User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 15

Address formatting
I put why directions should be abbreviated on the talk page for Streets and Highways in Chicago, but I'll paste it here so you don't have to click:


 * ==Formatting street names and addresses within articles==
 * When reporting Chicago street addresses on Chicago pages here on Wikipedia, please don't spell out North, South, East or West. Just type N., S., E. or W. We have a few streets, like North Avenue, East End Avenue, South Shore Drive, and South Chicago Avenue, that have direction words within their names, so they need to have their name spelled out for contrast. This is also useful to distinguish buildings with address-like names, such as 900 North Michigan and One North LaSalle, from actual addresses.


 * Most streets in the city have a stable position in the numbering system; for example, Fullerton Avenue is "2400 North". "Diagonals" are those streets which don't have such a position for all or some of their lengths. However, the addresses along a diagonal are given as being N., S., E. or W, not as NW or some such. Diagonals keep their cardinality for their entire lengths, with the exceptions of Ogden Avenue and Archer Avenue, which change from N to W and from S to W, repectively.


 * Please always report and spell out the words Avenue, Street, Boulevard, Drive, Road, Place, Court, Park, Parkway, Highway, etc. Give numbered streets as 13th or 53rd, etc, rather than Thirteenth or Fifty-third. There is no need for superscripting, however.


 * Finally, always describe a street from North to South and from West to East rather than radiating out from the Loop, unless you are describing its known growth history. Speciate 23:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:CUR-CHICOTW
I reverted the last edits to the template. We have been hashing it out for months, especially with the guys at T:TDYK, what is a palatable template for the WP:CHICOTW. This has been the compromise resulting from months of debate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 03:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. When I performed the edit, the template appeared on both the article page (linked from DYK at the time) and the talk page.   I simultaneously removed it from the former.
 * 2 Please direct my attention to the months of debate. (I don't know what talk pages/archives to check.)  I did read the discussion at Template talk:CUR-CHICOTW, which consists of two editors (with whom I agree) opining that the template doesn't belong in articles and you disagreeing (without explaining what sets it apart from the similar templates used by many other WikiProjects).  —David Levy 03:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am having trouble finding any of the other debates. They probably mostly occurred on T:TDYK pages.  The long and the short of it was that I had been using an extremely large template with lots of links that violated WP:ASR.  I have toned down the template quite a bit over time so that it can remain on the both the article and talk pages while a WP:CHICOTW.  I use to have a long explanatory note while it was on the article page and fight about its removal while linked to the main page.  I have even added a note to feel free to remove it while it is linked to the main page (like you did yesterday).  I noticed you had removed it while on the main page, but just felt you were doing it because it was on the main page.  Now, it seems like you are questioning its use on the article page at all.  The reason for the debate is that the collaboration has been a regular WP:DYK contributor as you can see here.  After a few DYKs it became a regular debate between me and DYK administrators.  I first tried an explanatory comment on the article page below the template.  Then, I tried changing the template gradually.  Now it has been a few months since it has been a problem at WP:DYK.  If you want to formally rehash the debate we can begin a new thread in a proper location for archival purposes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. I didn't even notice that the article was linked from DYK until after I removed it from the article and switched it to the talk page style. What I noticed was that it appeared on both the article page and the talk page and that there was no consensus at Template talk:CUR-CHICOTW to deviate from the standard practice of placing WikiProject tags on articles' talk pages.
 * 2. Before we begin a new debate, perhaps you could explain how this template differs from that of the other WikiProjects? In other words, what special circumstance justifies this deviation?  —David Levy 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, WP:CHICOTW is the only WP:CO that focuses on redlinks and stubs. Thus, it is the only collaboration that rightly should have a Category:Articles actively undergoing construction type template.  All of our collaborations should warn the reader that the article will likely be a different resource at the end of the week than at the beginning.  Instead of cleaning up an article we take nothing and turn it into something.  The last three collaborations were 2 redlinks and a redirect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand. I've replaced the icon to better illustrate the tag's purpose.  I also split it into separate styles for the article and talk namespaces.  (The usage remains the same.)  —David Levy 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tremendous work. You seem to be a template expert.  Would you know anything about creating a new template for infant birth date and age like I have been requesting at Template_talk:Age_in_years_and_days?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know someone who's better at that sort of thing than I am. I'll direct him to your request.  —David Levy 20:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the referral. I was about to look for help at the Help desk.  I have been talking to people at Birth date and age and Age in years and days talk pages and the leading editor of User current age.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My friend has informed me that he's too busy to help out at the moment, so I'll try to do it myself. —David Levy 21:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that the syntax is too complex for me to grasp. —David Levy 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

CHICOTW
I'll get the Burge article started this evening. Speciate 18:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

