User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch53

User talk pages with the most edits

As of October 2008. Dragons flight (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

1	OrphanBot	34634
2	Jimbo Wales	26347
3	SandyGeorgia	13766
4	Alison	13295
5	Raul654	13006
6	Bishonen	12621
7	Tony Sidaway	12135
8	RickK	11578
9	Durova	10407
10	Keeper76	10114

I should stop talking to myself so much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For making Dispatches run so smoothly and consistently, week in, week out.

		The Signpost Barnstar
		For outstanding work organizing the Featured Content Dispatches, I award SandyGeorgia the Wikipedia Signpost Barnstar. --ragesoss (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

His Rotundity, HRM

Yeah, but I think he just needs more space on his own that most. I have to admit I miss the fat bastard,[1] we're loosing enough friends these days, and I see Tony is having problems, and then Bishonen caught in the crossfire; its all getting a wee bit depressing. Ceoil (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Britney; yes eeek. Better humour here. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that, most of my favourite commedians are americans; well mitch hedberg[2] and harland williams anyway. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

FA example

From what I can see here, they switched out one of your FAs for another. I smell a conspiracy. Hmm hmm hmm!!! :P !!!!!!!!!!!!! :) 01:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Such a silly little Ottava. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunate; the reason Tourette syndrome was used there was that it still holds (as far as I know) the record for the most Supports in 24 hours, and it had unanimous support and a very clean FAC (would be good if more of today's FACs were prepared thusly). I don't think it behooves FAC to have a troubled FAC put forward as an example of FA. Perhaps someone will change it back to the clean FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You could do that, by the way. Or, you could find an updated FAC with a lot of support (is there even one with something that compares?). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, since I've been following FAC, there has been nothing close in terms of number of unanimous Supports and number of Supports in the first 24 hours. It's a clean example of how FAC should work when an article comes to FAC prepared and how FAC should work if editors appear with prepared articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well at my next FAC, I will make sure to bribe over 20 people to support immediately so you have a new example. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I had been editing Wiki for eight months when TS passed (and I should also mention that I was forced to bring it to FAC by other editors who threatened to do it if I didn't). It drew attention because I pestered the Medicine Project for help throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you bribing anyone by the way, just that -I- would have to lay out money in order to get the same results. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize that, but lots of other people read my talk page ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently] either 3161 people view it one time each, 300 people view it 10 times each, or 30 people view it 100 times each per month, or 3 crazy people are viewing it 1000 times each. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

3161? Still safe. – iridescent 17:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

tehehe ... but I was away for two weeks :))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What cheating!! Comparing Iridescent's January numbers to Sandy's February numbers! Sandy's was 4807 for January. LMAO. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(Scurrying frantically off to my talkpage to machine-gun the "purge and refresh" button 1200 times) I've never figured out who the people watching my talkpage actually are. At least on Sandy's they leave messages, and there are usually some juicy arguments to read – my talkpage generally consists of 25% experimental railroad electrification schemes, 25% vernacular architecture, 25% Michael Jackson, 20% complaints that I dared to decline someone's deletion request, and 5% Shalom and JeanLatore socks trolling. I look forward to a flood of "How dare you nominate Gail Trimble for deletion!!!" complaints soon, though. – iridescent 23:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevado FAC

It currently has 3 supports, 0 oppose. Is more feedback needed? Ceranthor 15:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Now have resolved Psychim's comments. He said that he had "no objection to it going forward". Just FYI, I know you won't do the next promotion for a couple days. Ceranthor 01:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Baseball!!!!

Pitchers and catchers have reported. Spring training games are moving along. Every team thinks they can win the World Series. I can't wait for the season to start. Oh, and Manny Ramirez is still "negotiating".  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new in THAT condition. Seven years in Boston, and everyone of them had Manny uncertainty and negotiations! // FrankB 17:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

cite usage question

Hey Sandy- it's been a while. Question: in cite news, what's the proper use of publisher vs work? I see some people say (in the same entry) publisher = The New York Times Corporation and work=The New York Times - is that right? I've always done just publisher=The New York Times. Seems kind of unnecessary to list the corporate entity, and what does "work" add? Thanks for any insight. Hope things are good! Tvoz/talk 19:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooh I think I just found the answer.... should be using "work" for the publication and only add "publisher" if it actually adds information. (And I see that "work" auto italicizes, thereby saving another couple of characters.) So "publisher" needed for NYT, and I should be using "work" in general. Sound right? Live and learn. Tvoz/talk 19:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's it - the work name is critical, while the publisher name is only necessary if it's not obvious. Maralia (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Also - if something is, say, AP via CNN.com, which is correct: agency=Associated Press and work=CNN.com or publisher=CNN.com? or should it be publisher=CNN without the .com with no work? Wouldn't want to italicize CNN I think. Thanks! Tvoz/talk 20:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...didn't know an agency parameter existed... I'm not sure I quite agree with the template's documented recommendation for news wire services in all cases. Usually in AP/Reuters/Bloomberg etc. articles, the byline is the wire industry, so I'd use author=Associated Press (not author=Staff writer...leads to people making up titles [I've seen this happen in other articles]) and work=CNN(.com) (in my opinion, whether you add .com or not isn't really all that important; just be consistent). Only if an author is named (say, an AP article with the byline "By Ron Fournier") should you employ the agency= parameter. BuddingJournalist 20:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I;ve seen author=Associated Press and that does make some sense for non-bylines articles - I'll see how that looks. I don't love the way it looks when we use agency and work because of where they display. Thanks - any other thoughts appreciated. I do agree consistency within an article probably is more important than which way we do it. Tvoz/talk 21:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I include the publisher and link it if it goes to a different article from the work. They obviously give different information if they are different enough to have separate articles. Thus, I include The New York Times Company as the publisher regardless of whether the work is The New York Times or the Boston Globe. There does not seem to be consensus one way or the other on this matter, but that is what I have done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather link the newspaper/magazine/broadcaster/whatever, then the reader can find out a variety of things about them, not just who owns the company. Also, note that ownership frequently changes hands; The Boston Globe hasn't always been owned by The New York Times Company, the New York Post hasn't always been owned by Rupert Murdoch, CNN used to be owned by Ted Turner then wasn't, etc. I've cited the Arizona Republic a lot in writing about McCain; am I supposed to know exactly when in 2000 ownership changed hands of it? Did that change effect editorial content right away, later, or never? Should we also include when newspapers had large-scale layoffs and their fact-checking became sloppier? Should we indicate when CNN was independent, when it was under Turner at Time Warner, and when it was just Time Warner with Turner gone? I don't think adding the ownership, by itself, tells us much. I'd rather just like the news provider and let readers follow it down and draw their own conclusions. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

TTT is one of the few editors I've encountered who repeats this information: I beieve it unnecessarily chunks up the article text and agree with WTR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been started in four places. It is important. Lets send it to a single place. It is now posted at {{Cent}} at Talk:Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama#Reference_style.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, will centralize there - but I want to acknowledge WTR's excellent point here about when ownership changed hands. That seals it for me, as it seems we could actually do harm by including the present ownership when a reference may be from a time when there was a different owner, and we can't be sure any editor will get it right (myself absolutely included). Tvoz/talk 22:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The other issues are download time, added maintenance, and unnecessarily chunking up article size; there's really no good reason to do this, and most editors don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love

Hi SandyGeorgia,
The majority of the article is done.
Could you help me add the categories on the bottom the page—docudrama and autism (and any others you can think of):
Here is the URLs: [3]; [4]
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 22:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for your help!
Great to know, it wasn't me - it was the layout!
I added more categories, could you eliminate whatever doesn't belong their, because I might've added a few autism links that might not belong their.
Thank you for taking your time and patients to help me.
ATC ^{. Talk} 22:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

