User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 24

Trump Tower
Well, I would like to see some sources for this part: "Sitting on the north side of the Chicago River, parts of the building are visible from throughout the city, and the entire length of the building is visible from eastward Chicago River waterway traffic as well as locations to the east along the river, such as the mouth of Lake Michigan, the Lake Shore Drive Overpass, and the Columbus Drive Bridge. It is situated at a point along the main branch of the Chicago River where there is a brief change in direction that both gives the illusion that the River leads to the building and gives the building a clear line of view of the Lake Michigan mouth of the river." Zagalejo^^^ 23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I'm more worried about the sentence after that. I think I'm going to remove it, since I'm sure the illusion only works at specific locations. Zagalejo^^^ 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me go through the article one more time to see if there are any remaining problems. Zagalejo^^^ 20:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If I think it's ready to support, then I will write Support. I'm not totally satisfied with everything at the moment, but I don't have time to elaborate right now. I'll get back to the discussion as soon as I can. Zagalejo^^^ 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re upon: I just think a sentence begins better with upon than on, and I changed that sentence around, so hopefully he won't have a complaint. Re twin: It's much better to say which World Trade Center (i.e. the one in New York City), rather than a simple unofficial descriptor. --Golbez (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Broadcasting History
DevorahLeah (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC) I am a media historian and although I am based in Boston, I have access to all sorts of accurate information about the men and women of Chicago radio and TV, including the women and minorities. I'm the author of 4 books and many essays and would be happy to share. Only problem is much of the research is not from sources that are readily available to the general public -- alas, Proquest only offers certain databases to colleges and businesses. These include many historical newspapers and magazines, and I have access to the information that way (I'm a professor and a professional researcher); but I realise that the average wikipedian might not have such access. Do you still want me to contribute, using the hard-copy newspaper dates and pages, even if it would mean readers have to go to the library to see the source material I used?

DevorahLeah (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I don't know if two important Chicagoans-- Jack L. Cooper, the first African-American announcer; or Halloween Martin, the first woman morning show host-- are part of the Chicago media project, but I have research on their lives, and can create or improve upon the biographical entries of many of the early Chicago radio broadcasters and stations. Is this something that would be useful to your project?

A More Perfect Union
Would you object to me moving the present page to A More Perfect Union (disambiguation) and moving A More Perfect Union (speech) to A More Perfect Union? I think that most people who search for that phrase would be looking for the article about the speech. J.delanoy gabs adds 00:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to bug you, but for some reason, I have had quite a few questions completely ignored recently... J.delanoy gabs adds  01:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Clickthroughs? J.delanoy gabs adds  01:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait. I know what you mean.I don't think there is any way to check how many people click on that link. I'll just leave it how it is, I didn't know what your reasons were for having it like that, and I didn't think about the US Constitution part. J.delanoy gabs adds  01:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not really a big deal. Even if most people do click on the speech link, it's not like there is a tremendous amount of effort involved. J.delanoy gabs adds  01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:
ping Ter ra  13:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:20080402 Trump Chicago at night.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:20080402 Trump Chicago at night.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Millennium Park Pass review
Hi, TonyTheTiger. I have reviewed the article Millennium Park and after making some small changes I have up dated its status as a GA article, I left my GA comments on the talk page. It is great to see that you are so active on Wikipedia. I am not trying to get into your personal bussines, but I would love to know how you can edit so many articles? I hope I can help Wikipedia half as much as you have. I have to give you props on the University of Michigan work you have done, I go to Michigan State University but Grew up in Ann Arbor and I still like U of M football better. Anyway Great Work and you can now add one more GA icon to your list thing. Nice Work! Max ╦╩ (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will hook you up with a kill cool tiger for your user page gallery. Good Luck with getting Millennium Park to FA. I would be willing to work on some part, but I am taking summer classes at Michigan State University, so I do not have as much time as I would like. Max ╦╩ (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had not added Millennium Park to that part of the GA list, It should be up there now, anyway I am glad you liked the Tiger. Max ╦╩ (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

FL's question
For List of tallest building articles, is it necessary that the list have a skyline of the city?-- S  R X  -- Latino  Heat  01:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh okay. Thanks.-- S  R X  -- Latino  Heat  01:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture-taking in chicago
Thanks for the update. Neat that you could get so many. About fireworks at Grant Park (Chicago) tonight, can you possibly get any picture with fireworks and an NHL? Fireworks over the Field Museum? I myself am not set up to take any good pics of fireworks at all, and i can't find any 3rd of July fireworks near any NHL near me. I have been hoping to get any pics of fireworks and any NHL, to use in posting tomorrow a.m. Actually i was asking elsewhere whether any one would be able to take any such pic tonight. The NHLs by 4th of July, or bust, cleanup drive has gone really well, i am going to issue a report of sorts. If you happen to be able to do such, let me know, and/or post any such pic yourself to wt:NRHP tomorrow! Anyhow, i look forward to seeing those pics added to List of RHPs in Chicago, which i watch. Cheers, doncram (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Got ur followup too. I see ur previous post above, now, too, will respond.  No problem, just have fun.  By the way, i was mistaken about Field Museum being NHL, it is NRHP.  Adler Planetarium is an NHL, and isn't it on the water, though i don't know if it is anywhere nearby.  But again that was just a wild idea, not practical. Again, thanks. doncram (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on my Talk page with some info -- at least some of buildings u ask about appear to be included in the Michigan-Wacker Historic District -- see report on my Talk page. doncram (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See my further followup there, in fact I got to 11 page PDF scanned NRHP document with map showing exact district bounds, yes including the bridge and some properties north of the river. You should be able to get to the PDF, but if u cant email me and i can send it to you. doncram (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fourth of July, or bust, Thanks!
Thank you for developing, during the June 11 - July 4 drive, various articles on NHLs. It is great u refined article on NHL Chicago Board of Trade Building, and probably other NHLs, during this period. Also, your Featured List of Chicago Landmarks stands out as the salient model for all lists of NHLs, and has been an inspiration for me. Thanks for responding constructively to my horning in on Chicago-area stuff, with List of RHPs in Chicago, too. Cheers, doncram (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:20080622 St. Charles parade route sign.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:20080622 St. Charles parade route sign.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