CHICOTW Template
I don't recall that it was ever discussed in depth. I opposed its use in main space (and still do) at the Template talk page and once at DYK. I think a few editors have voiced their disapproval at DYK besides me, yet the project continues to insist on using it in mainspace. You should learn to pick your battles, this one isn't worth it. IvoShandor 23:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have, and I still oppose its use as an egregious violation of WP:ASR. There isn't any reason why the Underconstruction cannot be used, its non-specific and doesn't advertise a WikiProject. Do what you want, I am not going to argue with you about as you have already demonstrated unwillingness to listen to any opnion other than your own on the matter. IvoShandor 23:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said I opposed underconstruction, I have suggested it to you countless times. If you ask me, on this matter you have ignored pretty vehement opposition to the template's use from multiple parties. If you haven't ignored, please, do explain then why the template is still used in mainspace. IvoShandor 23:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I can. Simple. The complaints were about using it mainspace, at least from me, and a few editors at DYK, it is still used in mainspace, it still advertises the CHICAGO project. How is that addressing the complaints? IvoShandor 23:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, I am not really worried about the template, it is a battle I would rather not fight, but you asked. Keep up the Chicago related work. Thanks for the congrats. IvoShandor 23:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyway, you know how I feel about it, so I'd rather not discuss it unless the discussion is about its discontinuation. About DYK discussion, I really think they should archive suggestions and the lengthy discussions that sometimes ensue (especially considering the suggestions page is a talk page), just because, but whatever. IvoShandor 23:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Undercon vs ChiCOTW template
Well, I thought we would catch a lot of flak flying low, so I headed above the clouds on this one. I put a mention of WikiProject Chicago in the excluded text area so that anybody who tries to edit it will see. Should I remove the under construction template? Speciate 00:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, between when editing. I'm trying to figure out a way to achieve our goal of informing interested people that the page is being worked on by WikiProject Chicago, but without getting our collective butts reamed out by the folks at DYK. Speciate 00:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to stop editing for a bit, the internet connection here is flaking out and I lost a few edits, most annoying. What do you think of the article so far? Speciate 00:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I don't mind the header. I used .gov citations for starters, because if the Illinois General Assembly votes to condemn him as a torturer, then we have cover. Speciate 00:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot
The bot's been blocked due to its' malfunctioning during my brief absence. As I've mentioned before, I'm rewriting large portions, so I'm leaving it blocked until I can finish up the rewrite. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I'll try to have it back on line asap. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Award
Thanks for the award! I only have about 1400 more articles to rate (out of well over 6000 when I started), so I am trying to get this done quickly to get on to my next project which I have neglected. You should see another 1000 or so Chicago articles become rated or if they are rated already, they will at least get the importance added. Thanks again!--Kranar drogin 19:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

DYKs
And to answer your question, ideally those bottom two should come close to lining up, though it doesn't have to be perfect. that And may I point out that it's not recommended to throw in your own articles if there are still other options. That's no biggie though. -- Wizardman 19:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm rootin' for ya!
I'm a die-hard Braves fan (in fact, despite my deep love of sports- so much so that I'm attempting to make them my profession- they are the only pro team to whom I am particularly loyal), I have to say: GO CUBBIES!!!! I don't really care who wins the Series, unless it ends the suffering of Cubs fans everywhere. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And for you
Thanks for the lots of barnstars award, I guess I do have quite a few, I didn't get a single one the first 6 months I contributed however, it wasn't until I got involved with GA and DYK that people started noticing my efforts. Some of them are kind of obscure, after all. Thanks again, and disagreements happen, I confine them to the issue, not the editor. :)IvoShandor 23:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy Building
I'm surprised that you simply reverted my removal of some of the pictures from this article without addressing my concerns on the talk page. I simply don't see how having so many modern pictures is relevant on an article about the building that used to stand on the same site. I'm always happy to discuss issues, and I'll gladly back down if you make a good case, but please engage in discussion first. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony. Thanks for comments on this one - I've replied at Talk:McCarthy Building. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

GAC expedited evaluation
I suppose you could spam reviewer talk pages and hope someone bites. I'm on a break from GA, so I'm not doing any reviews. Sorry.  Lara  ❤  Love  18:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

LOTD
I'm all for FLs on the main page, but I'm looking at your proposal and I go "What where you thinking??" I mean, you do realize that the prose there is comparable in length to the total prose involved with the Featured article/list/topic/sound processes combined?