April Fool's FA chosen in the works

Moni has started at User:Moni3/Dedham and Ceoil and I have already started helping out. Looks like it's decided! Ceranthor 23:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Although others may still be working on other possibilities; the more, the merrier! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe it's almost been a year since Ima. Pigs fly when you're having time. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, I don't recall (probably because my head was up my ass) how Ima Hogg was formed in time for last year's festivities. Amazon.com is holding me up right now for FA - I await two sources lest the villagers come at me with torches for defending the best use of high quality source only to neglect 2 because the date is too near and Amazon can't figure anything out. Museum of Bad Art is posted rewritten, nominated for GA, and awaiting protocol. How do I get the swarms of copy editors to descend upon it and give it the polish it deserves? I am most concerned about getting away with all that nuttiness. If Awadewit was concerned with the dash of informality in Harvey Milk, I can only envision was the reaction will be to this one... --Moni3 (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Systemic bias and how to address it...maybe with a revived Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive

There was talk of reviving this, so I temporarily reactivated it to see if it would fly. I fiugred it was a good place to gather folks to improve articles which were not covered by wikiprojects and possibly underrepresented at WP:FA. I threw up a few ideas of articles able to be improved by a wide range of people (non-esoteric in scope and pretty general), that were in a fair condition to get to GA without too much fuss and maybe FA.

I figured given you'd stared at a screen of Featured Articles longer than most of us, you'd have a few ideas about what was underrepresented and may want to throw a few comments on the page or talk page (eg some articles of manageable scope and fairly good condition within an underrepresented area). Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Old poetry is underrepresented! I struggle every day to get people to collaborate with me (and I normally browbeat them into doing so). :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, can you think of any within cooee of GA or FA then? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Image reviews

Hi Sandy. Sorry for the late reply, I will be busy due to work for to- and the coming 2 days. I am optimistic about the images on Rutherford, but would like to make sure that the information for them are as complete as possible. I think that by the latest, next Tuesday (I kind of expect replies from the PAA by this weekend), it should all be okay. Jappalang (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

FA cleanup

No problem, Tom B (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC

I still find the way the Wikicup thing is being dealt with something I cannot buy into, due to personal ethics and a huge heap of rather stupid stubbornness. Annoyingly, though, I'm part of an FA-push.

I propose that I agree not to use it as part of the contest, and we call that sufficient, because, well, I find inserting 2Oh, and I'm part of the WikiCup" into the middle of an academic discussion about the stupidest little bathetic addition you could make, I just dislike being placed under suspicion because I signed up to a social event on-wiki due to having such pisspoor health that I can't do things offline much, and so on, and, you know, I'm quite happy to remove any benefit it might have in the contest, I just dislike the suspicion.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I counter propose that since we all know that Shoemaker is part of the Wikicup, that he be exempt from having to announce it for "just because" reasons. I mean, there are what, at least 15 dedicated reviewers who watch this page and would be able to see if anything comes up. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch52#WikiCup. Repeating, once again, there was no suspicion, and no one has to do anything; it was merely a courtesy to make my job easier. Don't let that stand in anyone's way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Somebody more knowledgeable than I might be able to create a script that highlights users listed here. Ideally, it would be similar to User:Ais523/highlightmyname.js. That way, anybody who cares enough would be able to quickly determine Wikicup contestants at FAC noms. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm probably being over-stubborn about this. Just... I don't know. Maybe I' m being stupid. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing can do strange things to our perception of what's really important (there are scores of editors over at WIAFA debating the FA criteria, yet I'll have to spend about 12 hours tomorrow reading through FAC, and will likely find nothing that I can close because of lack of reviews, and none of that discussion will affect the decision on a single FAC as far as I can tell); don't sweat the little stuff :) Write articles, don't worry about the silliness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What SandyG just said. Who cares how many angels would fit on the head of a pin? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed four more at the bottom to help. I don't enjoy reading pages outside of my topic area, but no one seems to write pages about my topic area anymore. Meh. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I do, you learn such a lot that way. You wouldn't believe how much I know about medieval English bishops now. Or steam locomotives, or timekeeping devices, or ... --Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Malleus) Expand your "subject area". Ive about decided that any non-American history article must fall into my subject area... I'll try to make an effort to get a few FACs reviewed...Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The first time Wii showed up at FAC, I had never heard of it :) Anyone can review for some deficiencies; that will help me close some stagnant FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem, I think, is that some people—not me—are afraid to support an article because they feel that implies that they've thoroughly checked it against all of the FA criteria. I just go with my gut. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And some are afraid to Oppose because they get drug into a never-ending, peer-review type cycle :) But if reviewers comment on some aspects (prose is fine, sources look good, etc.), reviewers who do know the topic may be more inclined to Support once they see others have offered some opinions at least. You (Malleus) may not feel comfortable supporting, but if you just say, prose looks fine, that's better than nothing. Every little bit helps :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Once I've taken the trouble to read through an entire FAC I'm pretty certain whether or not it should be promoted. Some things just stand out, even to a non-expert. If I like what I see then I'll support; if I'm uncertain, I'll offer a few comments; if I think it falls significantly short of the criteria then I'll oppose. I'm not going to be tempted down the single-issue reviewer path. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that anything like being a single-issue voter? Just say "no" to speed limits in interstates. --Laser brain (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Space Station.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-MBK₀₀₄ 20:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall image

I responded here as well, but I just wanted to message you to ask for assistance, if possible. I did not upload the image in question, and the user that did is currently away. I am not sure how to edit the file page to add a source, nor am I certain the source I suggested is the one used (although, the image is exactly the same, and I am not familiar enough with image sources to know which ones are reliable/acceptable or not). Any suggestions? --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. The issue has been resolved. Best wishes! --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I went through the article and found several instances where there were periods within quotations marks, and edited them. I only left ones where entire sentences were being quoted, in which case I believe it is appropriate to leave the period within the quotation mark. Feel free to take a glance at the article again (you can just control+F '."' if it makes it easier), or let me know if you see any other edits that need to be made. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible FAC

I'm thinking of trying to get Icos to Featured Article status, but I'm not sure if it's good enough to get through FAC. It's recently had a peer review. I've put a lot of work into the article, so I want to shoot for FA instead of GA. Could you take a look at the article? I guess my real question is: Does the article have a reasonable chance at FAC? Shubinator (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks well enough prepared for FAC; on the other hand, it doesn't hurt to run through GAN as well, if you're inclined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll see. I've some free time now, so I might just go for it. Thanks for your input! Shubinator (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

dates within cite formats

I know this changed recently, but I'm not up on it and the discussions are so long and dense that I fall asleep trying to read them. So, is it no longer the case that we should use ISO dates within the cite formats? (I thought those will auto-format to the user's pre-set preference, and anyone without preferences would see the ISO date.) I don't really care one way or another, but I do think it's desirable for reference sections to be internally consistent, although not necessarily in the same format as the prose. What's now considered the norm? Thanks Tvoz/talk 01:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've stopped trying to keep up; the various cite xxx and citation templates change so often, and are so inconsistent, that I no longer try. If you can sort anything, more power to you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh God, Sandy, you were my last hope.... Tvoz/talk 01:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you're in deep doo-doo :))) The date business on citations is a wreck :) I do them manually, myself ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the cite templates because I don't have to think about what order I type in the fields within the citation, and - when it works - they yield consistently formatted citations. Except if there's no author, when they inexplicably change the order. And then there are the weird differences between templates for no apparent reason. Et cetera. But what's good about them is still good, to me anyway. Ack! Tvoz/talk 02:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What I do is not enter the "retrieved on" date in the template, just put it after the template in the format I want. Easier that way. (Doesn't help much with newspapers, but does with {{cite web}} or anything with an url.) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Drama-fest