Ooops, looks like you forgot to add the license to that one. On the subject of your images, thank you for uploading so many excellent ones! Are you familiar with Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia's sister project for free media? Free licensed or public domain material can be uploaded there, then used in Wikipedia articles exactly as if you'd uploaded it directly here. Commons has additional advantages: images there can also be used in articles in the Wikipedias in other languages and other Wikimedia projects, and displayed in categories and galleries that make the images easier to find. In short, I encourge you to check out Commons, log in, and upload your free images there. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gene Derricotte
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article [00:14]  Malinaccier: you has 0 FAs you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Malinaccier (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed it. It's on hold. Malinaccier (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Chicago
Many thanks, and well done to you as well! Cirt (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot  22:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Topping out
A building is topped out when it has reached its final height, so in the case of Trump Tower the building will be topped out when the spire is added. Cheers, Rai • me  02:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Height of buildings in DC
I saw your notes on User:Raime's page and wondersed if there is any truth to the rumor that no building can be taller than the Washington Monument?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you have other rules listed. Is the Washington Monument as tall as any building could possibly by according to the statutes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, the rules state that height of any building is limited to the width of the adjacent street plus 20 feet (6 m), so a building facing a 90 feet (27 m) wide street could be no more than 110 feet (34 m). Theoretically, a street could be infinitely wide, but I don't know the practical limitations.  I would guess you would never have a street that is 540 feet wide and therefore you could never have a building higher than the Washington Monument (unless they change the law).  You can find the actual law here . Cheers. Remember (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you know what the widest street in DC is?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. Remember (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Toni Preckwinkle
GA review comments awaiting your attention. Brianboulton (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ft to m
I am forwarding this to Jimp, who re-designed the whole concept of ft to m a while ago and is now in better position to fix this problem. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Tony
A few things. Are you the Tony Vernon who plays online diplomacy? If so, I admire your style, and I believe you think my style sucks (I'm Dan Kindsvater), but then, I'm spending my time on Wikipedia these days, so perhaps I can redeem myself.

I've spent a lot of time working on and trying to understand Wikipedia's style guidelines, and I'm helping Tony1 with monthly summaries now. I'm generally respected around FAC; references on request. I'm always on the lookout for editors who can use my services in exchange for the chance to pick up some co-noms here and there. I respect Tony1, but I know that not everyone wants to write articles just the way he wants; as "your copyeditor", I would be taking your side and trying to help you pass FAC. (Obviously you don't need my help at GAN :). If you're interested, feel free to respond here. (P.S. I'm writing because of the current brouhaha over the Trump International Hotel and Tower article; I'm not sure if my help would make a difference with that one, but I can give it a shot.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll give it a copyedit. Be aware that I may change things that it's not absolutely clear need changing; that's one way to deal with 1a objections, and you've got a few.  What's going on with delinking dates is that several of the style guidelines editors have run out of patience.  The original bargain that resulted in WP editors having to enter a lot of extra keystrokes just so that people can see dates in their own formats is wearing thin; the devs were supposed to have implemented that in software a long time ago.  Within the last month, the guideline has been changed to say that you can add links to dates or not (that wouldn't otherwise be linked because of relevance), but Tony1 in particular is pushing people to lean towards "not", in part because we've been waiting a long time, and in part, I think, because he hopes that if we stop compensating for lack of action by the devs, there will be more pressure on them to do something.  This is just a guess. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll start leaving some notes on the FAC page; there are a lot of judgment calls. A vigorous copyediting discussion helps improve the mood at FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a lot of things that I usually change in a copyedit; feel free to revert any of my edits, especially if I don't know what I'm talking about, or pull the plug on me at any time by leaving a message on my talk page or shooting me an email.  Feel free to check out my level of clue by looking at the reaction to, say, my last 4 copyedits. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, still on it, that was suppertime. FAC people really like active voice; I will try to slide it in in a few places.  Is it fair to say that Adrian Smith did the planning as well as the designing, or did he do the designing during the planning phase? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[copied from my talk page to keep the conversation in one place - Dank55]
 * I get passive sometimes. Help is appreciated.  I do not know architecture well enough to respond to your query, but everything is well sourced if you have the time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do. I hear "being constructed by X" all the time, but I don't recall hearing "X is constructing..."; any ideas on how to get that into active voice?  Have you heard "X is constructing"?  It's not in any of my style guides. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * X is building. I am going to be offline for about a half hour.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Any reaction so far, anything you want me to do less or more of? I'm working for you, to get the article through FAC, I am not a reviewer.  Can you check on Riverwalk?  Every Google hit obviously came from a Wikipedia article, and the source listed everything in the brochure with caps and ampersands, whether they needed it or not.  Is there another source that Google hasn't picked up? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[copied from my talk page - Dank55] Do you want to make the first sentence in the second paragraph active? Do you have an opinion of the diagram image. Should I revert to the small letters that look more professional? I would bet that if this article were to make the main page, Apprentice would be relinked. I had it linked under WP:OVERLINK - references to a page with more information:--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you are a captive audience, I will ask you to comment on the images on the talk page in the second to last section. I need an opinion on their prospective inclusion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you made a good argument for why the pictures were probably taken without permission. That section of the tower isn't open yet, and we are of course dealing with a developer who likes to sue people.  Having said that, I'm pretty much an idiot on all aspects of images, so I don't have an answer for this or for your question on the diagram image. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh...what should I call you on the FAC page, Antonio or TonyTheTiger? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: "Do you want to make the first sentence in the second paragraph active?": Done. I wanted to change that sentence but was too lazy to check the sources. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I commented at Sandy's page. Would you mind sending me a quick email from your usual account using the link on the left from my userpage? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There were 4 or 5 sources on the Trump children, but none of the sources asserted a connection with the Chicago Trump Tower, except that one of the sources said that they were selling apartments. Their position in the company is certainly notable in some article, but the connection isn't nearly strong enough for this article (unless you have other sources), and Matisse was having a bad reaction to what seemed to her to be an unearned mention of the kids. I deleted those 3 sentences, but if you've got more sources, I'll be happy to look again. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 05:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand "A new chemical process that leverages more fluid liquid concrete facilitates pumping concrete up several hundred feet to the elevating construction site." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 05:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm about ready to fall asleep so I'll just pass along the last couple of things to do: "4-foot (1.2 m)-wide" doesn't work. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 05:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm done. I'll look over it again tomorrow afternoon after you've had a chance to look at the diffs.  Feel free to revert anything, of course.  Think about switching the order of the last two sections.  Also, I'm not sure if the material on that guy from The Apprentice was in the right place.
 * There were three problems, big ones, with the bar and spa sections. 1. Your FAC won't pass with either of them in there.  2. It's the kind of material that makes most Wikipedians think "promotional", whether that is the case or not, and 3. The sources didn't even establish that they were interesting, much less notable.  The source that liked the sushi was the kind of source that will review bars one day and hot dog stands the next, and there was no connection established in the sources between that spa and any notable business or person. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 05:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