Seriously, in my opinion, something as simple as a mix of main page requests and the Wiktionary DYK-like Featured word candidates should be more than enough. Given the actual hassle of update work involved (image checks, talk page updates, logs update etc.), only a small posse of editors will end up doing all the work anyway. Circeus 19:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the discussion should be about making sure the blurb is best, the order not repetitive, special events are matched with lists etc. than a vote of the type used for collaboration of the month. The least basic structure there is at¸the start, the smoother it'll get rolling. Circeus 19:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that the complexity of the process lost me. My first reaction is that we currently have barely more than a year's worth of FLs so why do we need a vote at all? I know that will change eventually but... My second feeling is that I remain unconvinced that most FL's are MainPage-worthy. Combine the two and the obvious solution is to go for a weekly appearance. I think the mechanism used for creating a snippet on the Featured Content page is clever and adequate but probably not good enough for MainPage. That means work is needed to produce a good mainpage snippet.

My recommendation is to greatly simplify the vote and request only a weekly appearance for now. But first, we'd need to present perhaps 5-10 decent FL snippets for people to view in order to judge whether they want this sort of thing on the main page at all. If a trial goes ahead, I'm sure the software guys can then present stats to show what the click-through rate is and see whether FLs justify their presence on the main page. Colin°Talk 20:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This version is certainly more straightforward. However, I would advise against pushing the LOTM/LOTY idea simultaneously since we have no guarantee that LOTD will work out to begin, and I suspect a LOTM/Y process would meet opposition on the same ground that the idea applied to FAs do. Besides, LOTD has a much more important impact than the "sideline" proposed LOTM (which is not expected to come along). On another matter, WP:LOTD alone will do fine as a shortcut, since this will be moved directly to Featured list of the day with a proposal tag. It's the usual way to go about it unless a name is not settled for the proposed process. Circeus 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Burge citations
Do we need more citations, or to just apply some of the ones we already have? Speciate 19:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll just move the ones we already have up there. I mean, it goes without saying he was doing to gain confessions, right? Speciate 19:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I will. Speciate 19:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations added. Speciate 20:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

GAN
I've not been as successful as you (but I'm trying to catch up!), and have had 14 GANs that successfully became GAs. For your GAN, I don't know what to do, except directly ask some editor to review it. I'm not doing GANs right now, as I'm focusing on the current sweeps. I think the sweeps have directed a lot of the usual GAN reviewers away from GAN, so I think that's one of the reasons for the large backlog. Considering the medal, I think it can go to anybody that is involved with the GA process, so you can award it to someone that has improved many GAs, reviewed lots of articles, provided a great review, helped to clear a backlog, etc. Let me know if you have any further questions, but I'm going to be away from my computer for the majority of the day. --Nehrams2020 19:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lists get removed?
The bot seems to have removed the Lists from the log. Can it be made to recognize lists? Speciate 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as you are aware of it. We have way too much to deal with, huh? Speciate 20:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe later. Since I added the category to almost all the pages, and Ssilver changed things, between us we have the articles in our watchlists for the time being. Speciate 20:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Age for infant template
No, I simply changes a bunch of 1s to 3s and 3s to 1s. The extra space seems to have been added in this edit, with the addition of a linebreak between the and the at the very bottom. I've fixed it for you. Anomie 21:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

heller house
Did you remove the inhabitants section of the heller house article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pndan88 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC) --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 05:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he probably did considering it was unsourced, unencyclopediac nonsense. Leave it be. IvoShandor 23:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about "Currently, a dog named Isabel lives in the house. Also a cat named Dogberry lives there. And a parrot named Tenzing.", I confess. I removed it as unsourced trivia. If it is notable and sourced add it back.  What do you think Ivo is this good info? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 05:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, sure it is. ;) Best info ever. IvoShandor 05:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. "Move along people, there is nothing to see here..."--Kranar drogin 05:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Marathon
At a glance there doesn't seem to be any info about how and why it was started, but I don't know if that will affect its GAC. I wouldn't cross your fingers about it being reviewed before Sunday but I agree with VanTucky, not sure that it matters. IvoShandor 23:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We have a list of Chicago-related articles by size
User:Betacommand made us a list of Chicago-related articles by size. It holds much useful information. I had to trim the list of categories a bit, so we have "only" 7109 articles in the list. Perhaps some of the longer articles could be nominated for GA as is? Speciate 05:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK participation list
I am not sure if you are aware of User:Anonymous Dissident/List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs, it is pretty active and involves all of the most prolific DYK contributors, not sure how many you have but you may qualify for inclusion. IvoShandor 11:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Expedited GAC on Chicago Marathon
Hi Tony,

I've seen your message on the expedited GA on that article, and had a quick glance at it. Whilst not having time to do a full review (small matter of England beating Australia in the Rugby World Cup), the first glance would make me put the GA nomination on hold, at the very least.

