User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 16

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007
The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Barry Bonds
Sorry that I didn't reply before, I was going to tell you to go ahead and do whatever you wanted to do to it. Always good to see someone here appreciate my work. I don't have to be the page creator on anything new, it was your idea so go for it. Thanks for the props on the work. -- F P A t l (holla, holla, holla ) 08:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, haha... source. I compiled it using stats from MLB.com, baseball-reference.com and a couple other sites, I can't even recall the actual pages. I know, I should have listed them, but I didn't think to. I just based the stadium on the time period, by using the dates stadiums opened and closed... like how they moved from Candlestick/3Com to PacBell/SBC/AT&T for example. For that situation I counted home HR's for Three Rivers from 1986-92, Candlestick/3Com from 1993-99 and the current park for all after 1999. I hope that makes sense. -- F P A t l (holla, holla, holla ) 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No doubt I screwed up somewhere, I'm sure of that. That's cool. Hope this thing gets accepted.-- F P A t <font color="#181818">l (<font color="#B88B00">holla, holla, holla ) 00:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot
Hi, Tony! I've been working to improve SatyrBot's functioning, and I wanted to ask you two things: Many thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Has the bot been working okay on new page tagging within the past week? Did you notice it's work on Saturday, and did it do alright?
 * 2) Would you take a look at the offering page I've put together to "advertise" to other WikiProjects?

Image uploads
Hello, I've noticed that you have contributed a pretty large number of photos to Wikipedia. I was wondering if you would like to move them to Wikimedia Commons? I started tagging them with the necessary template to prompt people to perform this step, but there are so many, perhaps you'd be willing to do it yourself? The advantage of the Commons is that the images will automatically TrandWiki to all Wikimedia projects, making them available to many more people then they would ordinarily be available to on English Wikipedia. Of course, it's not mandatory to move them, just a kind suggestion that would be helpful to the project as a whole. Best wishes and happy editing! Nobody of consequence 00:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'll just work on moving them little by little then, if you don't mind. Actually, the fair use rationale thing wouldn't apply, as Commons only accepts free images (for example, the ones you've taken yourself and released as GNU or CC). Any fair use images you've uploaded would be left on Eng. Wiki. Nobody of consequence 00:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Replied on my talk. Sorry about that, Tony, my mistake.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC).

Re:Washington Park Race Track
Well, it is going to take him some time. What I can do is do a sort of "generic" geobox, that will include the map and the picture, with all the info that is currently in the box. Let me know if that is what you would like me to do, the colors won't be part of it....I think. I can try and figure that out too if you want. Let me know. I will also work on those other places soon as I fix up this Lyttleville, Illinois article I found.--Kranar drogin 14:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, got your other requests done. I have started a page here User:Kranar drogin/Illinois communities, where if you find more communities that need the geobox, you can just add them to the list there and I will get to them as I can. I am in the process of requesting a new Chicago Metro Area map, that would include GPS coordinates so I could start putting them in the Geoboxes maybe. I don't know what all is involved with that. See what I can get yas.--Kranar drogin 17:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am working on a Race Track Geobox, so just bear with me a bit longer. I have to figure out all the fields, that way it can be used by like Chicago Motor Speedway or other NASCAR tracks.--Kranar drogin 19:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we worked out a new Geobox|Race Track. Check it out Washington Park Race Track and tell me what you think. I didn't know what township this is located in, and if the addres is correct.--Kranar drogin 21:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already put a request in for a Chicago Metro Area Map to someone that would allow for GPS to be used. So you will have to be patient on that one cause I have no idea when that will be done. So for now, this is all I can get you as far as a map.--Kranar drogin 22:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See if you like that map that is on Chicagoland Speedway. You could use that one instead for your track if you wish.--Kranar drogin 02:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would have put in Chicagoland Speedway instead of Chicago Motor Speedway you would have seen clearly what I was talking about.--Kranar drogin 15:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

South Side
I'll look at it one more time today, and post some comments at the nomination page. To be blunt, though, I don't think I'm going to vote support. Everytime I've read the article, I've found new problems. I just don't think it's going to be ready anytime soon. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  19:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  19:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

GA finding
I had never seen that log, I might monitor it. I use Google a lot, looking for interesting new articles. Speciate 20:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Man Enters the Cosmos

 * How is the last paragraph in "Details" relevant to this particular sundial?
 * In 5 above you hask about how this sculpture fits in with the rest of his work. This section clears some of that up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your rewrite causes some text shifts that make this question harder than it should be. I was talking about the paragraph that goes into detail about sundials. Explaning how sundials work in detail doesn't explain how the sundial fits Moore's other work. - Mgm|(talk) 20:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits
Hey cool, thanks for showing me that. I haven't looked at my numbers in prolly about 6 months or so, didn't know I had that many edits in one form or another. Thanks again.--Kranar drogin 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

One North LaSalle
Sorry Tony if my edits seemed abrupt. I'm a zealous Chicago skyscraper buff who got a little carried away.