←Tony, I have some ideas for how to make progress at FAC, and I don't like to lose at FAC, but it could take up to a week.
 * I'm working now on seeing what we can do about the kids.
 * Briefly, on my first point, "least astonishment", it's a little easier than you make it out to be. We don't have to guess what a reader might want to read about; all we need is to ask some appropriate random survey of Wikipedians to read the article, and tell us when they're done which information they wanted more of and which they wanted less of.  I have used the WP:GAN list in the past as a handy source of Wikipedians who have some level of clue but who are likely to reflect a wide set of viewpoints on just about any issue; could we take a few days to run your article by a bunch of people and see what they say?
 * On my second point, the people who hang out at WP:AfD have a very finely-tuned sense of smell; that is, they are very open to allowing material that seems a little promotional, but they know how to massage it to keep a wide cross-section of Wikipedians happy with it. Could we submit your article on the talk page over there and ask them what they would do tend to do with that section?
 * On my third point, I have asked several friends to look in architectural magazines and online to get a sense the importance of bars and spas to the financial health of hotels.
 * I think there is a disconnect. There is no statement that the bar are spa are important architecturally.  The talk page of this article has four projects for which it has some significance.  I would say that although these two businesses are not notable to WP:WPARCH, or WP:SKY, they are notable for concerns of WP:CHICAGO and WP:ILLINOIS.  The building will be a tourist attraction of sorts due to its views and association with Trump.  As a tourist attraction what lures people? From the WP:CHICAGO perspective nat WP:ILLINOIS perspective they are important concerns.  The bar is insignifcant to the success of the hotel.  There is no statement that either business is important to the financial health of the hotel.  There is merely a statement that these businesses have been detailed on the public record.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how long it will take us to get answers, and what Sandy said yesterday suggests to me that she's going to pull the plug immediately unless she sees progress towards a solution. Would you be willing to pull the bar and spa sections to get through FAC, on my promise that I will help you gather support from Wikipedians as detailed above to re-instate whatever we can, not just in your article, but in APARK and similar articles? - Dan Dank55 (talk(mistakes) 21:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would not be willing to remove the spa information even if it is an anchor for the FAC. The business accounts for two whole floors of the building one of which has 53 dedicated rooms.  I could not in good conscience propose that this article passes WP:WIAFA 1b without spa information.  The only two people that I recognize as affiliated with WP:CHICAGO that have voted are Chupper and Zagalejo.  Loggie has worked with us copyediting all articles at WP:CHIFTD and commented on this discussion.  Thus, I would propose that we seek the majority opinion of these three persons on the editorial content of those two subsection.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. On the third point, there are many ways to get a sense that those things are important; maybe just asking around would work. On the first two points, the options are more limited. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)

Okay, just got back, I'll get to work. Please find any new sources about the spa you can. Can I delete two-thirds of the material on the bar and merge the rest into the restaurant section? I will start trying to get support for keeping some of the spa material, more soon. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First step: WT:AFD. You asked if my claim about OR meant that you are making up facts: not at all.  OR includes drawing a stated or implied conclusion from the facts not present in the sources, and I don't think the sources support the conclusion that the spa is interesting, yet...they support the idea that it could become interesting.  An example: sometimes in hotels, the floors that have laundry rooms are more popular than floors without.  That doesn't mean we should write about the laundry rooms in Wikipedia, it just means people have a slight preference to be on those floors.  Even if people have been a little quicker to buy condos on the same level as the spa, that doesn't really make the spa any more interesting than the laundry room.  Several things might get me interested in the spa, such as some source talking about how many people go there, or evidence that advertising the spa has been a major thrust of promotion for the hotel, or a clear connection to a notable spa somewhere. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Copied from my talk:
 * I have proposed a fair jury of content for the two sections (bar and spa) on my talk page. How do you propose that we present the debate?  I would even allow the Trump kids section to be presented.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah well, we lost. Thanks for the offer of a co-nom; as long as we can get content issues out of the way ahead of time, I'll take you up on that next time if you're still offering. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Streeterville
Hi Tony. Just wanted to let you know that I've reviewed Streeterville and left comments on the GA page. Best, epicAdam (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:List of tallest buildings in Chicago
Both of those buildings are a part of the Illinois Center complex, and the standard is to redirect buildings in a development to a single article about the development; in this case, Illinois Center is the article. Cheers, Rai • me  01:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Illinois Center article begins with "Illinois Center is a mixed-use urban development" and then has a list of buildings that are contained in the development, so to me its seems much more about the complex/development. Cheers, Rai • me  12:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Co-noms
Tony, it's a little easier for me (for going back and reading things in the future) to keep things on one talk page or the other, and I have no preference: your place or mine. I'll copy this over since we've been talking on your page, but we can flip to my page any time, if you want to keep my page watchlisted.


 * [copied from my my userpage] Before the month is out we will begin proposing WP:CHIFTD. You could co-nom Crown Fountain and then eventually Millennium Park, and BP Pedestrian Bridge.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm seriously considering it, but first consider that you may not want to work with me (except in the context we just did, where I'm jumping in at the end). If I do a copyedit before or at the start of FAC, I want for people to assume that means it's okay, and they often do. So I don't have the freedom that a lot of writers do to push for things that might be a little dodgy at FAC. Also, what I like about FAC is the social contract to do what's quote-unquote "best" instead of what's good enough for GA, not because I particularly care what's best, but because it's so much less of a hassle to get consensus on what's best than on what's okay. It can speed up the process dramatically.