A couple of things that stood out are:
 * I'd put History section first, before the statistics;
 * Be consistent with caps on Marathon - my opinion would be to have caps where the marathon is associated with a city (ie Chicago Marathon), but not otherwise. The article as it stands mixes and matches between the two;
 * It looked like there was some info in the lead that wasn't in the main body, although I could have just not noticed it in my quick scan.... the bit about not having entrance requirements? As I say, could be wrong there;
 * Single years, on their own, shouldn't be wikilinked;
 * Prose - there were a few sentences I had to stare at for a long time before working out what they meant, and a few really long sentences that should be split up. You also need to do your own quick scan, as there seems to be a bit of odd punctuation in there, and some odd sentence structures.

That was just from a couple of quick reads, without concentrating or looking up the facts - as I said, if I was doing a review, it'd be on hold at the least, if not a fail. Normally, I'd fix the obvious prose/grammar/punctuation/MoS problems myself, but the rugby got in the way ;) Carre 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

age for infant
Hey, Tony. helped me out a bit with the template and came up with a shorter, much simpler version. It's, as far as I've seen, bug-free. The new syntax is "" It no longer has a one or over parameter, as it now actually calculates the age of the infant and returns a result based on it, in years/months, months/days, etc. I've updated all usages of the template so that it doesn't display strangely on the pages where it's transcluded. Cheers, ( ar  ky  ) 23:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Disambig Chicago pages
Just wanted to let you know that you don't have Disambig set up as a valid class. See Talk:Western (CTA) as an example. You may want to do this so they don't show up as unassessed.--Kranar drogin 02:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have finished assessing Illlinois articles, and Chicago unassessed has dropped dramatically also down to 3,900 unassessed. I took Illinois from about 6,400 unassessed, to 2 (and those are the FL's that we don't have set up yet). I just wanted to let you know that I am done for now. Questions or comments on how I assessed stuff, let me know.--Kranar drogin 21:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

FL on main page
You must hate my guts, I am not trying to tell you that you are doing something wrong on Jon Burge, I just think that needs to be much clearer. As for the FL thing, I am not sure where I stand on that, I would like to see what evolves through discussion before I make my opinion known on that issue. At a glance it seemed like a lot of text and procedure, perhaps trim it a bit, I don't think that an FL on the main page is an inherently bad idea or anything, it might be a good one. IvoShandor 20:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me know where you go with this, I am apt to comment on that page soon. IvoShandor 20:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note, I don't always tell you you're wrong, we just butt heads sometimes. At DYK I hardly ever comment on your noms as they are solid most of the time, congrats on 25 btw! You should move yourself up in the list, it goes numerically by most to least I think. IvoShandor 20:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am going to keep blathering on and on, I am interested in some future collaboration btw Illinois and Chicago, we are soon to be revamping the IL project and I think it would be great if the two projects could work together closely. I will have more details and ideas as the revamping progresses, right now we are conducting a membership census, after that things will get rolling. IvoShandor 20:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Haystacks
Hi Tony. I altered the sentence I think you were referring to, and included a reference--it's not a great sentence, but it's something. Thanks for contacting me. If I have time I will look at the article again later. Kudos on all the hard work. Cheers, JNW 17:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony, You've done a terrific job there, I'm not sure what I could add. I'll take another look when I get the chance. Maybe a little later today. Thanks - Modernist 18:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Though I've hardly earned it, thank you for the Chicago honor! I visited twice, many years ago, and practically camped out for days at the Art Institute. A great town. I will see what I can find for reference on the 1888 paintings. Thank you, JNW 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's my inexpert opinion: I think you're okay with the two additions to the 1888 paintings, but I'm suspicious of the most recent three to the main gallery. It appears that some or all are duplicates of works already in the gallery. It's hard to know for sure, because the colors reproduce so differently, and in one case, the image looks severely distorted. This is partly because they come from a commercial web site which is selling copies, so they don't tend to be reliable for image quality. But I do think there's reason to doubt them. JNW 20:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have removed them, but I'd rather give you a heads-up first...I try to only do rapid reverts on vandalism, not on good contributors:) JNW 20:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

One more thought occurred to me: It requires commitment to begin and continue an article on a subject that might be new territory, and humility to consistently seek the advice of others. My compliments to you. JNW 16:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I will look at the article again, but it might not be until tomorrow or Friday. Best, JNW 21:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ABChelicopter view of Pritzker Pavilion.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ABChelicopter view of Pritzker Pavilion.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 11:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

