technical "pass" does not have to mean that the article is actually "Good" in the WIAGA sense, which is what this whole system is about.
We are actually repeatedly coming accross articles that got "passed" and exhibit glaring examples of not meeting one or several WIAGA criteria, which usually results in delisting of such article. Thus, the whole GA "passing" process in such case can only serve the self--gratification of either the nominator, author or reviewer, and can then lead to disappointment and frustration once the article is duly delisted. What is more important is the gratification you get from being sure that you have actually greated a Good Article, only then does the tag have some real meaning. I myself get pretty discontented when I find my noms passed without any comments or improvement suggestions, as I have the impression then that nobody bothered to verify whether my nom really is a good article.
OK, I guess this whole post is not quite cohesive, so I'll restate what I find the most important - the bottom line is that there is a huge responsibility on the nominator to make sure the article meets the standards before nominating, as the standards of reviews are very uneven atm, and so "passing" should not be a goal in itself. It is good to study the comments of reviewers who bother to leave them (while everybody should, you are fully entitled to solicit them from any reviewer, whether it was a fail or pass) to make sure your next nominations meet the tightest of standards, rather than count on a "second opinion" from a more careless reviewer "the next time around".
Gee, seems like I lost the plot again. I hope you did make out something out of it - I will try to later :D PrinceGloria 16:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you may have gotten this one in the wrong place... - J Greb 20:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the promotion, I feel quite honored. Speciate 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. -- Nehrams2020 06:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand. What nomination? Isn't it already a FA? If it needs better citations, we should just fix it. Speciate 21:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've had a go at adding some content to Rookery (Chicago landmark). However I'm a bit of a fan so I'm sure the text would benefit from some NPOV-ing. Take a look when you get a chance. Ronnotel 13:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You took hundreds of pictures of Chicago that are in Wikipedia. If you have any of the subway in Chicago or the elevated train and would be willing to submit them to Wikipedia, I may be able to use them in an article. VK35 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tags; I can't say that copyediting is worth a lot of recognition, but it was fun working on Chicago articles. Used to live there, miss the city a lot. Chubbles 20:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate the notion, but I think there's definitely more I can help out with before I can actually say I've done major contributing to the article. I left the article two weeks ago because I went to work on J. R. Richard and 1926 World Series from scratch. J. R. Richard is basically FA-ready, and I'm getting 1926 WS to GA soon. After that, I'll get back to Chris Young and hopefully do more copyediting work and expansion. Thanks, Nishkid64 ( talk) 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I thank you for this. I hardly deserve it, as you did the vast amount of work, but it is true that I provided some help, so I have put it on my user page with an edit summary that acknowledges your primacy! Tyrenius 22:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to quickly say thank you for the honor. It was nothing really, I was just having fun. Thank you very much again. 75pickup ( talk · contribs) 22:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No worries on the National Recording Registry list. You were the main man on that one. Keep up the great work! — Wise Kwai 04:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 06:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed that your Help desk question on locator dots went unanswered. I saw a thread on this a while ago, {{ Superimpose}} will get the job done.-- Commander Keane 11:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'll elaborate. The original J. R. Richard article was around 5KB in length, and I did a total rewrite, and basically none of the previous material (except the infobox and the categories) are in the 55KB version I've written. For 1926 World Series, there was only a paragraph of introductory context, and a bunch of stat boxes. I removed the previous text, and rewritten everything contextual that you see in the article now. Nishkid64 ( talk) 16:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Per your question on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#CFD slow processing: The administrator who closes the discussion is not required to move the articles. Normally the admin puts a note on WP:CFDW to have a bot do the work, but as this is a split, there is no way for a bot to do the work, and the admin may not have had the knowledge of the articles. I suggest that you go ahead and do the split (if you have the knowledge to do so), and once complete, just tag the old category with a speedy delete tag referencing the closed discussion. Alternatively, if you can provide a list of which articles go where, a bot operator, or someone like me with WP:AWB can make the moves for you. -- After Midnight 0001 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have now recieved a featured article userbox and a block for 3RR violation for exactly the same edits. Amazing – Gurch 23:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I mean to suggest that you try adding the <div style="height: 251px; overflow:none;">...</div> around the other code, so that overflow from the one that should have a scrollbar does not appear outside the one that should not have a scrollbar. It might not work either way... and now that I think about it, the extra 1px doesn't matter, either. I hope it works eventually - the only alternative I can think of immediately is to not use Internet Exploder. ;) Nihiltres( t. c. s) 23:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been going through Pioneer Zephyr this evening converting refs to inline citations and adding a few more refs as appropriate and I've also started on ensuring that all fair use images have appropriate fair use rationales (which I didn't see mentioned in the FAR until I brought it up). Since you brought up the references requirement, are there any other items that you'd like to see improved on the article while I'm working on it this week? Slambo (Speak) 01:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I fixed a couple of the spacing errors but about the recent entries on the tree, im not sure about their validity. So I'm just gonna leave it like that until there is some confirmation (that it is correct or incorrect).