So: while I've still got Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) fresh in my mind, let's figure out if I should be involved as a co-nom in two weeks. I can back anything that we can get support for before we head back. I appreciate how patient you were with me and some of your critics. I think we can talk about the bar and the spa, but if more people have the reaction at WT:AFD that there are WP:UNDUE issues, then I can only help out if they're rewritten so that people in general don't think that that's a concern. I'd really like to get these things nailed down so that the issues are settled for the next 100 FAs on buildings, APARKs, etc. I think a quick random survey along the lines of "read this, what do you want more of and what do you want less of?" will be very helpful in shooting down opposition at FAC: they love it when people do their homework. I'll go run a quick survey. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's the survey: WT:FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the idea you proposed on my talk page and I'm happy with any panel you select. I want to do a little work on the article before you hand it to them (shouldn't be more than 2 hours), and as always, feel free to revert. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tony, as I beat you over the head with during the FAC, I didn't much care for the sources on the bar. I don't object to the bar per se, and in fact, the fact that you can see the bar from the lobby means to me we can easily justify mentioning it, because it's well established that Wikipedians are interested in knowing what a visitor can see when they're standing in a "notable" location, and I'd say the mezzanine counts as the lobby area, and the lobby is clearly a notable location.  So: I'd be perfectly happy with describing what you can see in the bar when you're standing outside it looking in.  Can you find any other sources on the bar?  I just don't think we can say anything about the quality of the bar with those sources. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer another question, after a couple minutes of thought I believe the time is right for me to recommend delinking full dates; there has been no serious challenge to Tony1's push in this direction on style guidelines pages. In an American English article, the dates would be in the American format.  We are really feeling disappointed in the devs on this one, and it's time to revolt and put the ball back in their court to implement configurable date formats in the software, or not.  All those blue links just draw attention away from the important links, and there are other reasons discussed on style guidelines pages.  As a bonus, this will make several people at FAC very happy.   I will delink all the dates in one edit, and you're free to revert if you feel the relevant wikiprojects won't go along with this one.  I'll be happy to make the case to them. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In reply to the latest additions on my talk page: I'm not at all opposed to having the list of tallest buildings in Chicago in the article, we just need to find the right place for it. That particular sentence was not the right place; it would be like saying "Yao Ming is the tallest NBA basketball player, and also the tallest NBA player in Houston"......one implies the other, and in fact, saying both weakens the impact of the first.  On the other point, do include United States in your list of things to ask your panel, but this concerns an issue that comes up in every article and every FAC, so the next FAC reviewers are likely not to care what your panel thinks about this, there's such a firm consensus already.  Your panel and my two surveys can help a lot, I think, on issues related to articles about buildings. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll add the verbiage first thing tomorrow. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Have there been other FACs delinking full dates? Excellent question. Tony1 is busy until tomorrow night, I'll ask him. If not, then I totally understand if you guys don't want to be the first. Perhaps our position could be, "we'll do it when other people at FAC do it". That would probably be sufficient. I'll hold off on de-linking dates. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Got a partial answer for you. For the Trump Tower article, I think the number of links has been going down and is acceptable, and we shouldn't need to delink dates to get it to fly.  However, if people are still unhappy with the links in two weeks, then I think we should delink the dates.  See User_talk:Tony1. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see the business below, what a headache. That reminds me: during the FAC, I tossed the whole spa and bar section, but if we hadn't been a day away from having the FAC closed, I would have been kinder and gentler and helped you look for sources and tried to figure out exactly what we could keep.  People were sensitized to the issue, and I thought it was the only way to pass at that time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going through dealing with all the comments at this past FAC that I think need to be dealt with. You mentioned WP:PRESERVE several times during the FAC; it's probably best not to, it's not your strongest argument.  WP:PRESERVE says that we should keep a bunch of crap in articles, on the reasonable assumption that it will eventually be sorted out.  FAC is the place to come to after all the crap has been sorted out. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, finished going through FAC comments. What's left now is: restaurant, bar, spa, kids.  On the restaurant, I like the sources and I think it's important to the article, but we need to deal with Zagalejo's objection that it "loses focus".  I rewrote it during FAC, but I see you reverted most of what I did.  I think a judgment call is necessary: what are the strongest points we can make about the restaurant?  After we've said those things, then if we keep talking, it can water down the impact of what we've just said.  I will try again with the restaurant section now and do it in one edit, then revert myself; please look at both and see if you don't think that my version makes a stronger case that the restaurant is notable all by itself. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One more thing, I wasn't sure I followed the discussion on the architectural setbacks. Maybe I'm missing it, but I can't see clearly in any of the images in this article that one of the setbacks doesn't line up the way the sources imply that it does.  Are you saying that you don't have a reliable source that mentions that it doesn't line up?  Can an image be found taken at approximately the same height from another building that shows clearly that it doesn't line up?  If so, then I think "belie" has to go; the closest we could come would be to say that that setback was "intended" to line up. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

←Sigh, didn't get the Restaurant section done today. Back again tomorrow morning. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's talk about the stuff you added back in at #Restaurant.

"Some consider it more of a place to impress clients and dates, due to the perception of its association with Donald Trump and the restaurant's views, than a top–notch dining experience, with top-notch cuisine." One thing that's helpful to us here is that the review is less than positive, although I don't know whether Time Out has a reputation for reliable food reviews...but I'm inclined to keep the slightly snarky review anyway. But on the first part of the sentence, there's too much of a risk that a reviewer will read this as: "The restaurant is just okay, but of course, you should go anyway, because it's associated with Donald Trump." I would change this sentence to simply, "Other reviews were less positive." Same thing with "and association with Trump" a few sentences below; this is a deal-breaker for me, so if you want to keep this, tell me now. The chances are just too high that I'm going to be wasting my time trying to get this through FAC if we leave this in, because FAC people tend to respond negatively to any hint of "X is fabulous because it's associated with Y", but of course I'm late to the party here and you can write it the way you want to.

"Fodor's notes that the views may cause you to overlook the food, but nevertheless endorses the food, especially the breakfasts." Fodor's was much more positive than this.

"Sixteen has a bar that Kamin complains has limited views, but that Chicago Tribune restaurant critic Phil Vettel says was pleasant. ... In addition to its entrees and appetizers, the restaurant has six-course and ten-course tasting options, with optional wine pairings. The restaurant has been described as pricey, and one critic partly attributes the prices to Sixteen's status as a hotel restaurant.  However, others feel the prices are appropriate for the ambiance created by the interior design, architecture, views, ... According to Vettel, the prices are respectable given the overall experience."