LOTD
Village pump is a good place to go, I don't know how popular all the talk about voting will be, make sure you keep in mind that there have only been 401 Featured Lists in 2½ years.IvoShandor 21:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good promotion rate, I would post it wherever you think it's most relevant, the FL page, the village pump and probably the main page talk. I like the idea except for the contest for LOTY. And I wonder where we will fit this in on the Main Page. IvoShandor 21:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree, in general with comments above that call for a weekly Main Page FL rather than daily. IvoShandor 21:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about worthy of featuring, but keep this modest, too much initially is likely to detract from your purpose. As for the other comment on limiting discussion, you can, of course, say whatever you want, but if you don't compromise on it you will find it very quickly tagged as rejected. Remember, no consensus=rejected when it comes to policy proposals. IvoShandor 21:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Quit bothering me about this, I am not going to argue with you, if you didn't want my opinion, you shouldn't have asked for it. IvoShandor 21:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ABChelicopter view of Pritzker Pavilion.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:ABChelicopter view of Pritzker Pavilion.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal
Tony,

I've moved the Survey/Discussion to the talk page. I think the main page should focus on the proposed procedure rather than become a discussion page itself. Can I suggest that IMO it is way too early to call a survey (support/oppose). I recommend you remove that section ASAP. This will free the discussion from becoming polarised. When it appears the proposal is heading somewhere positive, then call a survey to gauge the opinion. Colin°Talk 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have some fixed goals: It must (initially) be


 * daily,
 * democratic (voting),
 * formatted per FC.

Perhaps you should say so on the talk page. So which bit do you want discussion on? The voting procedure? Or is that another fixed goal in that you would prefer we ran with the given procedure and changed it if required?

Too many fixed points and it will fail because you won't get everyone to fully agree to them all. To many discussion points and there is a danger it gets bogged down. But there are ways to prevent that and keep the discussion focussed (perhaps by setting a time limit).

BTW: Go through your proposal and remove all the FAC references that have been left from when this was a FAC proposal (mainly the table). Colin°Talk 16:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your proposal - we have some awfully good lists that would never qualify as featured articles, and there is no reason why they should not enjoy their day in the sun on the main page - but a monthly voting process is not a solution. As a first step, I would suggest that you try to obtain some consensus for including featured lists on the main page, in some form, before deciding how it should be done. -- !! ?? 19:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, none of the content of the main page is currently chosen through a monthly voting process. I dread to think how TFA would work without Raul654's input; individual admins decide what to put in ITN and DYK (with input from the community); and OTD is a mystery to me :) But I see no precedent for the sort of system you are proposing.  As I said above, a first step would be to demonstrate some consensus for featured lists to appear on the main page. -- !! ?? 19:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that featured lists cannot appear on the main page - quite the opposite: the featured content portal demonstrates how it can work - just that I am not convinced that your proposal is the way to achive that result. Some consensus building, that featured lists should appear on the main page in some form, would be the way to go, in my opinion.  Worth what you paid for it, of course.  -- !! ?? 20:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS
Is it really necessary to spam all those user talk pages? GDonato (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Next time when getting the word out about a proposal of yours, list it on Goings-on or on the community portal, rather than doing this to a hundred or more users' talk pages . ~  Sebi   [talk] 01:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, the count was about 40 (about 80 edits because of an omitted piece of information). Secondly, FYI, I had posted at 5 logical locations for this topic:
 * Featured content talk page
 * Main page talk page
 * Featured list candidates talk page
 * Featured lists talk page
 * Village pump (proposals)