My pleasure Tony. Not exactly sure what you are asking me in relation to Category:Second City alumni but I note the general consensus on the category for discussion point is to keep at this stage. I have added my comment there also. If I can help directly with anything please just ask - if time permits I will always help where I can.-- VS talk 02:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the recognition. I appreciate it. Eggishorn 16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I say no, but I'm not really sure. To me, speedy delists are for articles that should have never been brought to review but, rather, just delisted immediately. In those cases, I put GAR as the action, but I do not include a link, only the oldid. Regards, LaraLove T/ C 04:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if articles about all the things named after this man can be put together to meet the "clear similarity" and "well-defined topical scope" criterion. A topic about "things named after Blackstone" doesn't seem like a topic that one would want to study as a unified group of subjects. Maybe you should look into making a topic about "Chicago architecture" or "the Alton Railroad". If you want to try proposing it as a topic, I would include the fourth article; it was, historically, related to the others. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Originally, I was going to write about Chicago mass transit because of a red link but I found out that there's already a good article on it by a slightly different name. Thanks for the link.
I am going to write about Newton Minow, who has quite an interesting background. He is in Chicago. He's the Honorary Counsel General of Singapore to Chicago, has quite a law background, and headed the Federal Communications Commission at one time where he coined the term "vast wasteland" for TV. Nothing for you to do but it's my foray into Chicago related topics! VK35 17:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was on GAC, although I couldn't tell you why I passed a GA from a year ago, when standards for sourcing were not quite so stringent. I'm not sure I would pass it today. Nifboy 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the userbox on the Chicago Theater work, I didn't do much but it's nice to be recognized. For NRHP related articles, a word of advice here, I generally use three major sections, others if needed, History, architecture, and significance. History can cover everything about its history, who built it, when, who owned it and when, current operations etc. The Significance section covers things like honors, landmark status, Register listing, how it compares to other structures, its importance etc. Just a thought on logically structuring articles. Pop culture and trivia sections have no place in an encyclopedia article if the material is relevant it can usually be added in one of the aforementioned sections. Not just my opinion IvoShandor 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It never occurred to me I should keep one - and the more article I have reviewed, the more a chore it would be to dig out all the stuff... I think I have reviewed about 8-10 articles since I've been using this account actively on GAC and yes, most of them ended in failing (btw, I have also delisted two or three) - mostly because I tend to choose articles where the outcome is clear from the outset (I don't have that much time to spend on WP these days, so I like to make my life this bit easier :D ).
I must also say a good deal of those articles are your noms, because ever since the first article I reviewed (I think it was the Chicago Theatre) I was attempting to find one that is actually passable more or less to show you the difference. I actually think Monet's Haystacks might come close, I just have to put aside enough time for a thorough review. I guess it will have a long "on hold" list.
Oh, from your post it was not obvious to me whether you mean my record as reviewer or nominator. I have only nominated two articles as of now, one of them was promoted without much comment (even though I expected a "hold", I guess I need to "review" it myself now), and another was a fail, this time with a rather dubious justification (I am awaiting a reply from the reviewer). So it's about 50/50, though I guess the entirely wrong way :D
Now, back ad rem - you want to know what I consider a Good Article. I really intend to get down to re-reviewing the articles starting with the ones in the "Architecture" section. I do need to do some nifty time-planning to accomplish that, but I hope I will be able to start soon and I guess you will be able to see both good and bad examples. Cheers, PrinceGloria 15:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not really sure I got what you mean, and I really don't see why an article on a building being a part of the Chicago Skyline has to include a panorama. If you could turn this into a nice template (as I said, I saw things like that done nicely, but I can't tell you how it's done), then of course it would make sense. Otherwise, it is just cluttering the article and making download time a disaster for people on slow connections. The original FA pic is, as I said, too large - though it really looks FA-ish without the protruding captions. I don't think I have answered your question as I didn't get it. Slow uptake, they say. Have a good day :D PrinceGloria 15:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I agree the article could use some review and work - I was suprised when it made it through GA the first time around. Unfortunately I haven't had much time to devote to implementing the "roadmap" laid out shortly after the first review, but the more review the better here. - Duncanr 14:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I see you changed the importance of this stub. I really don't care, but why? This is considered the place of Chicago's founding, wouldn't that constitute a Top prioty rather than a Low priority? I am just wondering since it is the Plymouth Rock of the Chicago area, and most Chicago residents do not realize that. Just a question.-- Kranar drogin 19:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Tweak away. I still hate the address. But you guys do it how you do it, don't let me stop you. I will add coordinates to the box (which is a much better way to list the location than the address as the address has little meaning to anyone who doesn't know Chicago (read the rest of the world)). Also I posted a link to the NRHP nomination form for the Blackstone Hotel on the talk page there, it has some pretty in depth description of the interior and exterior architecture as well as information on the artchitect. IvoShandor 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Tony, I noticed in your edit summary on Bertrand Russell that you said there was no such rating. There actually is a rating Bplus according to WP 1.0. In fact, if you look at the diff you will see that the various wikiprojects (except the first one) display this rating in their boxes as B+. Thanks-- Cronholm144 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tony--thank you for the complimentary words. There would be no article to refine if not for your yeoman's work creating it! I was much impressed with your research, especially the Wildenstein catalogue numbers, which I deleted, sadly, in the interest of simplification and consistency. You provided the raw data.