Anyway, as you can see from this diagram from SkyscraperPage there were four buildings taller than One North LaSalle when 1 N LS was completed: the Board of Trade even without the statue, the Chicago Temple Building, Civic Opera Building, and the Pittsfield Building. Also, others such as the Palmolive Building are taller if you include beacons and spires. Thus, One North LaSalle is an impressive example of towering Art Deco, but it simply wasn't the second tallest in Chicago.

Thanks for letting me explain the matter. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My Great Project 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and re-edited the page. It would be interesting to find the origin of the "tallest structure" claim. My guess is that this building attracted attention due to its location in the LaSalle Street canyon, while the Temple, Civic, Opera, and Pittsfield buildings are scattered across the Loop. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My Great Project 02:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add the "second-tallest" links but please keep the link to the 1930 diagram. Perhaps you could add a sentence pointing out the "second-tallest" claims.

Also, in 1934 LaSalle National Bank Building was completed in a similar architectural style but four feet higher. Thanks for hearing my two cents, --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My Great Project 00:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Geoboxes
I just want to give you a heas up Tony. I have been talking with User talk:SatyrTN‎, and we are going to use the bot to place geoboxes on the 1,000 or more articles for cities and villages. I have requested that it skip the ones that have the Chicago Infobox on them, because I would rather do those manually if we are going to do them at all. So, a lot of the villages and cities in Cook County that do not use that template will be seeing geoboxes shortly. If you need me to expand upon them, please list them out on that page link I sent you. Thanks!--Kranar drogin 11:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your sig
Hey Tony, your signature, is, and always has been disruptive. See WP:SIG. I know you don't want to change it but I have noticed several people ask you to in the past. I suspect you won't so I have asked for a bit more consensus WT:SIG. Thanks. IvoShandor 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wexler
No, you're ok, I saw him while I was researching Bynoe, just check for alternate spellings of his name. Speciate 05:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured list
Why are you running a support/oppose survey on your LOTD experiment? What you need for your experiment is simply a list of volunteers willing to participate in a trial run. Should you fail to get enough volunteers, the experiment won't run. You don't need people voicing negative opinions, there were enough of those the last time.

IMO, I don't think you've picked up on the scale of negativity towards the process you suggested. I believe you are flogging a dead horse. There was simply no positive feedback about the process (only about having FLs on the MainPage), and lots and lots of negative comments. Colin°Talk 16:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not an admin. I suppose the amount of "permission" you need depends on where you run the experiment. If the pages are contained within project space (e.g., WikiProject Lists) then I'd have thought you can do more-or-less what you like. The level of advertising/spam needed to get enough volunteers might be a problem.

I suggest you lay out the page to make it very clear what you expect volunteers to do, with some examples, and what the end result might be. Then just ask for a list of names of volunteers for the experiment. Erase the Support/Oppose stuff from the talk page as the whole thing will just get bogged down again.

Oh, I don't really know why I'm giving you this advice since I think this proposal is dead. And trying to agree on a process before you've even got widespread support for FLs on the main page, is cart before the horse stuff. Why complicate the issue with a process that not everyone will like (and no process will be liked by everybody)? If, and only if, you get that support then people might be enthusiastic about participating in an experiment. Currently, I think you are ruining your chances of "a fair shot". Colin°Talk 17:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not create a proposal that does NOT require voting? That is the reason I opposed and I am sure more people will support if you removing the voting aspect of your proposal. The Placebo Effect 18:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean not require voting on which list will be on the Main Page. The Placebo Effect 18:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I created a new proposal at Today's featured list that you might want to look at. The Placebo Effect 01:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but i didn't know you were running an expirement. I merely wanted to create a proposal that didn't involve voting on a list for each day (which seemed like the reason most people (including me) didn't like your proposal). The Placebo Effect 02:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Warhol Campbell's Soup Can (Tomato) 1962 Pencil on paper.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Warhol Campbell's Soup Can (Tomato) 1962 Pencil on paper.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 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Man Enters the Cosmos
"The move was performed by contractors of the Adler Planetarium in two phases."
 * You name the first phase of the move, but then you go into details of what was put in the sculpture's place without ever mentioning the second phase. I'm assuming it's placing the scultpure at its current location, by simply placing it there, but it would be nice for the grammar if you made it explicit. - Mgm|(talk) 19:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"...and Chicago Landmark, on the campus of the University of Chicago."
 * It's located at the site of the former nuclear reactor site. What has the university got to do with it? Do they list Chicago Landmarks? If they do, it's "by" rather than "on". - Mgm|(talk) 19:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...
--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