Oh man... here we go again. Malleus blocked, a million FACs, and a bunch of failing RFAs. Oh dear! Anyway, just wanted to say hi and that MOBA was promoted to GA by Malleus, too. Ceranthor 01:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Status quo for Wiki; as long as Ceoil isn't blocked, we haven't reached a record yet :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, or PeterSymonds. Or Ealdgyth! Ceranthor 01:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll say this, I am never ever becoming an admin. I think it affects most people very oddly. I'm here to write for the encyclopedia, and see no reason to get too involved with other stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I used to enjoy working on articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that. I haven't really done any significant article work since I passed RfA in September. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, Sandy—when are you doing the next promotion/archive...? I'm excited that two student articles have made it there so far. I think that Osteochondritis dissecans article is pretty impressive. Is it ready for promotion? I haven't looked at the FAC recently, that's why I'm asking. Ceranthor 02:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:FAC

Sorry if you don't know what I mean by my support at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inauguration of Barack Obama, though I'm not sure what you want to know. I have read through the article a few times and find it to be very good so I'm supporting it. Honestly my criteria for FA are lower than others', so feel free to take my support lightly, but I feel that this article is comprehensive, well-referenced, and a smooth read. Cheers, Reywas92^Talk 02:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, you promoted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 even though I still have unresolved comments. I would be more than happy to take them to the talk page; I wouldn't want t impede promotion (I was going to support as soon as the comments were resolved). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Let this be a lesson to all: it's always best to register an oppose, even if the issues you have are relatively minor. As long as subsequent comments are constructive and polite, there's no reason that use of the word should lead to a combative air. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 09:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll just leave a note at YellowMonkey's talk reminding him to address the issues. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87, I carefully reviewed your comments, and decided that I could either make most of those changes myself, or trust that YellowMonkey will make them (as I believe he will). FAC is straining under a serious lack of reviews and the page is growing; when reviewers don't enter an Oppose, and when I realize the changes can be easily made or are likely to be made by the nominator, I have to decide whether to allow the page to continue to be backloggd, or to go ahead and promote, knowing that the issues are likely to be resolved. What I can't do is read reviewers' minds to decide whether they believe items are sufficient enough that promotion should be held up; in that case, an Oppose should be entered. I am confident that Yellow Monkey will address those items, and that post to his talk or article talk will be sufficient. As always, your reviews are appreciated and helpful, but I also have to do something to reduce the page backlog in the absence of reviews, which means in the absence of Opposes, I may sometimes have to trust that minor prose issues will be worked out. If you had entered an Oppose, I would not have promoted, but I do trust that a post to YellowMonkey will be sufficient to sort out those issues, none of which seemed major. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what I had in mind. I left a note at YellowMonkey's talk a couple hours ago. Thanks for your detailed explanation. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding, Dabomb87. I do try to do my best to weigh all factors and keep the page size manageable at the same time, but I'm afraid I can't force reviewers to review or Oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A possible new section heading

Hi Sandy, I'm posting here for the dual purpose of getting your opinion and because, well, this is "Village Pump (SandyGeorgia)" :)

ArcticGnome originally made the suggestion [5] and I've thought about it since: our article headings tail off down to External Links, generally from the core wiki article down through the See Alsos, Footnotes, Externals, generally less and less informative - then suddenly at the very bottom of the article, there is a whole wealth of on-wiki information. Settlements have navmaps, there's often a ton of collapsed navboxes, at the very bottom are all the categories.

The very bottom of the article has a ton of links to related topics all over the wiki, and there is no way for the casual reader to know it's there. (Remember, it requires scrolling through the whole thing - people often don't do that, it "smacks of effort") What I've done is to add another section header titled "Related Information" where the bottom-stuff is significant. This appears in the TOC where it may draw the readers' attention down to the bottom to discover the vast linkage we all work so hard to achieve.

Here are 3 links where I tried this: Vancouver, L/PMOC, London, Ont.. What do you (and others) think? I think it better delineates the article contents, at least for articles with major bottom-content. It also (zOMG!) contravenes MOS:LAYOUT, so I don't know where to go next. WP:VPR I guess, but I'd rather hear your opinion first. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Since no one else has weighed in, my ideas. First, the change should be proposed at WP:LAYOUT. Second, it might be best not to experiment on FAs with this idea, as FAs should conform with WP:LAYOUT. Third, the heading should not be "Related Information", it should be "Related information" per WP:MSH. My suggestion is to bring this up on the talk page at LAYOUT to get further input. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Done! - although it's not exactly an active talk page and I had to try to fix MiszaBot'a apparent breakage. I hope you're not sending me off to Floor 7, Room 22, Desk 17 to get the proper stamp on my form :) I'll watch Vancouver (I always do anyway) and won't restore my experiment a second time, I appreciate your concerns re FAC. A certain coloured monkey referred in the past to different criteria when it was promoted some time ago, it has had lots of reworking and may be due for a review anyway, however I won't persist with the section header if consensus is against the proposal. And fixed the capitalization.

If you have time to comment at the proposal itself, most appreciated! Franamax (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to the proposal, but actively trying to avoid MoS talk pages; they've become a time sink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Hey Sandy I wanted to ask your adivce (if you had any) on what to do if I suspect a user(s) of being a sock puppet. I have read the various guidelines, but I don't want to implicate several editors lightly. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you how I handle such situations, but you might want to e-mail me instead ... let me know if you're comfortable with that. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Mail sent. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Traveling

Hey there. Hope all's well; I'll be the on the road starting later today (relocating cross-country to a new job! Whoo!). Feel free to disregard any outstanding opposes I have in the next few days if you're looking to close some FACs. BuddingJournalist 15:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela Information Office

There has been a request for your presence at the debate on WP:BLP over the use of the names of the employees of the Venezuela Information Office. Thanks. Awickert (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dashes versus hyphens

I was unaware of this issue before. It never comes up during GAN, and I've only been through the FAC process a total of 3 times in 3 years. It's good that you posted it to the main project page, because I'm sure many others in the project aren't aware of this issue either. Tito, Julian, and Hink may be the only ones keenly aware of this in the TC project. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Lucy FAC

See this. The user wanted your attention. I have talked to many people about it and most balk at the heavy handed nature of the user's approach, especially at the beginning, and their arguing over grammar without getting the jargon correct. He has definitely gone beyond civil in his first entry. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not found a means of getting Fowler and Fowler to stay on topic at FAC or FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Osteochondritis dissecans‎

Sorry I didn't get round to reviewing this for FAC. I did spot it at one point and tried to read the lead. I didn't get far and the then current comments at FAC seemed to concur with that difficulty. I didn't get round to revisiting it. I'll try to help out but it looks like a tough one. Colin°^Talk 21:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Every little bit helps ! Maralia and I have plugged away at the smaller issues, but there are still rough prose patches: Tony1 supported. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey there

Anything interesting happen while I was out? Your Talk page activity still seems to be at record levels, which is always a good sign :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You went to Venezuela? In person? You couldn't pay me to go to Rio these days. I guess all is well indeed—plenty of work, at least... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Technical help needed

Hi, Sandy

User:Tim riley and I would like to co-nominate Noël Coward for FAC, and the article is all ready to go, but I don't know how to close the peer review. Would you be so kind as to help the technically challenged? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got this, Sandy =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ping....