I tried to find the quote you refer to, and have not yet. Let's both keep looking, and see if we can strengthen that particular section. I do think the article is solid. Cheers, JNW 02:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
And for your hard work on the Chicago project. I lived there for 10 years and loved it. However I spend way too much time on WP already without jumping in on another project. Cheers. Steve Dufour 04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking in the history, I got that you added the COTW notice on May 22 and in the following (at 21:25) it already had 1,848 characters (which was added to already by the end of the day). I just realized, though, my time zone is set at +6 (same as Chicago, actually), so that would have shown up as May 23 UT, which is probably what you're looking at and I should probably use for this purpose. I'm sorry for my error, but it was actually too late already (I did that yesterday, May 29 both here and in London, so the article was already past the five-day limit). Rigadoun (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I would repost and wait for a different reviewer, better to have some fresh blood and an unbiased opinion. If it's up there for a while, though, I'll take another glance at it. Dooms Day349 19:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi Tony - I'm replying both here and on WP talk:Stub, since this does come up occasionally. There's no mandatory requirement for a stub icon, and, in fact, they were considered harmful to the servers in the past (see Wikipedia:Suspend use of stub icons), though that seems to have blown over with improvements to the servers. Though stub icons are nominally dealt with as part of WP:WSS, for the most part there is little control exercised over them except in cases where there may be controversy. Feel free to add your own (perhaps using some other iconned stub template as a guide), but please follow these simple guidelines:
Grutness... wha? 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Or, if you want an actual building, see the images on Wikimedia Commons under "Theatre buildings", and look for one that's free. I kinda like this one, but to each his/her own. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I compiled the Tree myself. Its already linked on one of the Categories for the Coppola family so I put it there... -- Xallium ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
Im glad that the Claudia photo has been removed,and the article still states that she is Miss Iraq, but as long as there are some additions that direct people to the commentary section, I guess that is good enough, as for the Assyrian page, I have no idea what changes you made,since they still seemto use the page to attract attention to propose that they are an ethnic group and contradict themselves within the Paragraphs
"Being stateless, Assyrians also learn the language or languages of their adopted country, usually Arabic, Persian or Turkish. In northern Iraq and western Iran, Kurdish is widely spoken."
the above is a great example, how can you say learning the language of their newly adopted states,which basically means you migrated to these states and the point they are trying to make is that they are the descendants of the Assyrians who once started a civilization in Mesopotamia over 3,000 years ago.
I rest my case Nimrod1976 10:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I started a merge proposal for World's Columbian Exposition. Thoughts? ChicagoPimp 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Tony, I appreciate your acting upon my comments and the desire to make this article a GA, but I am afraid it is not that easy. If all that was needed was a few small changes that could be made overnight by one editor, I would have put the article "on hold" rather than failed it. Unfortunately, there are some rather major issues that prevent this article from attaining the GA status, and I am afraid your edits did not address them.
As concerns WP:GAN, technically renominating it like that is rather improper, and you can even be accused of bad faith. I believe it would be good if you withdrew your nomination yourself. Please read my review again to see what else needs to be done (as I said, it will not be easy and I think it might be beyond one person to complete it, especially in a short time). Perhaps you might ask some experienced editors with expertise in the fields mentioned to help, or renominate it for CHICOTW. PrinceGloria 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tony. Why clog up a talk page with irrelevant tags? Ella Deloria spent one year, and by no means the most important one, of her long life in Chicago. It's not so much low as "vanishingly unimportant". Vizjim 05:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
In cases like that, I see them as equally reputable; I know some editors prize paper sources over online ones (and understandably so!), but once it's made clear that this is a digitized source from a major publishing house I doubt it will trouble anyone. (My area is music; we have the same problem with the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and its online counterpart.) Chubbles 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I will send you links that are reliable sources
as for Claudia Hanna I am glad that the bloggers corrected their information and this article here regarding her is valueless so if it remains or is deleted i guess at this point it doesnt make a difference, because its obvious that she is a fraud and so are her organizers who are being sued by the owners of MISS ARAB WORLD, so her title is void. I also contacted the TV stations who interviewed her and she posed as Miss Iraq and Miss Arab World and that has been taken care of.
She will be ignored and if she attempts to use the titles for personal gain I guess then she will end up being in jail soon, and she might be arrested for fraud and impersonating some one else.