GACs

 * Replied on my talk page. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
 * I see you also have a top header like User:Blnguyen. Quick question, after one of your successful GA articles becomes an FA, do you still show it on your top header as both a GA and an FA, or just an FA?  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC).

Thank you
<div style="padding: 5px; background: #FFDCF8; border-style: solid; border-width: 10px; border-color: #000000; font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 100%; "> <div style="margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 9px; padding-bottom: 9px; padding-left: 9px; padding-right: 9px; width: 200px; float: center;"> Click there to open your card! → → → Dearest TonyTheTiger, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow  and  Phoenix-wiki  for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.  Lara  ❤  Love  06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by  The Random Editor 's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel 's RFA thanks.

Good Article! Congratulations!
Man Enters the Cosmos has now attained good article status. Congrats! - Mgm|(talk) 20:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that
I don't see this as a situation that needs mediation. Your issue seems to be that you are seeking opinions of people with regards to the level of referencing in the article in question. I see 4 keep votes at the GAR in question. Since you seem to want to keep the GA at that status, I would recommend citing that discussion in support of whatever you wish to do. --Jayron32| talk | contribs 02:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Luc Robitaille
Hey Tony. I'm coming to you about this because I don't know anybody else with more Good Articles than you. Earlier this morning, I did a major re-write on the Luc Robitaille article, as suggested by SuggestBot. Here is the diff. I think it's a pretty good copy-edit that corrected most of the major issues that the article had:


 * Disputed neutrality
 * Grammar, style, tone fixes
 * Cleanup

Now that I've done that, what else do you suggest I do to possibly get Robitaille to a GA? Ksy92003  (talk) , 21:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Will work on lead soon.
 * 2) Robitaille didn't really have a huge, significant playoff career, so nothing can really be said about it.
 * 3) Was thinking about that, but wasn't sure how to break it up. I was thinking of something like a section for his first stint with the Kings, another section for his time with the Penguins, Rangers, and second stint with the Kings, a third section for his time with the Red Wings, and another section for the end of his career/third stint with the Kings.


 * What do you think about that? Ksy92003  (talk) , 21:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But what would I head the sections, is the question. Ksy92003  (talk) , 22:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do when I have the opportunity, when I can resolve the issues I have with my internet and other computer-related problems I have.


 * But all in all, what is your opinion on the re-write I made to the article? Was it a pretty good re-write?  Ksy92003  (talk) , 23:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Greg Skrepenak and Canon PowerShot TX1
It wasn't incorrect at the time but a problem arose since. It should be fixed soon. Jɪmp 00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A new version of Convert had been put in place. With this new version everything was working fine.  Because of some other problem the old version was reverted back to.  I think I've fixed that problem.  I'm waiting on the new version's being reinstated.  With any luck what I was doing will make sense. Jɪmp 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The new Convert is back. Jɪmp 03:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool
The Project has moved from the Creation to the Maintenance phase, hasn't it? The CHICOTW is not as useful as it once was. I'll try to keep an eye on things. Speciate 09:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

my RFA
<div style="padding: 5px; background: #8AA5DB; border-style: solid; border-width: 2px; border-color: #FF4F00; font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 100%; "> <div style="margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 9px; padding-bottom: 9px; padding-left: 9px; padding-right: 9px; width: 400px; float: center;"> <font color="#002FA7">If you voted in my RFA... <font color="#002FA7">...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations. <font color="#002FA7">Thank you again and, best regards. Van Tucky  Talk <font color="#002FA7"> This RFA thanks was inspired by <font color="BA55D3">Lara <font color="00CED1">❤ <font color="FF1493">Love's 