Consider the following sentence: "War and Peace is generally regarded as the greatest Russian novel of all time, and in the current printing, it also has attractive page numbers at the bottom and a sturdy and attractive cover." By the time you're finished reading the sentence, you no longer believe that I have any idea what I'm talking about, right? If it's such a notable book, then the page numbers and cover are irrelevant. Likewise, we're trying to make the point that the restaurant's chef, architecture, interior design and views are fabulous and notable in their own right. By the time we finish saying that it has a "nice" bar, prices in line with what you'd expect, and a daily special that includes a number of courses and wine, the reader is likely not to believe any of the first things we said, for the same reason, so unless we can find something similarly fabulous to say about them in new sources, I'd prefer to leave that stuff out. That doesn't mean I'm against ever mentioning ordinary things; that just applies to this restaurant, which we're trying to give an air of notability. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (copied from my talk page) My hope was that instead of you and I first hashing out line by line specifics that we get general feedback from people who we can trust to be knowledgeable about the topic at hand. Why don't we agree on the above survey; wait for feedback; and then pending responses go at things line-by-line.  I first want to get a feel from a fair jury whether I am being yanked around at FAC. Can you comment on the above survey?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine, Tony. It seems like a lot of questions to ask, so I hope you'll tell them that they're free to comment on some, all or none of it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (copied from my talk page) Did you have any comments/critiques of the survey. I think I have incorporated most of the general issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not the way I would proceed, because some of these issues ought to be clear without a survey, and I don't like running the risk of asking people for too much. But it sounds like it's the way you want to proceed, and I don't mind hearing input from other people on these issues. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tony, based on current discussions at WT:FAC that came from discussions at Uriel Sebree (which I hope will be copied over to WT:FAC), I thank you kindly for the offer but I won't accept a co-nom, probably ever, since my work will revolve around copyediting and working on style guidelines. I will continue to encourage people to do whatever it takes to get articles copyedited before they show up at FAC, which might involve bronze stars, I don't know. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image CSDed without notice
At the help desk, I have been informed you speedied an image. My talk page has no notice.

Supposedly This is from the deletion log: "23:44, 13 July 2008 Melesse (Talk | contribs | block) deleted 'Image:Trump Chicago floor diagram.JPG' ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD I7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago. using TW)."

At Help_desk, I noted that I would like to either recreate the image or have you restore it. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Kelly was the one to place the notice, take it up with her why you didn't get a notification. The picture was a diagram that could be very easily described in text (e.g. The lobby and terrace are for retail, 14 and 14g are a health club and spa, etc.) and be just as easy to understand. When that's the case, you must use text and not an image. Melesse (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for prompt reply. Are you saying there is no possible way I could have fixed the FUR and that no such diagrams are allowed on WP even with FUR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. However, since the diagram is quite generic, you could have one made from the original data. Melesse (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of disconnect at WP:GL. They seem to think a diagram can not be made Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve. If it can not be recreated fair use is allowable. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, fair use of that image is not allowable, and I don't think they were saying that. As someone suggested, you could label a profile shot of the building, or as I said before, you could just write out in text what each floor is allocated for. Melesse (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand why a fair use rationale could not be used. It is not possible for a person to conceptualize the 10 or so different floor uses orally.  It is necessary for the understanding of the reader to have a diagram. In fact, this diagram was originally a talk page request because text is too confusing. A FUR is easy to write and the image would pass any reasonable FUR analysis due to the complexity of the building.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I fail to see what's so complicated or hard to understand about doing it with text.
 * 86-89: Penthouses
 * 29-85: Residential Condominiums
 * 17-27M: Hotel Condominiums
 * 27: Hotel & Conference Center
 * 16: Restaurant, Ballroom & Banquet
 * 14 & 14M: Health Club & Spa
 * 3-12: Parking
 * Ground: Lobby & Retail
 * Terrace: Retail
 * ^ That makes perfect sense to me, no picture necessary. Melesse (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, you are smarter than most, because a diagram was requested for clarification. Who are we to say what others can conceptualize. The image is for those readers with lesser conceptualization skills than you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the article, has a similar such text description failed before? Why don't you try using it before presuming that some people won't be able to understand it?
 * That would in the abstract be a good idea. However, floor-by-floor descriptions are uncommon.  I have don't recall having ever seen one in an architectural article although I may be mistaken. With this in mind and the philosophy that a picture is worth a thousand words, the editors have requested a diagram.  No one has requested a paragraph with further detail than what is currently in the text ("The design of the building includes, in order from the ground up, retail space, a parking garage, a hotel, and condominiums.").  The diagram request formerly existed despite this text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then may I suggest you take the first steps in making it popular? I demonstrated above that formatted text can communicate the same information as the picture did, and that invalidates any fair use rationale. Melesse (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It only conveys part of the information because it does not depict the building to scale in any way that helps the reader in a unified way with the image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright then, I personally don't know how to do that with wiki markup (which would be preferable), but I do know how to do it in Excel. You could make a table with some proportional cells, displaying the same data to the scale of the building. Or you could ask the graphics lab to make a graphic of that. If they think that's a copyvio then they're being silly, feel free to send them to me to talk about it. Melesse (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, could text be added to a photograph of the building, like this one? Kelly hi! 12:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, NE2, who is doing most of the heavy lifting on image issues at FAC lately, has some helpful input at User_talk:NE2. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Trump Tower
In response to your questionnaire:
 * 1. I think a couple of sentences about the spa are sufficient. I don't think you should go into too much detail about specific amenities unless those amenities are unique to this spa. All that stuff about "gemstone-infused massages" etc. does sound kind of promotional, so I'd leave it out.
 * 2. Same as above, pretty much. Stick to the basics. Don't get too detailed unless the amenities are unique to that particular bar.
 * 3. I think you can discuss the Trump children if they had an active role in the construction of the building. It appears that they were all involved to some degree.
 * 4. They're different lists, so it's fair to link to both of them in the article. And I'm fine with duplicate links in the See also section. That setup saves people from having to scroll back up to the intro to access the information they want.
 * 5. I haven't seen any sources to support that. I think the sentence should be removed, since something like that is too much of a judgment call.
 * 6. Honestly, I don't care about overlinking. I don't understand what all the fuss is, and I'd never use it as a reason to oppose an article. Zagalejo^^^ 00:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, among the specific examples you mentioned, I'd say the only ones readers might actually need are:
 * Sauna -- I'm sure there are many readers who have never been in a sauna, and may not know exactly what it is
 * Spa (or more precisely, Day spa) -- same logic as above
 * hedge fund -- The majority of younger readers will not know much about these
 * As for the others, you could probably live without the links. With regards to sushi, I think it's much better-known today than it was when you were in high school, so I wouldn't worry about it. Zagalejo^^^ 04:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, with regards to entree: that word apparently means different things to different people. You might want to just replace it with "main course". Zagalejo^^^ 04:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever clicked on a date, so you can do without the links for those. Zagalejo^^^ 06:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, no, but that's because I had thought that we were supposed to link them so that user preferences would work (or something). I'm still not sure if that's true or not. Zagalejo^^^ 06:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To modify my statement: if it's true that the user preferences don't matter, then you can probably do without the links. To be honest, I'm not totally sure what the situation is, so you might want to seek some more informed opinions. Zagalejo^^^ 07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I really have no idea what I'm talking about. You should ask someone else. Zagalejo^^^ 07:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Yes. §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  12:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you said biweekly was fine. To be exact today was day 14 so it ran today.  I tagged 167 new pages just a few minutes ago. Is there a problem?  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  13:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes. §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  13:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's what I do, I use this order because it is easiest for me; it can be changed if you need it to.  I run through all of the categories on WP:CHIBOTCATS and put every article in a list.  I cross-ref the list with all transclusions of the project banner.  I remove the duplicates from the inital run.  I tag all new articles.
 * I then go through Category:Chicago, Illinois geography stubs and Category:Chicago, Illinois stubs. If an article is in one of those categories I give it |class=stub|auto=yes.
 * I then run through the current list of GAs, FAs, and FLs; and tag all articles as such. This last part is the most consuming as there are so many; so I set that to run last.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  14:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For the stubbing thing; sure I can do that. What do I need to elaborate on?  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to clarify you said not to auto-assess articles assessed by other projects but not Chicago.