I will get back to you regarding the Assyrians soon. here is one that supports my claims and proves that they are not descendants of the semitic Assyrians that once settled the plains of the Tigris and the Euphrates valley. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/religion-christian.htm Nimrod1976 12:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I passed Rock & Roll McDonald's for WP:GA. Made some suggestions for improvements on the talk page. Good job. Jazznutuva 08:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I did the wrong thing. However I don't really think Senator Obama is "top importance" in the study of the city of Chicago just because he lives there. If he is elected president he might be. I didn't mean to vandalize or say anything against him. Steve Dufour 22:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for the note on my talk page. I'm replying here in case you didn't see my reply over there. The discussion we were having has now been split (with thanks to Kingboyk) between this one on the scope of WikiProjects (ie. the talk page tagging issue) and this one on the banner issues. Hope that helps, and hope someone knows the answer to those banner questions you had. Carcharoth 01:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
On what basis did you assign a lower priority to the article? 17:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chicago articles by quality log.↔ NMajdan• talk 19:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Was I supposed to answer here? I'm a newb—this is what I wrote on my talk page:
Tony: Did you upload this image? Is it fair use or copright vio? It has been taken down and if it should be up, please help answer this.— Gaff ταλκ 01:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you read WP:OWN? And WP:NOT#Bureaucracy? I think you might be losing sight of a few fundamentals along the way. See WP:ANI right now, you'll see what I mean. Just a friendly note, Guy ( Help!) 22:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a pet peeve of mine, but with that javascript-based edit, I replaced all the __ with just a single _. Nishkid64 ( talk) 23:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Oddly, you removed the tag without correcting the problem. Either cite the claim or leave the tag. Contact me with questions. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 23:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Although he was not one of the Chicago Seven, Mailer gave testimony at the Chicago Seven trial: [1], so in that sense he does belong in the Chicago Seven category. I removed the Chicago project tag from the Mailer talk page because I didn't realize this was the Chicago connection it was in reference to. The only other significant Chicago connections out of Mailer's life are his writings on the '68 Democratic convention and his trysts in the mid-70s with Barbara Norris (later Norris Church) who would become Mailer's sixth wife, but whom he began a relationship with when he was still married to his fourth wife, Beverly Bentley. (A writer such as Saul Bellow is more clearly identified with Chicago--is he part of the Chicago project yet?) Please do restore the Chicago project template to the Mailer talk page if you believe his connections are significant enough. Qworty 19:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you were simply told that we don't do that; and we don't. If you want mediation against Radiant, you will have to ask him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I'm a little confused as to what you are referring to. Can you give me an example? Thanks. Patken4 20:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi TonyTheTiger, I stumbled upon this cool site while doing the stubification; the American Institute of Architects 150 Great Places in Illinois. They have a lot of pics and information, but I can't figure out how to link into their flash format for making refs. Anyway, I think it might come in handy. Speciate 01:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I do apologize for my absence lately from Wikipedia - reality has been a bit consuming! -- Ozgod 04:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
First, for the long hoped-for FA. Second, for the amazing coincidence of this being a day when i looked at the
Main page (which i almost never do). This is a testimony to your good judgment on the topic, your persistence, and the quality of your research and editing. I take a certain tiny measure of pride in the thot that i may have encouraged you more than i discouraged you! Thanks for your great work.
--
Jerzy•
t
22:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no requirement that the name appear in the article. The Pittsburgh WikiProject could probably help with the Andy Warhol article since there's information relevant to Pittsburgh there, but it's unlikely that the WikiProject would be able to help (at leasts, not better than any other) on the Campbell's Soup Cans article since there's not really any relevant information contained there. ShadowHalo 00:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS says A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. This applies to a WikiProject as well as any other small group.
Membership in a project gives no special privileges; all a WikiProject is is a place where editors with a common interest can communicate with each other. Therefore, if one editor thinks (based on a project programme or not) that a tag belongs somewhere, and several other editors think otherwise, it is uncivil and contrary to consensus for the one editor to push his POV. Bots don't count in this; bots don't think at all.
If several editors think any page on Wikipedia is harmful to the project, they have the right to make that argument. If they outweigh those who like it, they have the right and power to prevail. It would be preferable to reach an agreement; but sometimes, especially on yes/no questions, this is simply not possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Claude Monet,Meules, milieu du jour -Haystacks, midday- 1890, oil on canvas,65.6 (h) x 100.6 (w) cm.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Claude Monet, Haystack at Sunset near Giverny (Meule, Soleil Couchant), 1891, oil on canvas, 73.3 x 92.6 cm, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston..jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Claude Monet, Grainstack, Sun in the Mist, 1891, oil on canvas, Minneapolis Institute of Arts..jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I see you've been creating some articles on places listed on the National Register of Historic Places. You might be interested in a couple of resources. There's the main National Register of Historic Places site, along with the National Register database. I've loaded the database on my Web server at home and provided a few query tools that make it easier for Wikipedia access. You can find these tools here, where you can query by city, county, architect, and others, and you can create the {{ Infobox nrhp}} infobox. Also, you might be interested in the Historic American Buildings Survey photo database, located here. It has photos and data bases for the most notable structures.