Reply
Why are you so desperate to do this yourself? Just wait for the current proposal to pass and go from there. Besides, the voting proposal was soundly defeated. And you are incorrect, I was asked to be a leader in the current proposal, and I said I was willing to do it, but I didn't want to be an administrator, and several users agreed on that. -- Scorpion0422 16:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides, wouldn't being an FL director involve promoting FLs? And I've never seen you promote one. If you want to be a leader of this thing, we could be co-directors, I'll promote the lists and you could handle whatever. -- Scorpion0422 16:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless The Placebo Effect can read minds, he didn't steal it from you. He e-mailed me about a week before you created that nominee page thing. Besides, does it really matter who created it? Anyway, would you be willing to be co-runners? -- Scorpion0422 16:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I knew it, you don't care about the lists, you're just doing this so you can credit for creating it. You've never closed an FL, I rarely see you comment at any FLCs and when a proposal comes along that people are agreeing to, you step in and accuse the creator of stealing "you're" idea and you continually promote a proposal that hasn't been approved? That's absolutely ridiculous. I'm going to have no part in this whatsoever because you obviously care more about the glory than anything. -- Scorpion0422 16:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

LotD
Hi! I'd nominate my two lists -- List of European Union member states by accession and List of European Union member states by political system --, but right now I haven't got the time to format the entries in the nominees list, I'm afraid. Is that a problem? Thanks! — Nightstallion 18:45, 15 November 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 18:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD
Hello there. I'd like to thank you for filling me in on this and requesting my input – it's very much appreciated. I must admit, I have been rather busy lately in things beyond Wikipedia, but, nonetheless, you have my support in the LOTD proposal. They've got articles and pictures of the day, so I don't see why they shouldn't have lists as well. I had been wondering for some time why there wasn't a LOTD on the main page anyway. Again, thanks for the info and you've got my support in this endeavor. Cheers, Cliff smith 01:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP threat on Jon Burge
With regard to this article ,I note various threats by you to revert to a version that another editor regards as a BLP violation. The watchword with WP:BLP is that we leave material omitted whilst any doubt remains, and we don't replace it in the meantime. Please continue to discuss this with the other editors, and, if necessary, proceed to dispute resolution. I have preemptively protected the article to prevent you making good your threat. I felt this was more productive than having to block you afterwards.--Docg 23:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See the article talk page: a fair chunk of the relevant pages from the book are online, so shouldn't be any harder to use as references than the Sun-Times articles. If you think you can back things up using the book as well, I feel fairly sure Doc and Phil and the others will agree to let me unprotect. They're reasonable folks. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm uninvolved in the content, but it can be unprotected by any uninvolved admin once Tony agrees not to replace material any other editor has indicated is a BLP violation. A dispute over BLP is a cause for discussion (at length if necessary) not edit waring or threats of it. AnonEMouse there should be NO rush to unprotect this - there's nothing wrong with forcing peopel to discuss for a bit.--Docg 00:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting problems
Is the current format on User:TonyTheTiger/nunchuck what you are looking for? I am not sure what you want it to do? Any info on it would help me help you.