After about 5 or 6 hours with no responses I decided to just go down the featured list log and notify recent (Sept and Oct) nominators of featured list candidates and closers of featured list discussions because they would be interested in the topic. WRT, WP:CANVASS this clearly passes 3 of th 4 criteria and likely passes the 4th. I.e, it is transparent, neutral and non-partisan. The only question is whether it is excessive cross-posting. In this issue the question is who are involved editors. I could have sent messages to all persons who have participated in FLC discussions. However, the people who are most involved in FL content are those who nominate the articles and those who close the debates. I am considering doing June, July and August this afternoon with this in mind. I am not sure what the community portal is and don't believe proposals are properly listed at goings-on.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Asking only/mainly those who have nominated Featured Lists for their opinion on whether their work should be on the main page, is biased. It would be like asking members of the TV episode WikiProject about Fair Use of TV screenshots :-). If you want the survey to answer the question "Should FLs appear on the main page?" then you will have to ask elsewhere too. Here is the Community Portal. I suggest that posting on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates would be another suitable choice. Colin°Talk 15:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Far from "starting the opposition movement", I've been trying to advise you on how to get a proposal to be approved. Against my advice, you have gone straight to a "survey/vote" rather than a period of discussion. Against my (and others) advice, you have gone for an "accept this proposal or nothing" stance. On the proposal page, I've remained neutral on whether FLs should go on the main page or not. IMO, if you don't compromise on the procedure, this proposal will fail.
 * The Main Page belongs to the whole of WP. Unless you can show that "FLs on the Main Page" has widespread community approval (i.e., not just FL creators) then it won't be accepted. I didn't say FL creators would "blindly vote for your proposal". In fact Spangineer is the loudest voice against main page. If there is a hint that the "poll" isn't neutral, then it may be rejected. If you are seeking contributors, it is up to you to ensure widespread involvement. Colin°Talk 16:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we will have to agree to disagree then. My opposition to voting isn't because I don't believe in democracy. There are practical reasons I think it won't work, and I don't want a two-tier FL status that voting would create. IMO, the FLC need to be tightened to ensure all FLs are Main-Page-worthy. I have no ideas at present on how to do that. I'm sorry you don't want to compromise on the method, because this may become another lost chance to get FLs on the main page. Colin°Talk 16:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured lists
I missed in your message where the discussion was going on about adding featured lists to the front page. GreenJoe 20:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I enthusiastically endorse your proposal. I think it's a great idea, and it is long over due. Thanks for doing the leg work on this. Are you an admin yet? GreenJoe 20:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. Agreed, I endorse your proposal as well.  However, an element of caution should be used, some of the featured lists, while fulfilling the criteria, aren't "great reading" which is something we need to consider for the new people finding the Main Page for the first time.  But let me know if I can help in any way.  The Rambling Man 18:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this would be a great idea but have you spoken to Raul about it. Buc 19:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: stolen code
Don't worry, I tried to count all your GAs and lost count, so you're not doing too bad! CloudNine 21:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

heller house revisited
Mr TonyTheTiger I am sorry to inform you, but I know a little more about the Heller House considering I am living there right now. I would like an apology for being accused of vandalism. sincerely Pndan88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pndan88 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Haystacks
Congratulations Tony, well deserved, you worked hard on the article. Thank you for the template. Modernist 21:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK
There's a definite dearth of illustrations in the latest batches of hooks, so thanks for your suggestion :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Wildenstein Index Number, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 19:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the message you left at User_talk:IvoShandor
Just in case you didn't know User:IvoShandor has left Wikipedia, and so will be unable to answer your message. F  9  T  13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there is a note on their main user page, showing that they have left, also note everyone trying to get them back. F   9  T  14:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

73 HR's
Hi. I placed the 73 HR's on the Barry Bonds page and the 2001 San Francisco Giants season page. The Barry Bonds page is pretty cluttered so a separate table with a link could have merit. On the Giants season page, I would leave it because it adds something nice to the article. Maple Leaf 20:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Vi Daley
I have no information on Alderman Daley or IvoShandor, and I'm super busy at work this week. All I can do is use the internet to research Vi. Speciate 21:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

South Side FAC
Thanks for the replies. I have to run right now, but I'll look through the changes later. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  18:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Signature
Hi. Your doing a a great job, and I see you have some DYK nods above this. My attention was drawn to your signature. I'm just having a hard time understanding how it is helpful. Would you consider changing it and requesting speedy deletion of User:TonyTheTiger/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM? With warm regards, M er cury    01:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And some FA's Ga's I'm impressed. M er cury   01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think WP:CSD applies to user space. I have been over signature policies several times and am within the proscribed policy guidelines.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct with regards to the signature guidelines. WP:CSD will apply to your userspace if you request it.  I just did not believe that was the type of page we wanted our new users to go to if they were to click that part of you signature.  Would you consider requesting deletion?  Very respectfully,  M er cury    17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you are saying that I may volunteer to speedy delete my own userspace pages. However, it seems that such a page can not be deleted against my consent.  I would change my signature if I had a different role other than as director of WP:CHICAGO.  However, that seems to be my primary role these days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

FL new proposal
I didn't "oppose" because I'd rather there wasn't a vote at this stage. As I suggested when you first launched your proposal, I'd prefer to have a period of discussion, we establish some goals, and folk come up with a variety of solutions that people can decide on. I fear we will swing from one proposal that required lots of human effort to one that requires none but neither meet the goals we probably all share. Colin°Talk 22:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

CHICOTW
Whatever you need, I will watch it for you. Do you want me to nominate something, I was thinking maybe something architectural, Frank Lloyd Wright maybe, there are a few Chicago articles on some of his buildings that need some expanding. Thoughts? IvoShandor 00:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Lee Smith FAC
I have replied to your comments here. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The date has been added. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I replied to your comments here. I fixed teh date. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Re; DYK update
Sorry. I'm stepping out the door. Hope you can find another admin to do the update. &mdash; User: (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK October 20
In case the above messages weren't obvious, I updated the template per your request.-Andrew c [talk] 22:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

73 HR
Hi there. I looked over the page as you instructed and I feel that I followed the guidelines. I did list references and I feel I did everything right. Can you please be more specific as to what needs to be done to improve it? Maple Leaf 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

South Side
Wow, the one edit is huge. What's wrong with it, not enough citations?