IE it would do this: 1. §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  14:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I use hidden categories like Category:Featured articles. And yes your assumption is correct. If a change doesn't have to be made to the template there won't be one.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  15:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It takes the highest assessment rating. I have done this for a few projects now and no one has reported coming across any false-positives at all.  This would also decrease the number of Unassessed articles you have right now.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  15:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

auto-lemon
Tony—I saw your comments at Dank55's page. No one has to autoformat dates, and no one has to de-link them. Now we have the option of using the system or not using it; however, it must be all or none in an article's main text. The citation templates are going to take a little time to catch up with this, so are not yet part of the equation (in any case, we're now finding that for our readers—the millions who are not logged in—these templates are not behaving all that well; people are also making mistakes in keying into them, which often show up for the masses out there). I'm keen to see high-value links not diluted, and I can't see why on earth WP was conned into this in-house autoformatting thing in the first place. So I'm encouraging people not to use the a.f. system. Tony  (talk)  17:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's 4am, so I'm off to bed. It's a dumb thing that they piggy-backed the date autoformatting (for month-day and month-day year) onto the existing linking code. MediaWiki is totally intransigent about decoupling the two systems, which is why I've given up on it. Since then, we've learnt the horrible truth that autoformatting (looks like linking, but quite different function—to render US or Br format) works only in-house, and not for the people we serve, the millions of readers out there—they instead see all the raw code, bright blue but unformatted. We've now discovered just what a mess that raw code is in, but which is concealed from us via the a.f.: mainly inconsistent formats within articles, and glitches in the way people key in the coding (commas in wrong places, years not done, some dates a.f., some not, etc). As well, the citation templates are now looking like a real problem in that respect, so expect some action on that over the next few months—unsure exactly what action, yet.
 * In the meantime, I've had almost unanimous support from nominators whose articles I've stripped of auto-lemon; it doesn't seem to be the issue it used to be. I think WP is evolving towards a more selective approach to linking (and thus autoformatting), because people want their high-value links to shine out a bit more. Makes sense, I think. Tony   (talk)  18:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Autoformatting dates
This is what I think is the situation, based on reading Tony1's posts among others.

The only reason for linking dates at all was for the autoformatting function.

Until the last few days, it was believed that autoformatting was a net positive because it allowed registered users to set a date preference in their Preferences, thus insuring that they would always see the date the way they wanted. Additionally, it was believed that the autoformatting function prevented dates from wrapping or breaking. The fact that autoformating also linked to miscellaneous date pages and created a "sea of blue" was considered a disadvantage, but a disvadvantage worth putting up with to have the autoformatting.

In the last few days Tony1 realized:
 * 1) Autoformatting only worked for the very small percentage of readers who were registered users and had their date preferences set. The vast majority of readers just saw a chaotic sea of blue.
 * 2) Autoformatting prevented wiki editors from seeing the date mess they were creating for unregistered users or those without a date preference set.
 * 3) Most autoformatting was incorrectly or inconsistently applied in any given article, because of commas and other additions that different nationalities use, plus editorial inconsistency and wiki software screw ups that make autoformating unpredictable.
 * 4) Autoformatting did not prevent the dates from wrapping or breaking. That was a myth.
 * 5) Therefore, there was a net disadvantage for using autoformatting and no benefit. All it does is create a mess. Readers have learned never to click on a date link anyway, as they know the chances are 99.99999% that clicking a date link will send them to some useless miscellaneous date page.

Does this make sense? What are your reasons for wanting to continue using it? Is it that you thought you should do it, or do you experience a positive benefit that I don't know about?

I'm sorry about your Trump Tower article. I was unnecessarily harsh. I believe if you take the advice of the FAC editors regarding linking and a few other things, the article will pass with no problem. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Based again on reading Tony1's recent userpage posts and his recent posts to me, I believe that autoformatting kicks in automatically through the wiki software when you link dates. This is a hypothesis on my part. If this is true, linking dates produces autoformatting for those with user preferences set. For everyone else, it just produces links to dates. In the last few days, Tony1 had written on his page, as well as in notes to me, encouraging me and others to delink dates in articles to remove the autoformatting.  Does this make sense?


 * Also, there are other, related discussions on his userpage about the use of NBSP's in raw dates. Now that the myth that autoformatting prevents dates from breaking has been dispelled, there is less pressure to insert NBSPs in raw dates (that is, unlinked dates and therefore dates unformatted by the wiki software) to keep them from breaking.