On a different note, I am leaning to Scorpions opinion when it comes to FLs. I am a great fan of FL and think it deserves a space on the main page in much the same format that it currently is on the Featured content page. I think the trouble that you have is the problem with duplicates. Many of the lists are very similar; the hockey trophy lists, football lists, etc. They usually come to WP:FLC in batches, a fact you would know if you spent a bit more time over at FLC assessing and commenting. (Please take the comments as they are meant to be received, helpful comments). Woodym555 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, i am glad that your nunchucks are sorted. Secondly, I agree with the sentiments behind I knew it, you don't care about the lists, you're just doing this so you can credit for creating it. I have been following the palava from afar and it all seems to have degenerated into a muddy quagmire of a battleground. I think a single, simple proposal is what is needed. I think the myriad of proposals, counter-proposals and !votes have just left everything confused. Frankly, I see your complicated counter-proposal as an egotrip which won't achieve all that much. I have been active at FLC for a while now and am wholeheartedly interested in seeing some sort of recognition on the mainpage. Yet the mainpage is a hotly protected page and it needs some sort of run-through before hand. I understand that is what you are trying to achieve with your system, but i don't see it being accepted by the community, and indeed i don't think it has. Woodym555 (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not making a baseless claim Tony, I am making a claim based on the observations that I have made. Could you not have read the comments instead of making it out to be some kind of personal attack. People can make baseless claims, yes, but they can also make claims based on evidence. I don't want this to degenerate into a mudslinging match, I was merely making observations. Don't go spamming talk pages if you don't want opinions. My egotrip claim is derived from the fact that you rarely enter FLC territory unless you are nominating an article. That is all well and good, don't get me wrong. Yet, when you attempt to force through a complicated and contrived scheme against the advice of several experienced editors and seemingly consensus, and is in competition with another scheme, then what other conclusion is there? You can help people find WikiProjects without using it as a vehicle for your list of the day proposal.
 * I notice that at the moment there are several lists over 10 days with only 1 or 2 comments, perhaps your attentions should be directed there? I know the nominators would appreciate it. Woodym555 (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did know all of that. I looked into it all before I commented, with the exception of Jon Burge. Who could fail to notice all those lovely green circles at the top of your page? I realy do appreciate your stock-take of WP:FL, it was needed and it was a worthwhile and most likely, thankless task. I also appreciate the fact that you dabble in good articles. Also, I have seen your old, extradordinarily long sig, around the place on my wiki-travels so I know about your role in the Chicago project. Yet this discussion is not about your edits around the place, I am not going to get involved in a game of Top Trumps with you.
 * I have not equated your efforts at creating these many proposals for a LOTD, with your efforts at FLC. I am merely suggesting that your efforts would be better directed. I will have you know: Why? That is the main problem, you seem to be striving for your some notion of recognition and in my eyes, some sort of personal gratification. If you really cared about WP:FL, would you not mind which proposal is used, as long as it is the right one for the project as a whole? Your last sentence says it all really: I think it is more of a glory trip to run for election on another person's idea that was slightly modified to make it look kosher. There is no election, there is no glory, and there is no competition, only Wikipedia and its goals. Woodym555 (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I suppose agreeing to disagree is an agreeable end to this. The more eyes at FLC the better. Good luck in your endeavours. Regards Woodym555 (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

FLs:
I'm not quite sure what you were talking about, but I heard the words nomination and list, so placed List of dinosaurs on that nomination page you lead me to. I thought you were asking for my signature to get a featured lists section on the main page! I've laways wanted that, so hopefully this will be a step forward. :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reduced the size to under 500 characters, but I was unsure if you meant the linking and spaces etc... Hopefully it's better anyway... Thanks and keep me posted if it makes it! :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

500 character limit
I guess, then, that the 500 character limit applies to the wiki markup of the text, not the text as pasted into a word processing application without the brackets and apostrophes? I shall shorten it, if that's the case. --Fbv65 e del — t — c // 21:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see that's actually not the case and I had actually just counted the wrong version before when I was proposing it. I've fixed it regardless. --Fbv65 e del — t — c // 21:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for the compliment, but I really haven't "adopted" this article -- I have worked on it for about a year and a half now, but never thought it would be an appropriate FL until all the films were released. Michaelas10 came along and nominated it, saying it was fine as long as it was updated in a timely fashion, so he technically nominated it. But I'll look through the FLs that are currently orphans to see if there's one I'd really like to adopt. :) --Fbv65 e del — t — c // 21:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense, the picture is a nice touch, but I think because of browser widths, and the awkwardness of the picture next to the key, above an article which is entirely a table, it doesn't work so well. We can leave it in the LOTD proposal, though, right? --Fbv65 e del — t — c // 16:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My Kind of Town
It's amazing :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:LOTD experiment

 * 1) See WP:OWN.
 * 2) That is what FLC is for.
 * 3) If pictures are needed, they would/should be requested during the Nomination.
 * 4) Again, Wikiprojects should be added at any time, expecially during the nomination.