If you're even more interested, there's Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, which has more resources as well as editors who can answer questions. Happy editing! -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, TTT! I'm finally back online and able to contribute again. Stupid cable company took almost a week to get my internet!
In any case, I've just taken a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories#Cook County, and before I sic the bot on those cats, I wanted to make sure that was what you wanted.
As I get caught up, I'll start working on your other suggestions for tagging - I like them and would like to add them in.
Thanks! -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Most important player of his generation? Just wait until Bob Huggins and pals give Georgetown the smacking they deserve. :) (although I would have been much happier had John Beilein stayed) DarkAudit 18:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
On the talk pages for Chicago Community Areas and Chicago Neighborhoods, it looks like a concensus was reached where both would be used. The problem (in my view) is that the UofC Community Areas are rather like the post-colonial countries of Africa, in that they poorly reflected tribal boundaries when they were created in 1920, and history has moved on since then. Hyde Park the neighborhood and Hyde Park the community area are the same, but some community names have been forgotten. The neighborhoods of Pilsen and Bronzeville are particulary problematic. A number of people have issued maps of Chicago's modern neighborhoods in more recent times, but we cannot use them directly because of copyright, right? Many of the community area pages say "official," which in my view is untrue because the were created by a private institution. It says all this on the Community Area page. In no way would I advocate a complete changeover of our Chicago pages to mention only neighborhoods, but since Hyde Park community area and neighborhood are the same, I thought I would use the term "neighborhood" since it is what people say right after they say "Hyde Park." Speciate 02:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Hyde Park Township still exists [2]. The Cook County Tax Assessor's office are the only ones that care about Chicago's Townships [3]. Its borders are State Street, Pershing Rd (aka 39th, but not including the modern bend over the drive), Lake Michigan, the State of Indiana, and 138th St. The little messiness on the lower left corner is associated with a meander of the Calumet River. On that map note that they still have the old Indian Boundaries. Crazy. Speciate 07:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey,
Just wanted to let you know that there is already an article on the 860-880 Lake Shore Drive Apartments. (Go figure, no?) So you might want to consider merging the info in 860-880 Lake Shore Drive with that one.
By the way, I got your message about the Chicago Landmark Stubification process. I'll take a shot at the Noble-Seymour-Crippen House if I have some time later. Zagalejo 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, Zagalejo 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I assume these are new nominees for Top? Carol Mosley Braun deserves High, but not Top. Ditto with Marquette and La Salle. I have heard the names Bronko Nagurski and Red Grange, but did not associate them with Chicago, so no. If Ditka gets Top then so should Phil Jackson (perhaps High is plenty for them). Speciate 03:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly advise you to shorten you signature. Links in your signature such as User:TonyTheTiger/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM can be very confusing for a new editor requesting help at the Help desk. I advise you to read Wikipedia:Signatures again, and in particular WP:SIG#Length. ~ Spe bi 07:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, TonyTheTiger. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Busch-Adolphus 3rd obit.GIF) was found at the following location: User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 5. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 07:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's the image you asked for, is it OK?---- User:Rock2e Talk - Contribs 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the note on my talk page.
Thanks for your comment. It's funny that you used that link because I was in Chicago for the first time a few weeks ago, and went to Artropolis. (Maybe *that* needs its own page...) anyway thanks for the suggestions, looks like we have some outdoor sculpture articles to get cracking on. Cheers! pinotgris 21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I know that you do a lot with the Chicago Project, so I figured I would pass along a few Chicago articles that I find you might want to look over.-- Kranar drogin 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahmmm that's your call Tony - no offence taken. I was trying to help with some sound decision making relating to the size of the Chicago Landmark article - points to which I note in the following... (1) Gallery was only set up by me to retain the images somewhere for the time being or so that the pictures could be adjusted perhaps in the format shown in this FA article - or they could go to a gallery on commons with a pointer on this page however with respect the area quoted by you as policy is in fact not currently active and is no longer relevant - see top of that page?; (2) I understand the list article did not have a particularly impressive lead but that could be fixed quite easily, and finally but most importantly (3) this article will almost certainly have to be split to reach WP:FA and probably even WP:GA simply because to pass the first (and in most cases the second) editors must follow the WP:MOS. Part of that Manual of Style includes the policy that articles over 100KB (and this article is already well over that size before the extra details are added) almost certainly should be divided up Cheers!-- VS talk 18:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I had gone back to bed after my last message and just got yours now. Thanks for confirming my thoughts on splitting. The other way may be to remove all images to a specialised commons gallery?