As for the boundary between the white (SW Side) and black (S Side) areas, I think that the Encyclopedia of Chicago author was being very careful to avoid the use of race. Those tracks don't stay along Western far enough south; I looked on a map. I would say the best course of action is to drop the whole issue, Chicagoans only care about where the racial boundaries are, and the map we have on the page is good enough for that. Speciate 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How long do I have? I'm super busy. Speciate 18:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Homewood, Illinois
Ok, I have added in the geobox2 for Homewood, Illinois, and I have put a request in for your track about creating a geobox for race tracks in general. If not, I will get a generic one that we could use for it to have a map on there.

I also would like to bring something up with you that I have been meaning too. Since these geoboxes have become very efficient in their use now, I would like to see if you would like to change the ones that Cook County and some of the surrounding communities use, to the geobox. I don't think it would include the population breakdown, but really, in an infobox this isn't needed. It could maybe be worked in with the "free" fields though. Let me know one way or another.--Kranar drogin 23:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I gave it a shot with Harvey, Illinois. I am not sure I like that second map being in there, so I removed it (check out the history to see what I mean if you want). Let me know what you think of this. With the state map, it shows you where the city is located, just not the land area like your other map provided. We could include them, but it might just make the geobox too big. You will also notice I include a link to Commons for the city, so once pics are uploaded over there they will appear in that link. Thoughts? Questions? let me know.--Kranar drogin 01:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lets take this discussion over to Harvey, Tony. That way we aren't going back and forth here.--Kranar drogin 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Man Enters the Cosmos
Man Enters the Cosmos is certainly an interesting article, but I can't promote it yet. Since I'm not sure if these can be addressed in 7 days, I've decided to post here before putting the nomination on hold.
 * 1) It's probably something that needs a lot of discussion from a wikiproject group, but in template infoboxes, I'm used to seeing the name of the subject in a slightly larger font at the very top. Why does the sculpture infobox not follow this convention? And while we're at it, why use an image with caption when in most infoboxes, the caption is an optional argument?
 * 2) "Man Enters the Cosmos is a cast bronze sculpture by Henry Moore located on Lake Michigan lakefront" Shouldn't that be "on the Lake Michigan lakefront"?
 * 3) "Moore's sculpture is in the form of a functional bowstring..." This is wordy.
 * 4) You say the sculpture was moved. Why? When? Who did the move? Where there any complications? When you say slightly further south, how many feet/meters/inches are we talking about?
 * 5) Also missing: How does this sculpture fit in with the rest of his work? Did he intend for the sculpture to have a more specific meaning than to honor the space program? Was the sculpture an assignment from the museum or someone else?
 * 6) "As the plaque indicates by noting with an additional correction"
 * 7) Did Moore have any qualifications to build a sundial?
 * 8) "to the earth ' s axis of rotation" (missing apostrophe)
 * 9) How is the last paragraph in "Details" relevant to this particular sundial?
 * 10) "Moore used to take pride in viewing his sculptures in the open-air environment" This implies he changed his mind. You probably want: "Moore took pride..."
 * 11) "In Chicago, including this sculpture, Moore has a total of four public sculptures on display." The order of sentence elements is confusing here. Suggestion: "Including this sculpture, Moore has four public sculptures on display in Chicago." (Does this mean they're all outdoor ones?)
 * 12) Are the other sculptures bronze too?
 * 13) A picture of one of the other sculptures for comparison would fit well in this section.
 * 14) "Notes", technically those are "References" and several print sources are missing ISSN, ISBN and page numbers.
 * 15) "Registered Historical Places in Chicago, Illinois" is a category that applies to the planetarium and not the sculpture, at least according to the text. - Mgm|(talk) 07:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:TonyTheTiger/Reviews
Are the articles listed here ones you just read and evaluated? Did you nominate them? Did you promote them in the GA cases? Or did you write some of them? I'm not sure what exactly this page lists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs) 12:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to build a similar page, but I'm but I'm not sure how the tool you linked could help (How did you use it). Do you know of any method I could use to collect all FAC subpages I contributed to? - Mgm|(talk) 19:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A FAC subpage is a subpage of Featured article candidates where the nomination is location, typically named after the nominated article. - Mgm|(talk) 20:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just it. Not having a log or tool available makes it hard to trace the article I'd like to list on a page similar to yours. I'll give it some more thought. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious. - Mgm|(talk) 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bug you about that page again. If an article has 4 failed GA noms listed and finally a successful one, does that mean you contributed to all of those nominations, or do you list them to be thourough about the article's history rather than your involvement? - Mgm|(talk) 20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture taking historic tours
Yeah, I would be down, most likely the best day for me would be November 3, when are you open? IvoShandor 00:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Leonid Hurwicz
Hi, TonyTheTiger. Thanks for thinking of it. If you have time to nominate the article at WP:GAC I can help with any comments that come in. Otherwise after this week I guess I am willing to nominate it. We had two chances to attract the economics input the article needs, ITN and DYK. So maybe economics help is so rare it will come by chance, and who knows, maybe not anytime soon. -Susanlesch 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