Most of this process seems like putting articles through a Featured List Review in order to make it List of the Day. Article of the Day doesn't do this, Raul every now and then chooses an articles that was promoted pre-inline reference requirement. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You also seem to be violating WP:CANVASS. Could you not have a simple message saying, there are two LOTD suggestion, they can be found here and here. Opinions welcome. Thankyou. Instead of, MY idea is better than theirs. Just a thought. Woodym555 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If lists need to be improved before reaching the main page, then maybe that means that the featured list standards are too low for most nominators. And by citing OWN, i meant to say that your method makes it sound like one person is in charge of each list that is nominated, making it sound like you are asking people to essentially be in charge of an article, which should not be the case. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is, Article of the Day doesn't have this type of bureaucracy to get articles to be AOTD, so why should a new process. If you noticed, most of the objections in your proposals were because of the bureaucracy of your proposal. However, more people supported my proposal because it was a familiar process that didn't have voting. Do you realize how much voting will be needed if you plan on doing this for every day? People would get tired of voting and eventually ask to have a nominations method similar to how Article of the Day does it. Only 5 at a time no more than a month in advance has worked well for AOTD, so why do we need to vote an article for each day? That seems excessive. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * May I ask what is wrong with the AOTD and POTD procedures that you feel the need to create a new method? The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to fix this IMHO, is to make stricter standards for FL. Wouldn't it be easier to do that? The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If featured lists need to be improved as much as you say, then the problem is the Criteria for the lists and how the raters view the criteria. Rather than combining improving Featured Lists with the LOTD procedure, why not make a process where every list is looked at and improved as much as possible WITHOUT connecting it to a LOTD project? The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But why does that process need to combined with LOTD? FA has a few that still dont meet the requirements, instead they have a list of articles that were promoted before the criteria change. THey are still going through these articles and some of them have improved through this process, Why reinvent the wheel? The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The others can be fixed by giving them wikiprojects (which they all should have). An article shouldn't pass if it doesn't have a wikiproject to maintian it. The Placebo Effect (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If an article doesn't met the standards, then it should be nominated IMMEDIATLEY and its top editors and Wikiprojects warned of the FLRC. By having a wikiproject, it ensures that when the article fails to meat standards, their will be people there to fix the article. The Placebo Effect (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not against improving the project, im against tying it into LOTD. 20:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Placebo Effect (talk • contribs)
 * improving project = good. bureaucracy = bad. can you name another process that has this much bureaucracy and improves the project? The Placebo Effect (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ding* yes, but they are doing ONE THING, namely improving the article. I ask again, why does it need to be tied into a LOTD proposal. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD
Why the elaborate selection process? There aren't that many featured lists. In the WP:POTD project, featured pictures are presented as pics of the day in the order they received featured status. And when there aren't enough new featured pics to fill the schedule, they recycle through the list again in the same order to fill the empty slots.

So there's no need to follow the nomination model (follow the calendar model instead). And since the project is new and will lack attention for awhile...

An elaborate nomination process probably will not keep up with the need to produce one selection per day, 365 days per year.

Keep in mind that before the Main Page redesign replaced the main page in early 2006, the POTD wasn't displayed on the main page at all. But the POTD department existed long before that, and many users placed its template on their user pages to display the daily pic. That's how it gained widespread acceptance and became a frequently requested addition to the main page redesign.

I think it was unnecessary for you to post a proposal for the LOTD project. Projects don't need prior approval. If they are so stinking bad that people can't stand them, then they'll be nominated for deletion at WP:MfD.

My recommendation is to create List of the day (from scratch, replacing the redirect), and model it after Picture of the day and Tip of the day (using the best features of both). The cornerstone of your project will be the template used to display the daily list (or the link to that list). Since some lists are pretty big, and since cutting and pasting excerpts is a big chore, I'd recommend providing a link rather than an excerpt.

I manned the picture of the day project for a few months (as User:Go for it!), and scheduled many months of pics. It was a tedious chore. The main problem with that project was that it was often just a day or few away from being redlinked, which is what happens if a picture isn't scheduled for a particular day. I implemented a 60-day safety buffer (pages scheduled 60-days in advance), but it hovers around 20 to 30 days these days.

I also resurrected and revamped the Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day project (again, as User:Go for it!), which is displayed daily on both the Community portal and on the main help page. The scheduling of tips for the WP:TOTD project was also very tedious, until we automated it.

The most interesting innovation to come out of the TOTD project was its supplemental Totd-random template, where the tips are scheduled directly on the template itself. True, you don't want a random display for the main LOTD template, but the point is there may be a way to schedule them non-randomly on the template. But that template still transcludes pages (by date), which requires the creation of each date-named page (which is something you should avoid...)

An example of providing links rather than transcluded pages on a template-with-schedule is User:The Transhumanist/Random task. I modeled this after Totd-random. Now all you have to do is find a way to create a non-random template where the links to be displayed are listed in the template and scheduled by date. The usual way to post "of the day" entries is to create one page per day corresponding to every date, and then display the pages when they match the current date. It would save a lot of work if you could create a list of dated entries, and display those instead...