 * In any event, removing autoformatting by delinking dates is not mandated. You do not have to change. It is a choice, although one that is increasingly urged by Tony1. (He has never posted on my pages before until the last few days, when he has posted several times encouraging me on this issue.) Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tony, I'm fading fast and off to bed. No one's forcing anyone to autoformat or not autoformat. I'm just saying that not doing so makes a lot of sense. I'll reply in more detail tomorrow. I wouldn't stress about it at all. Till later. Tony   (talk)  17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC) PS I'm really keen to have you on board on this issue. It's really not quite the same as linking other items—the stuff we argued about at FAC.  Tony   (talk)  17:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Gene Derricotte
Thanks for letting me know about Derricotte getting GA status. It's good to see him get that recognition. As football season approaches, I suspect my appetited for UM articles will increase. When that happens, I look forward to working with you further. As you can probably see from my user page, I've been focusing most of my attention lately on historic sites in Los Angeles, where I live. Cbl62 (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks. No worries about the help. I was going to do the GA review myself, but was unsure about a couple of things, so I just fixed a couple of things, I'd have otherwise brought up. Well done though. Peanut4 (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

ft to m
This is an odd error. There's nothing wrong with the template as such, as you can see, but it won't work as a parameter in another template nor will it work if you transclude a page which it's on. However, the two-dimensional version works fine. My guess is that the complex calculation in rnd/b done thrice is blowing some fuse somewhere along the line. J IM ptalk·cont 23:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing much you can do ... unless you're an admin & thus can get around the cascading protection on. J IM ptalk·cont 23:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what the problem is. I do have my suspicions. Can fix it? Sure I can ... but first I've got to figure out what's wrong ... no, it might work out the other way round ... first I just happen to fix it then I have a better idea of what's had been wrong. But I can't do anything because of protection. J IM ptalk·cont 00:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've written a new code for and put it on the talk page with an. I hope the new code fixes the problem. J IM ptalk·cont 01:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The new code fixed the problem you mentioned but we're still running into strife transcluding a page with the template on it. J IM ptalk·cont 01:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Toni Preckwinkle
Please be assured that although the GAN has finished, I will continue to be interested in the article, & am always contactable on my talk page if you need an opinion or advice. As to the redundancies between the Early life and "Outside interest" sections, this is what I would do:-
 * Change the name of Outside interests (a weak title) to Other activities ( a stronger one)
 * In Early life, everything after the second sentence is not really "early life" - she was 40 in 1987, so I would cut from this section everything after "Aquinas". This later stuff, except for her association with Pincham, is already in the Outside interests section.
 * Transfer the Pincham information to Outside interests. At the same time, I imagine that the marriage and having kids probably happened in her earlier life, so transfer that stuff back into the Early life section. The results should be:-

Early life

Preckwinkle was born in St. Paul, Minnesota, moving to Chicago to study at the University of Chicago in the Hyde Park community area, where she earned her bachelor's and master's degrees. After college, Preckwinkle spent ten years teaching history in several high schools in the Chicago metropolitan area, including Calumet High School, the Visitation School, and Aquinas. She is married to Zeus Preckwinkle, a teacher at Ancona School. They have two children. Her husband is Caucasian, which at times has been a campaign issue.

Outside activities

In 1985 & 1986 Preckwinkle was President of the Disabled Adult Residential Enterprises (DARE). Preckwinkle has been a member of the Board of Directors of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, Political Action Director of the Near South Chapter of the Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI-IPO). During and after her 1987 aldermanic election campaign, she worked as a planner for the Chicago Department of Economic Development. By 1990, she had become executive director of the Chicago Jobs Council, and become allied with civil rights attorney R. Eugene Pincham.

I think such changes will really enhance the article. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Survey
I'm going to address your comments here, if thats ok. If this needs to be copied to another FAC page or anywhere else, feel free to do so. Also, remember these are just my opinions and intepretations of Wikipedia policy. I may be flat out wrong on some elements. If I am, let me know and I'll try to readdress it. I'm quoting your text in italics: Chupper (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC) ''Trump International Hotel & Tower (Chicago) recently failed at WP:FAC. Since you have significant past service at WP:CHICAGO and participated in the debate, I am requesting your opinion. The substantive issues of debate seemed to focus on the following issues:''
 * 1) Should the article contain a section on the spa. My argument has been that the current plans call for it to be a business consuming two floors of the hotel and the the article can not pass WP:WIAFA 1b without describing it.  Some say the spa is a trivial part of the business and its inclusion represents a form of advertising.  I argue that describing a business operation is not per se advertising, but the perception on WP is that it is, which is why a project like WP:APARKS has no WP:GA or WP:FA articles.  With that in mind do you feel the current section should 1. remain as is.  2. be slightly edited for POV tone. 3. be significantly trimmed for over emphasis 4. eliminated for irrelevance.
 * I think #3 & #2 - The tone here needs to be made more POV. It's not necessarily a blatent POV violation, but right now it reads as a light advertisement.  In addition (this may apply to the "bar" below, but maybe combine these, shorten them, and turn them into an amnenities section or something like that. Chupper (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Should the article contain a section on the bar. Although the case is not as strong for the inclusion of the bar, my argument has been that the easily found WP:RS have described it and the the article can not pass WP:WIAFA 1b without describing it.  I concede the sources are less important sources than for the spa and most of the rest of the article.  With that in mind do you feel the current section should 1. remain as is.  2. be slightly edited for POV tone. 3. be significantly trimmed for over emphasis 4. eliminated for irrelevance.
 * See my comments above on the spa. I think they apply here too.  Trim down, maybe move these to one section. Chupper (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) There are three well-sourced (3 New York Times and 2 Chicago Tribune refs) sentences describing the role of Trump's Children. Should they be in the article? Should these sentences 1. remain as is.  2. be slightly edited for POV tone. 3. be significantly trimmed for over emphasis 4. eliminated for irrelevance.
 * i say number 1, keep them as is. I think the sentences include good information.