South Side GA nom
I don't know yet... Some sections are still poorly organized, and the prose could probably use some more polishing -- every time I look at the article, I find a few words or phrases that are redundant. It's a solid article, and I've learned a lot from it, but I'm not ready to give it my full support.

Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  06:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, neutral, I suppose. I'll be happy to read through the article a few more times. I'll probably have some time tomorrow. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  01:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. It might be nice to include the number each time a community area is introduced. (Within the body of the article, that is. I don't know if the numbers would make sense in the lead, because readers wouldn't have gotten to the map yet.)
 * Is there any way to make that map clearer, though? Maybe it's just my computer, but the image is somewhat blurry. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  19:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought of the maps refs as a stopgap. Maybe I can find a link that says that the North Side is denser rather than the South Side as less dense. This kind of thing is like trying to find a ref that explicitly says "babies are easily amused". Speciate 22:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maps are easy: Chicago population density. I say if people don't like maps as sources then they are being unreasonable. Where would this map go in the article? Speciate 23:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a really cool map of neighborhood "type". Speciate 23:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a race map.
 * Here's a map of income variation for just the African-Americans of Chicago. Speciate 23:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * poverty map. Speciate 23:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A 2005 burglary map for the crime bit. Speciate 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Denser? Most of the maps are only good for "considerable variation." Speciate 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a nice list of population density for Chicago community areas. Speciate 00:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously?
If you have issue with the way the MOS suggests images are laid out I would take it up on the talk page there. Of all people, I really don't think I need a lecture about articles under review, come on now. IvoShandor 19:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that two people have already expressed a problem with the layout, yet again, this is somehow ignored. Please try to listen to the concerns of others, please. IvoShandor 19:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood)
The article is in good shape content-wise, and has been promoted to GA. I'm still not a big fan of top-left justified images, particularly when an infobox is used in the article, as I think that it makes the article look kind of cramped and crowded, and could have issues with lower screen resolutions. But I won't hold it against GA status for a couple of minor image placement issues. If you do move it, maybe it would also be good to move the DuSable museum photo over to the right, underneath the infobox, to spread the images out a bit more. Dr. Cash 19:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Borinquena.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Borinquena.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Mercury Hayes
I've added the hook to the Next Update template in time for the match. However, as it was a tad hefty, I've only used one of the two contained facts. If you feel that the redacted hook was the more interesting, feel free to edit the NU template to replace it. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, hmm. Just realised that the update time will be ~19.30, but only here in the UK. Ah well :( GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 10:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Man Enters the Cosmos
I was ready to review the article again, when I noticed the images were moved back after a previous reorganization. Since I said, moving them was a good idea, I wondered why you put them back in the old location while mentioning the article was "under review" in the edit summary. - Mgm|(talk) 22:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination for Heller House was successful
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:20070530 Bronze cow cast (1).JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:20070530 Bronze cow cast (1).JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:20070530 Calder - Flying Dragon.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:20070530 Calder - Flying Dragon.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

 * Great job on the article! I always try to review at least one article in my related section when I post a new GA nom myself, so I can recognize the work you did on this with the sourcing and such.  Keep up the good work.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

Man Enters the Cosmos GA -- on hold
Just a heads up to let you know I'm going to officially put the nomination on hold for in a few minutes which would leave you with 7 days to address the outstanding issues. Seeing as how you handled the th issue about the sculpture's move faster than I expected, I'm pretty sure you'll have plenty of time. Let me know when I should take another look. - Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Trifectas
Hehe, thanks. I'm doing my best, but a lot of my work right now is backlogged and pending at WP:GAC. Of course, feel free to review whatever you wish, I always review at least one GA nom in the same section as the ones I post to, for every one I nom myself. Again, good work to you too. Cheers. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 15:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

Bynoe
Please check my work on Peter Bynoe, finance is not my forte. Speciate 01:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Scrollbox
Is there any particular reason why there not part of reference policy they look much more nice and coherent plus dont make articles ook intimidatingly long. Thanks for telling me btw --Hadseys 21:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)