Blah, I just removed it for the time being...of course Murphy's law would dictate that if I left it and waited for OTRS, something would stuff up. I had to bounce a few emails back and forth before to get the wording right....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Double ping, all images on the current article check out fine. Jappalang (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Quitting as FAC director?

• Hi, I saw something on various talk pages about the possibility that you will resign as FAC director. As I always say, you and only you know what's best for you. You should definitely follow your own heart and mind. The overriding goal should always be to do what's best for you, not what's best for FAC. You are more important than FAC.
• I would like to say, however, that if you desire to step down because you think things are a bit less than desirable at the moment, perhaps that situation is not permanent. Perhaps things will improve in the near-ish future. Nothing is ever peaches and cream every step of the way, and rough patches come—but as certainly as they come, they also go. :-)
• Dunno how much I will be around. Very busy in RL; expecting to stop contributing altogether soon, at least for a while. As always, I wish you all the best from my heart (though it may not appear that way, since I often follow my own heart, and it may not lead me to goals that you agree with).  :-)
• Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you stay. I think you do excellent work. --Arcadian (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Lame. If possible, can I take over? :P!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ottava Rima (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw something on various talk pages about the possibility that you will resign as FAC director ... I am not the FAC director: Raul is. Where did you see this indication that I will resign? I haven't seen that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that in that case, Sandy, your comments on Raul's talk page about how it isn't fun anymore, etc. are being misinterpreted and people are jumping to conclusions.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely you must realize that the 'pedia rumor mill turns at your every word :P --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The exchanges on various talk pages looked to me like 1) Sandy talks to Raul about quitting. 2) Raul pings Karanacs and the Yellow Monkey about potential interest in being your replacement. It all looked very explicit to me. I was delusional? OK, then. Wouldn't be the first time... Later! Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That is how I read it too.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Precision in language is important: LIng, where did you see the words that I was "quitting" or that Raul pinged Karanacs and YellowMonkey about "being [my] replacement"? Raul is the director, and he can work this out in whichever way suits him, and I'm fine with whatever he decides. I've asked for backup help and a second delegate to take some of the pressure off of me because spending up to 12 hours at a sitting reading through and finding nothing can be closed because reviews are lacking is not a fun or productive use of my time. If Raul decides an entirely new delegate will work better, that would be fine, too; I support whatever he decides. But it seems people are reading words that weren't written by either Raul or me, and Raul hasn't yet said what he will propose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering when you [Sandy] would do this; it's simply not right that you should have had to do all this work (proofreading FACs, reading, promoting, archiving) pretty much daily for what, 1 and a half years? I would support both YellowMonkey and Karanacs as FAC delegates as additions. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I felt the task was manageable as long as there were enough reviews that FACs could be closed and I was able to hold the list to around 30; currently, the list hovers around 50, and I must spend double the hours reading through, to find nothing that can be closed, while keeping up with endless debates about WIAFA that go in circles and don't resolve the fundamental problem of lack of reviews. So, the job has grown and help is needed. On the other hand, Raul may see it differently, and I support whatever changes Raul decides to make. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, we all do this because we find satisfaction in it. If you are not doing so in your job's current form, then the job needs changing. Raul will come up with a solution that keeps your experience and competence, and yet puts it back into a form that you will find satisfying, I am sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you interested in becoming an admin, Sandy? That would help...err...somehow. Yomangani^talk 12:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly help those people who are getting bored now that Obamagate is over!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I just love YoMan's sense of humor :) But he's just trying to raise his fees as my RfA agent! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, I am running on 1 April so, you can't possibly do worse than I will. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) On the topic of the lack of reviews, I believe this is strongly linked to WIAFA. It is precisely because WIAFA is unclear that very few reviewers will make a strong statement (let's say to oppose) because of the fear of getting into endless arguments with the nominator (or having to make endless opposes as FACs get restarted). Also, the number of poorly prepared FACs may get reduced if WIAFA was clearer. Improving WIAFA should help you Sandy, not hinder you. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandy and Raul have made FAC what it is today. It will never be perfect, like WP, but it is a powerful force for good in the project—perhaps the most powerful force for raising standards. It is a very difficult job, and one that should no doubt be shared. Sandy grumbles from time to time, and I don't blame her. Raul may not in a position to shoulder much of the load; amazingly, he performed the role single-handedly for years, so I don't blame him if he finds it difficult to return to substantial duties). We must not lose either of them. Tony (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, though it may be time to give Sandy some help if she wants it. I did not start out as a member of Sandy's fan club but I have come to respect her work and commitment.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I think a SandyGeorgia barnstar is in order, to be given to any editor who defies categorization with the vast amounts of time and effort, fairness, and deliberation they give to the project, reliably and consistently. You deserve the Tireless Contributor, Original barnstar, Fist of respect, and everything else. Your work at FAC is astounding. Though we have no idea what its impact will be for many years to come, at least I can say that you made FAC a challenging and worthy place to be. Don't go to FAC unless you have your A game. SandyGeorgia won't like it. Moni3 (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Moni3 thinks you are a rock star. --Moni3 (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I know a few rock stars and there are characteristics in common.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean???

"doesn't add clarity"

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria&diff=276627392&oldid=276627157 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFeelings? (talk • contribs) 23:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No one cares about accuracy

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#No_one_cares_about_accuracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFeelings? (talk • contribs) 00:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you trying to do? Simple, direct language will serve everyone better than enigmatic links. --Moni3 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Sandy, I just wanted to say thanks for keeping WP:Featured_article_candidates/Juan_Davis_Bradburn open so long. I've been off-wiki for a week due to a combination of nasty cold and a home computer that finally stopped suffering and refused to boot. My brain is ...almost... back to full working order. I'll do my best to get to the comments on this FAC tomorrow; if I can't get them addressed quickly enough, please feel free to archive it this weekend. Karanacs (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. Baby is (going to be) a boy!

Call it Jimbo – iridescent 21:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I'm only surprised you a) lasted this long doing your Atlas impersonation and b) it hasn't made you insane. Much.

Enjoy the downscaling of workload. I hope less ridiculous comments are made to and about you as a result. You're probably in my list of five Wikipedians I most admire. You're an absolute star. Don't you dare even think about quitting. --Dweller (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for a quick favour

Hi Sandy, I've been developing the articles Military history of Australia in World War II and Battle of Morotai for the last few months with an eye to getting them to FA status, and both have recently passed Military History Wikiproject A-class reviews. While I've previously brought three articles to FA status, all were before current focus on MOS compliance, and I'm a bit worried that I may be missing some things. If you have time, could you please have a quick look at these articles and let me know what MOS changes will be needed? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, want me to take a look at these for you? I have a little free time. Maralia (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be very nice of you, thanks, Maralia !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at Nick's talk. Maralia (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Maralia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz

Currently there is no outstanding opposes, even Tony did not oppose. I think it can be promoted now (I am writing here, because I am a bit tired of this article). Regards, Ruslik (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to save Sandy time, there are three supports. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, Rudolf Wolters, I made the changes Tony wanted, three supports, no opposes. I think he is worthy to join Speer on the FA page.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Now NDR is at 4 supports. Maralia's comments have been resolved. Ceranthor 00:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruslik and Ceranthor, please note that articles are only promoted/archived at FAC twice per week (Tuesday and Saturday). I'm taking over the Tuesday promotions, and since I've previously entered declarations on this article I don't feel comfortable making the judgement call. The FAC will be active at least until Saturday - no need to update the status here. Karanacs (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Proud to be a Syracuse apologist