All you need is a programmer who can figure it out. I suggest you contact User:CBDunkerson.

Good luck, and keep up the good work.

The Transhumanist 19:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The difference is that the current proposal entails cut and pasting excerpts, whereas I suggested supplying a link. If you can do that without transclusion, then the labor required will be cut by a factor of ten. The Transhumanist (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your selection method will default to a single individual ordering the FLs, just to keep up with the built-in quota of 365 noms per year. Either that, or the project will redlink (show a redlink instead of a LOTD).  The Transhumanist (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre-SB templates
If you have a good source for pre-Super Bowl NFL rosters, I think it would be pretty easy to create navboxes for those championship teams. If we have a sources I would definately work on those after the holidays. - Masonpatriot (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Raoul Wallenberg
How about helping me get that back up to GA, and see if we can take it to FA. It failed FA, and now its been heavily edited, I don't think its even GA anymore. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Waldorf-Astoria Hotel and Residence Tower
Check this SkyscraperPage reference which you had already added to the infobox before I made the height changes. The reference had already been updated to the building's new height, which is evident in the forum's new title. So, no citation additions were necessary. But, I forgot to update the title of the reference, and I will do so now. Cheers, Rai - me  20:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Michigan Wolverines Football
Tony -- Thanks for you suggestions about the template. I took your recommendations to use last name only, which allows room for more players to be included. I have also mined the lists at the link you provided. There are many great Michigan football players who have either no biography on Wikipedia or just stubs. I have added or upgraded biographies for a few players and will try to add some more as time permits. Cbl62 (talk)
 * Tony -- I checked out your articles on Mercury Hayes, Ricky Powers and Rob Pelinka. Very impressive work.  I have been adding short articles about some of the important players who lack articles, such as Dennis Franklin, Bob Timberlake, Chris Hutchinson (American football), Gordon Bell (football), and Mike Hammerstein, as well as Regents Field and each of the Wolverines National Championship seasons, but they are not as detailed and referenced as the ones you wrote.  I agree that red links are helpful to encourage articles on other key personnel. Cbl62 (talk)

Tiger Woods
Hey tonythetiger, thanks for the comment. It's tough to get articles about athletes who are still active to be FA. Although it is a well-written article, there are a few things i/we should to add to it before it's ready. It still needs some improvement. Supertigerman (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nick Gorneault
Today, I've been working on a major cleanup of the Nick Gorneault article. I didn't expand it fivefold (only 1.57x by file-size) but it was a major cleanup of the previous version of the article. Yes, I know he's an MLB player who has only played two MLB games. Here are the three edits that I made. The previous version wasn't written well and basically just mentioned several of his minor league games.