I've been slightly iffy about having the list at Chicago Landmark fromthe start. My suggestion would be to split the list into 2, possibly 3 List of Chicago Landmarks (?-?), which can be referred to from the main article. The resulting parts should be listable as a group nom at WP:FLC (and, alongside Chicago Landmark, at WP:FTC). Does that make sense? Circeus 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're wondering about the length of the Chicago Landmark list, check out List of important operas -- it's pretty long, with 319 citations, yet it managed to make it to Wikipedia:Featured lists. It's not as long, though -- just 68 KB -- but the featured list review seemed to make it through with no concerns about its length.
Oh, and I never replied to you about your question about {{ ChicagoWikiProject}}. The short answer is that I don't know of a way to make parameters case-insensitive (i.e. make "Class" be the same as "class"). I took a look through the template documentation and nothing obvious popped out, though there may be other template experts who would know a way around this. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems unreasonable to include a film under a city project if only a part of it is filmed there. With this line of thinking, this film should fall under WikiProject London and WikiProject Hong Kong. I've never seen any articles on films filmed in multiple locations having projects addressing each location. Do you really feel it is appropriate to include it? I would suggest bringing up the matter on the talk page, since one other editor and myself have removed the project template. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 01:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
See edit summary? You couldn't have just told me directly? That seems pretty rude, I am not a child, not too mention there was a discussion about the tag on the Reagan talk page which you simply ignored. IvoShandor 13:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent message; moved discussion (w/ my reply) from my talk page to Talk:Paul Wolfowitz#Chicago?, where more people interested in that subject can benefit from reading your explanation. --NYScholar 21:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that you did a lot of work. You did your part and it's a better article, but the guy working on the history section says he may not be able to get it done so readily. That 1860-1890 graf still needs more citations, and the use of all three verb tenses in the timeline still needs to be fixed. Daniel Case 19:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The Chicago WikiProject Barnstar | ||
For outstanding direction and commitment to the Chicago WikiProject please allow me to present the Chicago Barnstar award to you? -- VS talk 06:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
The bot is removing all nonfree images that aren't in the article namespace. I'm not sure if this applies to past TFA's though. ShadowHalo 02:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Right now, I don't really have a query set up in my NRHP database query tools to query by multiple property submission name. However, if you do a query by city, it will list the Multiple Property Submission names under "multname". For example, this query for Chicago lists the following properties within the Black Metropolis Thematic Resources:
I think I linked to the PDF for the Multiple Property Submission when I did the Wabash Avenue YMCA article. If you have any other questions, let me know. At some point, I'll see about writing a query by MPS -- it would be useful. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Antonio,
I seldom log in, so just got your message about Rob Pelinka. I was able to verify that he is a Ross alum, so I've added him to the Ross page, and wikilinked his personal back back to the Ross page. I don't know if he went UM for law school, so I haven't done that linking as of yet. Again, thanks for the pick-up.
Wolvve85 Wolvve85 19:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your question on the Help desk. There are featured article userboxes available at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia#Other - scroll down and watch for the userboxes with the FA stars in their id box. Nihiltres( t. c. s) 04:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I addressed some of your concerns on the Hasek FAC page. I couldn't find a specific box score or two, however. Please take a look when you get a chance. Sportskido8 07:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Tony,
In reply to your message, I actually do not know the current "pass rate" - perhaps you could dig one out of the GA statistics somewhere... I didn't take that much interest in it, I'll let you know if I come accross it. That said, I believe it is pretty irrelevant - such number means nothing and trying to match up against it is pretty much pointless. What is important is submitting really high-quality GACs, especially in view of the wildly varying standards of reviewers, some of whom seem not to be aware of the WP:WIAGA at all, or at least hold it in high disregard, to say so. That results in the fact that a technical "pass" does not have to mean that the article is actually "Good" in the WIAGA sense, which is what this whole system is about.
We are actually repeatedly coming accross articles that got "passed" and exhibit glaring examples of not meeting one or several WIAGA criteria, which usually results in delisting of such article. Thus, the whole GA "passing" process in such case can only serve the self--gratification of either the nominator, author or reviewer, and can then lead to disappointment and frustration once the article is duly delisted. What is more important is the gratification you get from being sure that you have actually greated a Good Article, only then does the tag have some real meaning. I myself get pretty discontented when I find my noms passed without any comments or improvement suggestions, as I have the impression then that nobody bothered to verify whether my nom really is a good article.
OK, I guess this whole post is not quite cohesive, so I'll restate what I find the most important - the bottom line is that there is a huge responsibility on the nominator to make sure the article meets the standards before nominating, as the standards of reviews are very uneven atm, and so "passing" should not be a goal in itself. It is good to study the comments of reviewers who bother to leave them (while everybody should, you are fully entitled to solicit them from any reviewer, whether it was a fail or pass) to make sure your next nominations meet the tightest of standards, rather than count on a "second opinion" from a more careless reviewer "the next time around".