Only thing that matters. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Basketball? What's that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Harumph. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You are falling down in your duty to entertain me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please reply

Please reply to my post at Orchestrated?. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cooling off

Regarding [6], thanks for refactoring, but I think I'm cool enough after being called an idiot and a CAM POV pusher. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood, but two wrongs never make a right :) You shouldn't single out editors in section headings, or template long-standing editors with "welcome" messages. These two actions seemed to indicate it may be time to take a deep breath. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

In case you missed this. "I would like to express my desire to move away from my position in FAR. If another delegate is appointed I would step down from my position. Joelito (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)" Joelito (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ping

You asked me to ping when the image stuff here was done; it is. Three of the images with issues have been dealt with, rough consensus on the FAC says we shouldn't do anything about the fourth because the replacement image is so low-grade it wouldn't be much use considering the sizing required. Ironholds (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, now they are done (as in all the involved parties have agreed/had their concerns addressed). Ironholds (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wolters

I went through though the dashes, found one other dash goof and corrected it. Went and looked at Sereny, the quote is correct. Thanks for the catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You still need an image review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It has passed the image review now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything further you need on this? I'm not pushing you, whenever it promotes (if it deserves it) is fine, I just don't want to have overlooked something silly, like I did by forgetting the image review!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the promotion, on behalf of myself and my co-nominators. You rock!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Coward

Thank you for your attention to the article. I have looked at the guidelines and entirely see why you have deleted the definite article, but I think "The Coward image" is in this case more appropriate than "Coward image", which doesn't really make much sense. Grateful if you will allow me to restore the definite article in this one-off case. Tim riley (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem; I'm not really fussed either way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bless you! Tim riley (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Collapse box

I've replied to you on the FAC as well, but would this work as a solution to the collapse-box issue? This way it takes the table to the end of the article creating a de facto appendix section and avoiding the problem of a large ugly table in the middle of the article, which the collapse-box was an attempt to avoid. I do think it's useful to include this list; most of those reading the page are likely to be those who live and work there, and this is potentially going to be of interest to them. – iridescent 21:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That looks fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Johnson's TS

Please read. There is an oppose over grounds that the TS information is "synthesis". I tried to explain that there are sources that mix both and the argument cannot be construed as original, but that doesn't seem good enough. I already have a lot going on where I can't really try to get into the medical background of TS to try and make the subject any clearer. The paragraph in question was the only left over section that was really contributed on TS that went into the page and I hope that you can talk to him about it? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that you e-mailed or put up in your userspace somewhere copies of sources that included all, so that it wasn't synthesis, but I don't know where to locate those sources right now. You had some excerpts somewhere in userspace, and others that you e-mailed me copies of; I would need those again to put together a response. (And it's not likely I'll be able to do this work quickly.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

PS, and rather than trudging back through all the sources (at a time when I don't have time, I didn't know you were going to put this FAC up :), why not take an alternate approach, to resolve things faster on that FAC? The sentences beginning with " TS develops in childhood[19] ..." and ending with "... different expression of the same factors that are important for the expression of tics.[27]" are parenthetical information anyway, as if the article is trying too hard to justify something that is already well documented by a multitude of reliable sources and medical consensus (that Johnson had TS). This article doesn't really need to explain TS; that info can be found in the TS article. Why not move that information out of the body of the article, to an explanatory footnote? Johnson's TS stands alone, on the strength of the other sources, and it's not really necessary to explain TS in such detail in this article. It seems to me that's a faster solution to this dilemma, rather than going back through all the sources, and it makes more sense, as that info reads a bit off-topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not the background information about TS that's the issue, it's literally one line that—presented amongst others that detail Johnson's childhood ailments—implies a link I don't think is explicitly made in any of the cited works. Its removal would be enough to remove my opposition; the rest of the "off-topic" stuff is general enough not to matter, though I might question its relevance later if I were to do a full review. :) Steve ^{T • C} 14:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Steve has ever read the supplied sources so I feel that his comments are off. I have provided the three biographies (not the medical works) used on the matter on the various pages discussing Johnson's TS here. I don't feel like dealing with this anymore and having to spend 2 hours transcribing this text makes me not want to bother with Johnson at all for a while. I don't think it was an issue or ever an issue, and I feel as if my time has been wasted. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I don't know if I've been clear enough, and if not, I apologise, but I don't think you've been quite getting the gist of what I'm trying to say. There really was no need to transcribe all that, though the effort is above and beyond the call. Please let's take this back to the FAC page where it belongs instead of clogging up Sandy's talk page. I'm going to read those sources thoroughly right now and will reply over there. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 20:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sandy, could you parse this and see if you can accommodate any changes? The information is on the talk page and the reference entries are either on the early life page or on the main Johnson page if not on the early life one. I am not in strong enough health right now to be able to handle it. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't really work on this just now either; I'm going to be off Wiki until Wednesday. However, Steve (as usual) has done a very good job. The only wording that I would adjust from his suggestion (as still slightly misleading, even if he were diagnosed today, the "as a result of" would be difficult to establish) is:

• Johnson's tics and gesticulations first manifested as a result of his childhood scrofula; ...

to ...

• Johnson's tics and gesticulations manifested afer his childhood scrofula;

I can look at it more closely on Wednesday, but I generally agree with Steve's paring down, with that one change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's the cause and effect statement that, IMO, the section needs. The "after" doesn't seem strong enough for that purpose; "as a result" provides the basis for the inclusion of the subsequent generalised statement that childhood illnesses can impact the severity of TS. If "as a result" is too strong, it can be modified easily. Perhaps "Johnson's initial tics and gesticulations were likely a result of his childhood scrofula"? Or (better) words to that effect. :) The statement is backed up explicitly by Martin, Samuel Johnson: A Biography (2008) p. 94 ("As a result of physical illness he began to show signs of the 'tics and gesticulations' that stayed with him for the rest of his life.") Steve ^{T • C} 23:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading again, scratch that; "after" contains enough of an implication, I think. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 00:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help

I started the dermatology task force and have been working on improving the dermatology-related content on wikipedia. With that being said, I wanted to know if you would help me with a list I have been working on? Particularly in proofreading some of the existing text. My goal is to get it to feature quality within the next year. kilbad (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Homo floriensis

Are you ok with the article now? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I will have a look tomorrow, if you can wait a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, of course. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC withdrawal

Hello, I would like to have my FA nomination for The Lion King article withdrawn. Would you please tell me how to do so? Thanks. DrNegative (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of the withdrawal process. Please do not remove the FAC tag from the article talk page - a bot will run over the weekend and will clean that up. Karanacs (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Another FAC withdrawal