Anyway, my question is would this article be excluded from a DYK nomination? Ksy92003 (talk)  21:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wallenberg
Ill take a new look at it, its been off my watchlist for almost a year. I know people were adding all sorts of tangential information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Rod Payne
Tony -- I have started an article on Rod Payne. In doing so, I found some pretty interesting stuff about what he's been doing since retiring from football. He wrote a book in October 2006 with an Ann Arbor News sportswriter about their experience as friends as the writer went through leukemia treatment. Payne's book has been written up in the LA Times and elsewhere and has been getting good reviews. Cbl62 (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion, I included an info box in my George Lilja article. However, it does not seem to work for my Julius Franks article.  BTW, Franks is a really interesting character -- second African American to play at UM, and the first African-American All American (in 1942).  His career was cut short by tuberculosis, which put him in the hospital for two years and wiped out his senior year.  He later gained fame again for breaking race barriers in the Grand Rapids housing market by building a self-financed middle class neighborhood in predominantly white Grand Rapids for African Americans.  Cbl62 (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the work you've put into improving the articles this weekend. In addition to George Lilja and Julius Franks, I also started an article for Dick Rifenburg.  That's probably it for me this weekend. Cbl62 (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Julius Franks
The Julius Franks items you tagged all come from the Jim Cnockaert book. Cnockaert (a sports writer for the Ann Arbor News) wrote a four-page profile of Franks in his 2004 book. The citation is as follows: Jim Cnockaert, "Michigan: Where Have You Gone?" (2004 Sports Publishing), pp. 76-79. I just looked at my watchlist, and it looks like you've been busy today. Thanks again for the help in improving these articles. Eventually, it would be nice to see an article on all of the Wolverines All-Americans. On the notability issue, it is my understanding that the trend is toward loosening the notability restriction for minor league and collegiate athletes. And the notability standard you cited was rejected (as I understand it because it was overly restrictive). In any event, a first-team All American has been recognized as the best of the hundreds of athletes to play college football at the position in a given year. Accordingly, a first team All-American (by a recognized authority such as Walter Camp, AP, Sporting News, AFCA) should qualify as a notable figure and does not fall into the realm of "fancruft," a term I had not heard before your note. As I read the guideline you cited on "fancruft," it applies to obscure areas of pop culture, most commonly fictional subjects such as the Star Wars universe, Star Trek, Pokemon, etc. I do not believe that articles about "real world" first team All-American collegiate football players would qualify as "fancruft." Cbl62 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dan Dworsky
I have started an article on Dan Dworsky, but it's going to need a lot of work on citation format and general editing. I'll be working on it, but welcome any assistance you may wish to offer. Cbl62 (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Spent some time on formatting and citation formatting on the Dworsky article tonight. It's coming along, but still a ways to go. I noticed the DYK references for Timberlake and Franklin.  Very nice.Cbl62 (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Your collaborator was not listed on the next update which I used to update the main page. I should be able to grab the next update without having to verify the entries (in theory). I have notified User:Cbl62. I have run into this situation before myself. I awarded the notification myself since I realized it was an oversight. I think it's appropriate for you to award the notification yourself or for you to copy the notification box from your talk page to complete an incomplete notification. I did the notifications several times before this time in cases where it made sense. This was my first time that I actually updated the DYK section for real, as I was named an admin this weekend. Royal broil  02:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I've had nothing to do with WP:TFL, nor did I even know that it was up and running. I have no idea who is doing it. -- Scorpion0422 00:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Handbra
An article on which you previously commented has been proposed for deletion again, at Articles for deletion/Handbra (second nomination). You may wish to comment.DGG (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

New Wolverines articles
FYI -- I've added two new Wolverines articles today, one on Jim Detwiler and the other on Elmer Gedeon. I also did some cleanup editing on the Dick Rifenburg article. I'll get back to cleaning up the Dan Dworsky article in the next couple days. I found out that Cnockaert has a chapter on Dworsky in his book, which may provide some good information. I'll also take another look at the Chris Hutchinson article to see if there's anything I can add. Cbl62 (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Job on the DYKs
Tony -- Good job on all the DYK citations. And the Dick Rifenberg photos you added are very nice as well. You mentioned incorporating the winged helmet into the template a couple days ago, and I welcome any ideas you may have. It is clearly an important part of U=M football history. I also wondered about a section for legendary games such as the legendary 1950 Snow Bowl of the 1998 Rose Bowl. You might notice I added Don Canham and Bob Ufer to the template under Other Important Figures. Both of them seem to be of sufficient importance to the UM tradition to be included in the template. BTW, I think the Elmer Gedeon article could be a good DYK candidate once it's citation format is polished.Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark Donahue
You have Mark Donahue listed twice in the UM template, once as consensus, and once as unanimous. Do you know which is correct?Cbl62 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

List of elements
Looks good to me. I've attempted to keep tabs of the list to prevent information from getting changed, but it could probably use a review since it has been a couple years since it passed. Other than that I don't see any problems. Good work on getting this off the ground. --Spangineerws (háblame)  03:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Although, I think that picture of the periodic table violates WP:SELFREF; a picture of the periodic table that is color-coded according to type of element would be more appropriate. --Spangineerws (háblame)  03:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:LOTD
I've shortened the description of Grade I listed buildings in Bristol as requested. I hadn't noticed a word limit when I first submitted it.&mdash; Rod talk 14:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK commentary
I was about to add Julius Franks hook to DYK. However, there's another Michigan football hook already in the next update list. I feel bad because the Juluis Franks one is good enough for DYK. It is suggested that hooks be chosen to avoid concentration about a particular country. Having 2 football hooks, even worse, having 2 Michigan football hooks, may be bending the rules too much.

I don't know if I should suggest that you hold back writing a new article for 24 hours so that both hooks have a good chance of inclusion. Sometimes, creativity comes all at once so it's unavoidable.

Anyway, you have improved WP so that's the important point. Archtransit 19:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dick Rifenburg
The article Dick Rifenburg you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Dick Rifenburg for eventual comments about the article. Well done! &mdash; Rudget contributions 20:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Don't let that time period suggest a speedy review though. &mdash; Rudget contributions 20:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)