Gee, seems like I lost the plot again. I hope you did make out something out of it - I will try to later :D PrinceGloria 16:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you may have gotten this one in the wrong place... - J Greb 20:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the promotion, I feel quite honored. Speciate 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. -- Nehrams2020 06:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand. What nomination? Isn't it already a FA? If it needs better citations, we should just fix it. Speciate 21:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've had a go at adding some content to Rookery (Chicago landmark). However I'm a bit of a fan so I'm sure the text would benefit from some NPOV-ing. Take a look when you get a chance. Ronnotel 13:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You took hundreds of pictures of Chicago that are in Wikipedia. If you have any of the subway in Chicago or the elevated train and would be willing to submit them to Wikipedia, I may be able to use them in an article. VK35 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tags; I can't say that copyediting is worth a lot of recognition, but it was fun working on Chicago articles. Used to live there, miss the city a lot. Chubbles 20:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate the notion, but I think there's definitely more I can help out with before I can actually say I've done major contributing to the article. I left the article two weeks ago because I went to work on J. R. Richard and 1926 World Series from scratch. J. R. Richard is basically FA-ready, and I'm getting 1926 WS to GA soon. After that, I'll get back to Chris Young and hopefully do more copyediting work and expansion. Thanks, Nishkid64 ( talk) 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I thank you for this. I hardly deserve it, as you did the vast amount of work, but it is true that I provided some help, so I have put it on my user page with an edit summary that acknowledges your primacy! Tyrenius 22:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to quickly say thank you for the honor. It was nothing really, I was just having fun. Thank you very much again. 75pickup ( talk · contribs) 22:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No worries on the National Recording Registry list. You were the main man on that one. Keep up the great work! — Wise Kwai 04:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 06:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed that your Help desk question on locator dots went unanswered. I saw a thread on this a while ago, {{ Superimpose}} will get the job done.-- Commander Keane 11:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'll elaborate. The original J. R. Richard article was around 5KB in length, and I did a total rewrite, and basically none of the previous material (except the infobox and the categories) are in the 55KB version I've written. For 1926 World Series, there was only a paragraph of introductory context, and a bunch of stat boxes. I removed the previous text, and rewritten everything contextual that you see in the article now. Nishkid64 ( talk) 16:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Per your question on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#CFD slow processing: The administrator who closes the discussion is not required to move the articles. Normally the admin puts a note on WP:CFDW to have a bot do the work, but as this is a split, there is no way for a bot to do the work, and the admin may not have had the knowledge of the articles. I suggest that you go ahead and do the split (if you have the knowledge to do so), and once complete, just tag the old category with a speedy delete tag referencing the closed discussion. Alternatively, if you can provide a list of which articles go where, a bot operator, or someone like me with WP:AWB can make the moves for you. -- After Midnight 0001 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have now recieved a featured article userbox and a block for 3RR violation for exactly the same edits. Amazing – Gurch 23:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I mean to suggest that you try adding the <div style="height: 251px; overflow:none;">...</div> around the other code, so that overflow from the one that should have a scrollbar does not appear outside the one that should not have a scrollbar. It might not work either way... and now that I think about it, the extra 1px doesn't matter, either. I hope it works eventually - the only alternative I can think of immediately is to not use Internet Exploder. ;) Nihiltres( t. c. s) 23:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been going through Pioneer Zephyr this evening converting refs to inline citations and adding a few more refs as appropriate and I've also started on ensuring that all fair use images have appropriate fair use rationales (which I didn't see mentioned in the FAR until I brought it up). Since you brought up the references requirement, are there any other items that you'd like to see improved on the article while I'm working on it this week? Slambo (Speak) 01:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I fixed a couple of the spacing errors but about the recent entries on the tree, im not sure about their validity. So I'm just gonna leave it like that until there is some confirmation (that it is correct or incorrect).
My pleasure Tony. Not exactly sure what you are asking me in relation to Category:Second City alumni but I note the general consensus on the category for discussion point is to keep at this stage. I have added my comment there also. If I can help directly with anything please just ask - if time permits I will always help where I can.-- VS talk 02:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the recognition. I appreciate it. Eggishorn 16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I say no, but I'm not really sure. To me, speedy delists are for articles that should have never been brought to review but, rather, just delisted immediately. In those cases, I put GAR as the action, but I do not include a link, only the oldid. Regards, LaraLove T/ C 04:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if articles about all the things named after this man can be put together to meet the "clear similarity" and "well-defined topical scope" criterion. A topic about "things named after Blackstone" doesn't seem like a topic that one would want to study as a unified group of subjects. Maybe you should look into making a topic about "Chicago architecture" or "the Alton Railroad". If you want to try proposing it as a topic, I would include the fourth article; it was, historically, related to the others. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Originally, I was going to write about Chicago mass transit because of a red link but I found out that there's already a good article on it by a slightly different name. Thanks for the link.