Hi Sandy, in light of your scathing list of to do's on The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology I am withdrawing this nomination until I can address them all appropriately. I apologize for not being more thorough, I wish I were better able to spot the problems before bringing articles to FAC, I honestly thought the article was fine especially after the peer review by a very experienced FAC editor and two administrators. Perhaps with time my skills will improve. I would appreciate your patience in future noms as I felt you were unnecessarily harsh and unprofessional in your review. I am not an employee of a newspaper or something, this is just a fun hobby for me like most everyone else here. If I can offer some professional managerial advice, I would say that it would be better for you to just state what you think is wrong with an article and omit the personal expectations of a repeat nominator who should know better than to submit such an unworthy piece of work. I have had issues with editors who are very rude at FAC and I was hoping that you could be more of a leader who could improve the situation in light of your important position in the FAC process. I would also like to change the name of the article to something that you think would be more appropriate and I invite you to offer suggestions. Thanks for your help. NancyHeise ^talk 01:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of the withdrawal. Karanacs (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope Sandy and Nancy don't mind my butting in, but I don't think there was anything wrong with the tone of Sandy's review. At FAC, you are offering up a body of work for criticism, which is what you received. As a frequent FAC reviewer, I can say that many of Sandy's remarks are meant to head off the inevitable replies reviewers always receive (ex. "Can you go ahead and list all the problems you spotted?"). The FA criteria are quite exacting in their standards and it's not out of bounds to comment that the article is riddled with problems that should have been fixed before posting. If you know attention to detail is a weakness of yours, you should have had someone check the article for MoS compliance before posting. Reviewers cannot be called upon to bring articles up to standard if they are not already when posted. This is why we have a hard time retaining reviewers - because frank and straightforward reviews are met with accusations of being harsh and unprofessional. I'm pretty disappointed. --Laser brain (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Laserbrain. We all can take and receive criticism. I helps all of us because some of us can see things that others can not and no one is helped if we just remain silent. My post was meant to help improve as I am sure Sandy's was also. A little more love on both sides might make the process more fun and tolerable for all! : ) NancyHeise ^talk 14:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my delay in responding to this post; I've been very busy on the home front.

I noted elsewhere that you mentioned that I don't like the word "The" in the article title;[7] please re-read my comments on the FAC and WP:MSH—the problem is with the inconsistent use of "The" in a few of the section headings. I did not object to the article title per se.

I also noted the comment on your talk page referring to a "few MoS errors";[8] the issues with this nomination were beyond MoS errors (which I tend to fix myself or note on the FAC as needing to be fixed).

I'm sorry the review felt "scathing" and "harsh" to you; it was not my intent to offend. I have not found that rudeness from reviewers is a serious or ongoing problem at FAC (although there are very definitely some rude reviewers), rather that reviewers are typically hard-working, conscientious and rarely thanked for their work. I do agree that the role of a leader should be to highlight problems: this ongoing problem of FAC being used as peer review for ill-prepared articles is a trend that is seriously demoralizing reviewers and impacting FA production. We have to be patient when inexperienced nominators put up FACs that require a lot of work; we can expect that experienced nominators have printed out and read their articles, looking for basics like punctuation at the end of sentences, sentence fragments, tone problems, inconsistencies in basic copyediting, and correct attribution of statements before they submit to FAC. Until/unless we stop this trend at FAC, reviewers will continue to give up, the page will continue to be backlogged with nothing that can be closed, and FA production will continue to be at all-time low levels because reviewers are demoralized and demonized. (After spending all day Saturday reading more than 50 FACs, I found two that could be promoted.) We need reviews that get the ill-prepared articles off the page sooner, put the burden back on the nominator to be sure the article is ready, and that encourage nominators to treat the process with greater respect, since it is volunteer reviewers who selflessly devote time to passing FACs. I hope this helps you understand the context of my concern about FAC; something must be done about the backlog at FAC and the impact of the page size on reviewers. If the work reviewers are having to put in to dragging articles up to standard line by line does not change, FA production will continue to be affected.

Again, I'm sorry if that feels harsh; I look forward to your continued participation at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

Xclamation point has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Thanks for all your hard work in helping Raul keep FAC running smoothly!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Quick vacation

I'll be out of town for a short period of time. Should be back late Tuesday night. I'll have intermittant internet access, hopefully. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Live with it, or leave it

• Ooops! I just now sent you an email with other info that may be more relevant! The stuff below is still true but is not as important as other things...
• See Live with it, or leave it Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Antoine Thompson

I have never had a FAC inspire so little interest. Why don't you close it so I can move on the the next FAC, which I am about to nominate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony, just a friendly suggestion, but the problem here may be "nominator fatigue". You've been a constant presence at FAC for a while now, and since so many of your more recent nominations have been archived, reviewers may be reluctant to take a look. Perhaps you could wait a few weeks before nominating an additional article? Karanacs (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

IPs at WT:FAC

I wanted to bring to your attention the recent editing of WT:FAC by IP 59.182.85.133 and IP 59.182.90.228. Both are from India and have recently been editing in support of Fowler, who works heavily with Indian articles and is from India. These IPs have no other contribs except for editing there, and have made it seem like they have accounts (Per here: "Logging in and editing has its benefits"). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, This is not the first time you have attempted to divine my national origin from the "areas of interest" on my user page. Please don't allow your vacuous grandiosity to mistake my tact in not arguing with you for tacit assent with your misguided pronouncements. Otherwise, I will have to request either Moni3 or Raul654 to take you out back to the woodshed for another talking to. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I am confident that a check user on you would reveal that you use a dialup service headquartered in Mumbai. The other results would be equally interesting. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Confident enough to agree to a three-month block on Wikipedia should you be proved wrong? If so, I will request user:YellowMonkey for the RFCU. You may have already violated some Wikipedia rules, but I will leave the admins to mull that over. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. Having users use IPs like that even if they aren't directly you is in violation, Fowler. On top of the many other problematic actions you've had lately definitely show that you are only here to disrupt. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Far be it for you to admit you lost your nerve after flubbing that one. In any case I've made a request on user:YellowMonkey's talk page; you can wax on there if you'd like, but this is the end of our exchange. For your information, the IPs (who I don't know) and I are not engaging in meatpuppetry of any kind. Goodbye. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

FA number

Sandy, User:Remember the dot changed up the code of WP:FA so that when you update the FA count, you edit Template:Number of featured articles, not the actual page. Just thought you'd want to know. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just left him a note, it broke stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

PS, Dabomb, you are DaBomb, never miss a thing. I'm going to be out tonight, in case you can follow up on this. WP:FA and WP:FAS are broken, and we want to update only one page when adding and removing FAs. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article statistics is fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, they're not fixed. One page says 2460, one page says 2464. I want manual control of that number; that's how I've kept it correct for three years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it the old school way too. Where does it say 2464? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

and both are wrong now, the correct number is 2464, and they both show 2460. The whole thing should be reverted, and anyone messing with FAs should first discuss on talk. I'm not going to be in all evening, but I don't want that number goofed after so many years of accuracy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the last accurate entry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and Category:Wikipedia featured articles is consistent with that. I'll get Gimmetrow for some help. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; yes, Gimme should be in on any change like this-- he's the man. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

RTD reverted his change. Hopefully things should be covered. Take care. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out how to use the API to count the number of featured articles. It seems highly unreliable to update the count by hand; one error in addition or subtraction and the count is incorrect. Any ideas on how to get an accurate number automatically? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The most reliable count (I think) is at Category:Wikipedia featured articles; of course, articles are only added to that category when their FA star is added. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. The API also says that there are 2,464 featured articles. So why would Category:Wikipedia featured articles be more accurate than Category:Featured articles? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's very accurate, because so many people check it after each change. I do not trust any auto tally, because they can all be easily broken and remain unchecked. I do not want anything auto. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Luddite. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a hack, but it allows people to reliably update the number with one edit. The category counts are unreliable, not just because of delays in updating, but because they are easy to change through talk page vandalism. (The category dabomb87 linked is the talk page category.) If you want to create a new template based on a category count, that's fine - when the counts are different it might alert people to talk page vandalism. Should someone put the page history back together? Gimmetrow 22:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll deal with it, and I'll add documentation too so that the purpose of {{FA number}} is clear. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(multiple ecs) FWIW, I just rechecked (as I periodically do) that the 2,464 count is consistent with the number of articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles, with the actual (not just the reported) number of articles in Category:Featured articles, and indeed with the number of articles carrying the star. RTD, category counts are unfortunately just not reliable, as changes are not instantly reflected. This is an often-reported issue at VPT; see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 50#Pages in categories not working like it should? for one instance. Maralia (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked these as well. For what it's worth here is the list of all the different versions of the FA number. Dr pda (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Source	Number	Notes
Last manual count of FAs	2464
Number of articles transcluding {{featured article}}	2464	After removing Chola Dynasty/sandbox
Number of articles in Category:Featured articles	2464	equals number transcluding {{featured article}} in article namespace
Text on Category:Featured articles page	2460	"The following 200 pages are in this category out of X total"
{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Featured articles}}	2460
Number of articles in Category:Wikipedia featured articles	2470
Text on Category:Wikipedia featured articles page	2464	"The following 200 pages are in this category out of X total"
{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Wikipedia featured articles}}	2471	Has 7 sub-categories, but also two pages in WP namespace