 * 1) There was debate over the need to have links to both List of tallest buildings in Chicago and List of tallest buildings in the United States in the article and further debate on whether to have these same links in the See also section. Please state your opinion on both issues.
 * I can go either way on this. I think long-term it will be 4th tallest in the US?  Spire, Freedom, Sears, Trump?  If that is right, I think both could be notable enough to mention. Chupper (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) There seems to be an issue on whether the second setback lines up with Marina City. Do you know of any WP:RS on the issue? If not do you think this should be mentioned in the text?
 * I don't know of any good sources on this and learned about this conflict from your article. I think mentioning that it doesn't line up with Marina is relatively unimportant.  Perhaps a sentence or something in the prose?  IMO the footnote thing seems a bit messy right now. Chupper (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) There are numerous words that I have linked that remain contentious with my rationales.
 * see WP:OVERLINK - geography: London, Australia, New Orleans, Louisiana, North Africa, India, United States
 * see WP:OVERLINK - relevant connections to other articles to help reader understand this article:
 * Many readers will be looking for information on the restaurant and they should understand the terms: cocktails, sushi (I have mentioned before that I did not know what the term meant when I was in high school), cuisine, decor, entrees, appetizers, 
 * I want readers to understand the features of the building: VIP room, pool, saunas, health club, spa, antennas, parking garage, hotel, swizzle sticks
 * see WP:OVERLINK - references to a page with more information: gemstone, diamond, ruby, sapphire, emeralds, billboard, standing room only
 * see WP:OVERLINK - technical terms: wine racks, wine rooms, architect (I link professions when relevant as technical terms. This particular link has been hotly contested yet I don't believe most people actually know exactly what an architect does), hedge fund, floors (links to storey), business district, interior design, divers (although this goes to disambig page it is difficult for me to say whether to link to scuba diving or surface supplied diving)
 * see WP:OVERLINK - Word usage that may be confusing to a non-native speaker: course, union
 * Please list all of the words above (and any others you may see in the article) that you feel should be delinked.
 * Delinked: sushi, diamond, ruby, sapphire, emeralds (gemstone should work fine here, but much of this could be removed from what I said above), pool, health club, antennas, architect (when mentioning the architect, the reader can click on his name, then go to the architect article from there) Chupper (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, please state whether you think full dates should be linked in this article.--
 * I would say keep the dates linked. Chupper (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: North Avenue Bridge
Yes, definitely thinking about it, but I'm not done with the article yet. The 2007-2008 reconstruction section will be at least as long as the 1907 bridge section after I comb through some construction articles. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 15:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Energy (Henry Moore sculpture) DYK
Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article Nuclear Energy (Henry Moore sculpture), and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 16:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK hooks
The length and references are verified, so I'll be happy to put it in after the next update (which will be in 6-12 hours). I'd put it in for the next update, but the image one there has been waiting for a while longer (I kept it back because of topic diversity), unless you don't mind not having the image slot. I'd suggest that the article is quite comfortably "start-class": well written, with verifiable sources. Heck, some GAs aren't much longer. It's up to you, of course, but that's my personal opinion on the grading. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, no probs. I'll add it now. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  16:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

LOTD/LOTM
I agree with your decision to suspend this. IMO, most of the featured lists are look-alikes. I can't get enthusiastic about showcasing every new list that follows the patterns of "Governors of Elbonia," "Tallest buildings of Freedonia," "Category 5 hurricanes of Gilligan's Island," "Members of the 1912 Mudville Mudcats," and "Mitch Miller discography." Unless there's more diversity, there's not much value in having featured lists. --Orlady (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that LOTM/LOTD has been quite varied, but that has been a result of seeking out FLs that are not look-alikes (and do not look like possible candidates for removal from FL). It seems to me that we are running out of good candidates that are not look-alikes. --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

photograph
Hey Tony I like what you've done with BP Pedestrian Bridge as I liked what you did with the Jay Pritzker Pavilion article. Any chance you can get a photograph of the new building of the Spertus Institute‎?
 * Regards, dvdrw 05:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that before but wasn't sure. Good luck with the featured topic drive, I would support the BP Bridge, Pritzker Pavillion, and Cloud Gate needing to look closely before supporting the others- but I like what you're doing.
 * Regards, dvdrw 05:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I wrote a little more. Going to look again tomorrow, also expect me at the Cloud Gate peer review tomorrow.
 * Regards, dvdrw 07:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Delinking dates at William Gibson
Yo Tony, why did you delink the dates and remove the birthdateandage template from the above article? Skomorokh 15:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Trump Chicago article
I hope my comments above were helpful. Keep me informed if you run another peer review or FA. I'd be happy to comment again. Thanks for your hard work and doing such a great job to improve that article. Chupper (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Response
on my talk page Timneu22 (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And again. Timneu22 (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Crown Fountain
I think you can drop the second paragraph in controversy, since it has little to do with the fountain and isn't very interesting anyway. I'm not really in a position to judge the reliability of the blog; sorry. Zagalejo^^^ 04:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jon Burge
The article Jon Burge you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Jon Burge for things needed to be addressed. Million_Moments (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Crown FAC
(copied over from my talk page:) Done. If it's still at FAC, I'll try to comment more at the weekend. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A2 and UM Athletic Hall of Honor
Thanks for the head up on A2. As for the UM Hall of Honor, someone had complained about the first 2 intro sentences being a copyvio because they were based on the M Club site describing the purpose and criteria for induction. Though I had cited the M Club site as a source, the sentences were not in quotes. I rewrote on sentence and put the other in quotes, and now the issue has been resolved.Cbl62 (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

More on Crown FAC
Sorry, I grew too tired yesterday to be useful. I will try to sum up my objections to the FAC article. Basically they are:
 * The prose needs a thorough copy edit to streamline it and make it more elegant and worthy of an FAC
 * The article needs to be more focused and tightly organized on the fountain as a work of art and information relevant to this added. For example, whose idea was having the "subjects" (Chicago residents) chosen for  videos, etc. What was the artist's role in this and does it have a history in his past work? At first mention of the artist, it should include that he was Spanish, not some sections later. Also, there is a link to Universal design, but how the fountain fulfills the elements of this are not explained.
 * Related to the above, relevant wikilinks, for example, to public art are not there and there are irrelevant links, for example to Community areas of Chicago that serve to distract the reader in my mind.

I am writing this from memory, not having looked at the article today. Some of this may not be "actionable" according to FAC rules so I will modify the above according to your judgment on the matter. I wish you would allow one of the editors who offered to help reorganize the article and rework the prose to do so. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 14:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I need to sit down and read the new ref and read the places where it is cited. I also need to read the article carefully again. I am fairly busy so this may take me a day. Thanks for the quick reply, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

flickr
Would you be willing to tell me how to tell from Flickr whether the image is eligible for Wikipedia? I uploaded one for Plensa that I thought had the right licensing, but I was wrong. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have to have an account and be signed in to flickr? I don't see three boxes, say at http://www.flickr.com/photos/7450381@N05/2445704023/ How would I go about that, for example? (By the way, I really like your Crown Fountain. It is extremely interesting.)  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 21:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)