I am going to write about Newton Minow, who has quite an interesting background. He is in Chicago. He's the Honorary Counsel General of Singapore to Chicago, has quite a law background, and headed the Federal Communications Commission at one time where he coined the term "vast wasteland" for TV. Nothing for you to do but it's my foray into Chicago related topics! VK35 17:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was on GAC, although I couldn't tell you why I passed a GA from a year ago, when standards for sourcing were not quite so stringent. I'm not sure I would pass it today. Nifboy 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the userbox on the Chicago Theater work, I didn't do much but it's nice to be recognized. For NRHP related articles, a word of advice here, I generally use three major sections, others if needed, History, architecture, and significance. History can cover everything about its history, who built it, when, who owned it and when, current operations etc. The Significance section covers things like honors, landmark status, Register listing, how it compares to other structures, its importance etc. Just a thought on logically structuring articles. Pop culture and trivia sections have no place in an encyclopedia article if the material is relevant it can usually be added in one of the aforementioned sections. Not just my opinion IvoShandor 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It never occurred to me I should keep one - and the more article I have reviewed, the more a chore it would be to dig out all the stuff... I think I have reviewed about 8-10 articles since I've been using this account actively on GAC and yes, most of them ended in failing (btw, I have also delisted two or three) - mostly because I tend to choose articles where the outcome is clear from the outset (I don't have that much time to spend on WP these days, so I like to make my life this bit easier :D ).
I must also say a good deal of those articles are your noms, because ever since the first article I reviewed (I think it was the Chicago Theatre) I was attempting to find one that is actually passable more or less to show you the difference. I actually think Monet's Haystacks might come close, I just have to put aside enough time for a thorough review. I guess it will have a long "on hold" list.
Oh, from your post it was not obvious to me whether you mean my record as reviewer or nominator. I have only nominated two articles as of now, one of them was promoted without much comment (even though I expected a "hold", I guess I need to "review" it myself now), and another was a fail, this time with a rather dubious justification (I am awaiting a reply from the reviewer). So it's about 50/50, though I guess the entirely wrong way :D
Now, back ad rem - you want to know what I consider a Good Article. I really intend to get down to re-reviewing the articles starting with the ones in the "Architecture" section. I do need to do some nifty time-planning to accomplish that, but I hope I will be able to start soon and I guess you will be able to see both good and bad examples. Cheers, PrinceGloria 15:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not really sure I got what you mean, and I really don't see why an article on a building being a part of the Chicago Skyline has to include a panorama. If you could turn this into a nice template (as I said, I saw things like that done nicely, but I can't tell you how it's done), then of course it would make sense. Otherwise, it is just cluttering the article and making download time a disaster for people on slow connections. The original FA pic is, as I said, too large - though it really looks FA-ish without the protruding captions. I don't think I have answered your question as I didn't get it. Slow uptake, they say. Have a good day :D PrinceGloria 15:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I agree the article could use some review and work - I was suprised when it made it through GA the first time around. Unfortunately I haven't had much time to devote to implementing the "roadmap" laid out shortly after the first review, but the more review the better here. - Duncanr 14:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I see you changed the importance of this stub. I really don't care, but why? This is considered the place of Chicago's founding, wouldn't that constitute a Top prioty rather than a Low priority? I am just wondering since it is the Plymouth Rock of the Chicago area, and most Chicago residents do not realize that. Just a question.-- Kranar drogin 19:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Tweak away. I still hate the address. But you guys do it how you do it, don't let me stop you. I will add coordinates to the box (which is a much better way to list the location than the address as the address has little meaning to anyone who doesn't know Chicago (read the rest of the world)). Also I posted a link to the NRHP nomination form for the Blackstone Hotel on the talk page there, it has some pretty in depth description of the interior and exterior architecture as well as information on the artchitect. IvoShandor 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Tony, I noticed in your edit summary on Bertrand Russell that you said there was no such rating. There actually is a rating Bplus according to WP 1.0. In fact, if you look at the diff you will see that the various wikiprojects (except the first one) display this rating in their boxes as B+. Thanks-- Cronholm144 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tony--thank you for the complimentary words. There would be no article to refine if not for your yeoman's work creating it! I was much impressed with your research, especially the Wildenstein catalogue numbers, which I deleted, sadly, in the interest of simplification and consistency. You provided the raw data.
I tried to find the quote you refer to, and have not yet. Let's both keep looking, and see if we can strengthen that particular section. I do think the article is solid. Cheers, JNW 02:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
And for your hard work on the Chicago project. I lived there for 10 years and loved it. However I spend way too much time on WP already without jumping in on another project. Cheers. Steve Dufour 04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking in the history, I got that you added the COTW notice on May 22 and in the following (at 21:25) it already had 1,848 characters (which was added to already by the end of the day). I just realized, though, my time zone is set at +6 (same as Chicago, actually), so that would have shown up as May 23 UT, which is probably what you're looking at and I should probably use for this purpose. I'm sorry for my error, but it was actually too late already (I did that yesterday, May 29 both here and in London, so the article was already past the five-day limit). Rigadoun (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I would repost and wait for a different reviewer, better to have some fresh blood and an unbiased opinion. If it's up there for a while, though, I'll take another glance at it. Dooms Day349 19:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)