UNCATEGORICALLY, I do not want any auto tally implemented. There are too many ways for them to break. That number has to be accurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I get it, and I'm sorry for all the trouble I've caused. The template is back the way it was before, page history intact, and with documentation of the issue to boot.

Incidentally, on Wikipedia:Featured articles should we be quoting 2,804,628 as the number of articles on Wikipedia, or 6,436,635 ({{number of actual articles}})? The ratio of FAs to normal articles is not quite as bad as the page makes it out to be. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been covered many times at the talk page of WP:FA and by Raul; the number that is there is the number that should be there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I make it 0.09% whichever way you cut it. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's the difference between "one in 1,130" and "one in 1,070". —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Noel Coward

Hi, Sandy. We seem to have cleared all FA comments. Is there a minimum waiting time? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We promote/archive FA nominations twice a week (Tuesday and Sunday). This will get looked at tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a few comments to make there, I hope they are resolved before probable promotion tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I responded, as Coward might say, "with alacrrrrrrity". -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

PD review

See commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD_review. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Question on FAC

Hey Sandy, my name's Hunter Kahn. I'm not sure if you're the right person to ask about this, but since you passed my Sebastian Shaw (actor) FAC, I figure you can help me out with this one. I had nominated Tender Mercies for a FAC, and was in the process of making changes in response to the concerns and suggestions raised on the nom page. I made some changes on March 21, and then a few more suggestions were added. Some real life stuff came up and I wasn't able to work on it for a few days. To my surprise, when I went back in to look at the new suggestions, I found that the FAC had been failed on March 22. I'm not sure if this was a bot, or a conscious decision by you or someone else or what, but I was rather surprised it had been failed only one day after new suggestions were posted, especially considering I had been actively responding to and addressing the concerns that were coming up throughout the process. I was planning on nominating it again, but I wanted to check with you on whether I should do that, or whether the original nom can just be added back? Please let me know what you think... — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 05:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for why it was archived of course, but to answer your other question, it's generally good practice to leave it a couple of weeks before renominating. This might seem unfair, but it's not a slight against the article; it just helps to keep the backlog down somewhat if all nominators abide by it, no matter the reason for archiving. And if there are any outstanding issues listed on the FAC page, it gives you time to ensure they're taken care of beforehand. (When you do renominate, please ping me and I'll be happy to review; I would have done so the first time had I spotted it.) Steve ^{T • C} 08:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hunter, I took a look at the FAC and noticed that although you were working diligently on the oppose, there were no supports for the nomination at the time it was archived. I'd encourage you to contact the reviewers who commented and find out if there is anything else they'd like to see to make them willing to support. Sometimes that type of work can be enough to help you over the hump the next time you nominate the article (likely in several weeks). Karanacs (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hunter, in addition to the good advice from Steve and Karanacs, when a FAC has already run two weeks without gaining any Support, it usually has a better chance with a fresh start a few weeks later, after the nominator has a chance to make sure everything has been worked through and it can come back cleaner. Once it reaches the bottom of the page with long commentary, it's less likely to attract reviewer attention at a time when FAC is so backlogged. Be sure to work through any of the past commentary, recontact those reviewers, and bring it back in a few weeks. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

MOS

Thank you for your MOS audit and changes to the upcoming TFA. The oxen are happy also; now they can face into a solid wall of text, rather than getting spooked by looking out over the edge of the world. (I never knew the inward-facing thing applied to critters.) Regards, Kablammo (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There will be hell to pay if Wiki applies an unequal standard to the critters. Violent protests will erupt, covert cells will be activated, and bird and oxen defenders of the world will rise up to demand justice and equal treatment under MoS. Personal attacks and uncivil protest will prompt fearless admins to issue warnings; multiple ANI threads will result; and ArbCom runners-up will defend sensible editors who don't care where the oxen look. (Could be a plan to get The Fat Man in here.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What happens when the images are supposed to show lemmings? --Moni3 (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

They should be shown leaping towards the text and falling towards the References section, to prevent lemming jam buildup between the edge of the screen and the frame of the monitor (it's very sticky and can only be removed by using cotton buds). Alternatively use a digger to allow them to fall into a pit in which case some will be facing left and some right and the problem is solved. Yomangani^talk 13:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yo-man, you'd best get your beagles, lions, thylacines, and dog-o-nauts in order before someone else shows up to demand their full rights under MoS (in which case, you'd be in double trouble). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You know I can't contribute anything unless it meets my strict criteria. Yomangani^talk 16:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If I get the pattern, you still owe me a horse. (But it's hard to see the pattern with that water buffalo standing in the door of my tent, causing me to wonder which direction *I* should ... never mind.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Place lemmings on the floor of your tent to soak up any leakage. --Moni3 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I still owe you a horse? Didn't you get it? Oh,... it was delivered to Jack Woltz by mistake (amazing what we have articles for). Yomangani^talk 17:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no ... I did get that one (and put it to very good use, along with Moni's remote control). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe I understand the reason for policy (aided, in no small part, by wisdom from a former statesman): If there is a bovine standing in the door of your tent, it is better to have the creature looking in and pooping out, than looking out and pooping in. After all, contributions resulting from the latter event could well be redundant. Kablammo (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A Featured List (yes, List) Candidate question

Hi Sandy (and her talk-page stalkers), I don't think we've met before. Sorry to drag you into this, but an issue has arisen at this Featured List Candidate on whether it is acceptable to have ISO dates in references. I have referred to a comment of yours in this current FAC where you say that "ISO dates are used incorrectly throughout the citations"; something similar was said in this current FAC, where another reviewer said "You have a few accessdates that are in ISO format". Comments are being made in the FLC that there is nothing to prohibit the use of ISO dates in references in this way, so now I'm puzzled as to whether I have completely misunderstood the expectations at FAC. (If FAC wouldn't accept ISO dates in references, then I don't think FLC should, to avoid divergence in standards.) Any pearls of wisdom would be gratefully received. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 21:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm heading out, so don't have time to look at the links now, but ISO dates in citations are fine. The problem on the FAC I had noted was that ISO dates were entered as:

• 2009-3-25

when they should be entered as

• 2009-03-25

They were incorrectly formatted (meaning that if anyone ever had to run a bot on them in the future, it might not work). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

<Wipes egg off face> Thanks... Bencherlite^Talk 21:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. {{cite web}} says "date: Full date of publication in the same format as the main text of the article." So does {{cite book}} and a few other citation templates. Same with regards to the accessdates. I've been going by these instructions so if the dates in prose are "26 March 2009", references should also be formatted the same way. If the dates in a list use the ISO format, then ISO format in references is okay. In an article where no dates are given, you could use ISO. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Matthewedwards answer is more complete than my (hurried) answer above. In theory, date formats should match throughout the article. In practice, this isn't enforced (at FAC) because the cite templates are inconsistent (from one cite xxx template to the other) and constantly changing and frankly, a wreck. I don't expect nominators to put up with the vagaries of the cite templates; unless an article's date formatting is wildly inconsistent, I don't worry about it. If the cite and citation templates ever get their act together, this could be better enforced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I'll hold you to that if I ever come to FAC <spots pig with wings going past window>. Bencherlite^Talk 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology

Sandy, the article milestones show that this article was "not promoted" for FA. The FAC was "withdrawn", I thought that the article milestones differentiate between a candidate that is not promoted and one that is withdrawn. NancyHeise ^talk 23:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For articlehistory to reflect promoted, not promoted, or withdrawn would require a lot of large changes to the archiving and pr/ar process. The way it is reflected now is in the diff provided in the FAC (look at the actual FAC, the first line, and there's a diff at the end of the line ... click on that diff, it shows withdrawn). The last time I checked on The Ten Commandments talk page, I saw a lot of productive work underway; I hope things are progressing nicely there. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bloch 2008

Alas, I don't have easy access to Bloch 2008 (PMID 18627671). You can check WorldCat for the nearest library to you that has it; see OCLC 264622818. Current Psychiatry Reports is a relatively new journal, and WorldCat lists only 25 libraries in the world that subscribe to it. Sigh. Maybe you could write to Bloch directly for a copy?

(Hmm, maybe we should be putting OCLC numbers in our citations too? Why have just PMID and DOI, when we could have OCLC too? :-) Eubulides (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be up at Yale next week ... I'll drop by the Child Study Center and ask for a copy if I get time. I think we would need to ask Diberri if he can add OCLCs to the template filler? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Too bad about the GPS. Shoot, and I was going to ask you whether you'd heard anything new in their pipeline. (I liked their just-published paper (PMID 19329996) on autism and biological motion.) Next time, bring a homing pigeon? Eubulides (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hide and show in infoboxes

Hi Sandy.  :-)

Wikipedia has the following guideline: "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable in infoboxes and navigation boxes, but should never be used in the article prose or references, because of issues with readability, accessibility, and printing."[9] Do you know the rationale? At my talk page, User:GTBacchus asked me about it, because of a proposal that he and I are considering.[10] Thanks for any info, either here or at my talk page. TGIF!!!!Ferrylodge (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: GTBacchus has started a thread about it here at the Manual of Style talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how else to state it other than what is already stated: they don't mirror (on mirror sites) and they don't print. I personally detest them in articles; anything important enough to be included in an article should not be hidden in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies! And for visiting the seamy underside of Wikipedia.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

How kind of you to take me to those places. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C) 22:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by nomination at FAC

FYI: This just popped up, but was not transcluded to WP:FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/World War II. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out; I'll take care of it (if someone isn't already beating me to it as I type). Maralia (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I went ahead and deleted the redirect after you moved the nom so the link will be red for when it really is time for that FAC. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheater; I was still typing out a {{db-g6}} reason :D Maralia (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Work and publisher

I remember, during one of my FACs, you pointed out that its redundant to add MTV Networks as the publisher to MTV. The same concern has been raised at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one albums of 2008 (U.S.)/archive1, and I would like to get your input. Thanks, Sandy. Always, Efe (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispatches

Of course, whatever you think best. Pushing back publication by 12 or 14 hours is also not a problem, if you think that might make the difference.--ragesoss (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC

Thank you for the invitation, Sandy. I'll try to review an article in the next couple of days. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I advertise for a darn interesting article on Murray Chotiner?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky

Thanks very much for your help with this article. Could you do me a(nother?) favor? Could you look over the sections "Mature composer," "Homosexuality" and "Life and turmoil in music" and let me know whether there is too much information included? Originally the two latter were one section but after I added the big Wiley quote yesterday, the section seemed too big, so I split it. My concern is, for all the attempts at balance, whether there is now too much material or that "less would be more." Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, it is indeed what you are thinking. The questionable images have been removed, and if verified to be public domain are added back. Jappalang (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Nevado

Once again, Sandy, I am in your debt. In the future I will contact Awickert to see if my articles are comprehensive enough. Thanks again, Ceranthor 23:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Now you have some very good contacts for future peer review ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, yes I do. Ceranthor 23:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"Literature"

Did you know that the word "literature" defines all published sources? I've always been told that literature encompasses books and formal papers only — apparently, that's far from the truth. — Deckiller 01:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly didn't know that. I learned something new today! :D Master&Expert (Talk) 02:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispatch

Since there was no dispatch this week, how about using Template talk:FAC? Gimmetrow 22:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I can look at it when I'm home in a couple of hours ... will ask Ragesoss if he can hold off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Holding. It looks like it's still in rough shape.--ragesoss (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked Maralia to have a look; I should be home in a few hours, and will let you know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

To butt in since I never caught wind of this before: the only change is that even successful FA noms will have an /archive nomenclature, correct? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if we stick with the /archiveN form, all nominations will have that. Something about this should run next week. Gimmetrow 01:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of a Dispatches, I'm putting this story in News and notes, with a link to Template talk:FAC User talk:Gimmetrow/FAC.--ragesoss (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Got a ton of edit conflicts on this; 'my' version is posted at User:Maralia/FAC template dispatch. Maralia (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

oops ! OK, what should we do? Do you want to look over my changes, incorporate to yours, and use yours? I like your bolding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I like your history and interim sections, and the restructuring. I'll work on incorporating those at my version and see what we come up with. Maralia (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait for you, then, so we don't ec. Let me know... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already published, but if you feel this merits a full Dispatches, we can run it next week. It seems like a relatively minor change, though. It is, of course, related to featured content, but beyond a brief description of the new archive format, I don't think it will be of interest to more than a handful of readers. Just my two cents. --ragesoss (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Allright, yes, sorry we missed the deadline. I can't find the link in News and notes? Do we need to update it to Maralia's version? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with edits at User:Maralia/FAC template dispatch (both my and Sandy's changes). Maralia (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-03-30/News_and_notes#FAC_rolls_out_uniform_archiving_system. Feel free to change the link to point where-ever (and update the attribution in that section if you think more than Gimmetrow should be credited).--ragesoss (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Maralia, your version looks good now. Can you move that to a better name (maybe WP:FCDW/FACRollout, link it to the Signpost News and notes, and we'll also use it for a Dispatch next week maybe ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the talk page of my subpage to Template talk:FAC. I will delete my subpages eventually. Gimmetrow 02:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC) I have to go for a while. Gimmetrow 03:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved and linked at News. Rewrote the section, too, as it described it as a new 'archiving system' when it's more like a new 'never-archiving system'. Please doublecheck there to make sure I've not botched anything. Maralia (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Except, see the note at User talk:Gimmetrow; I think you still have to delete the Article/archive (it goes straight to archive1). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I do think we should still run it as a Dispatch next week, so we'll have it in one place to reference in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Now this should make manual updates a lot easier for ArticleHistory after FACs close ... Gimmetrow 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't taken a breather yet to sort out what any of this means or how it is used. Maybe it will sink in tomorrow, when I think about what else needs updating (Template:FAC-instructions isn't quite right yet, they can't just copy the nom in now, they need to sub archive N). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

[11] That was never a copy-and-paste; the article name had to be changed too. But notice there is a nice copy-paste version in the {{Featured article candidates}} until the subpage is created. Gimmetrow 03:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)