This is an archive of past discussions with User:TonyTheTiger. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I performed some minor cleanup last night. The article should be in better shape for its review than Jack Kemp was. However, I do have a few concerns about the article's sourcing. His official website is used extensively, and I'm unsure if reviewers will consider that a reliable source. Encyclopædia Britannica is also cited, which may be frowned upon considering that we are an encyclopædia as well. Also, does it need a dozen external links? I think you could make some cuts here. Let me know when this comes to FAC, so I can give more in-depth comments. Giants2008 (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I purposely went the other way around as a joke (make love, not war --> make articles, not love). I've been considering changing the sig to "make articles, not drama". That seems more appropriate. Heck, I'll change it right now. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)05:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
Noble Story (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk·contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
From the Editors
There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I replaced the above comment. I just felt like I was spamming people by putting the same message on a lot of people's talk pages. Useight (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what that means, but you recent change looks better—still don't think Columbia should be singled out though. --Eustress (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Each article should have a main image. It should either be a school that lead the ranking of rankings or has the most #1's. However, since Columbia is the only portrait image, they are harder to include in the reformatted image groupings.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It's because I don't review FLCs very much and I am involved with a very narrow scope of FLs when I write them. Compared with Scorpion and The Rambling Man, each of whom are much more involved with the process than I am, my experience is very limited, and I believe both of them would do a better job. Thank you for considering me though. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR(Converse)00:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Freedom From Fear painting.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Freedom From Fear painting.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. BJBot (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
FLD, FLC, LOTD etc
"I should have expected my most fierce WP:FL critic/combatant (along with Scorpion) Woody to chime in with the negative. He clearly maintains his position near the top of the list of people who have the least respect for my contributions to the project." I am not your FL critic, nor am I disrespectful to your contributions to the project that is Wikipedia. You clearly have a number of GAs. What I object to, is your ego-driven LOTD attempt. Why don't you divert your energies into reviewing lists instead of this "project" of yours. The Featured list director will be a position that will help streamline the FLC process and bring us more into line with the current FAC setup. To be perfectly honest, nobody has even thought about its consequences for the Main Page or your project, ostensibly because they are two completely unrelated projects. People care about making the FL process better and improving the end-product, not about your project. Woody (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Four Freedoms
Are you sure? I looked through the Wikipedia fair-use guidelines and I couldn't find any specific mentions. Either way, you should definitely used the Infobox Painting template, not Infobox Awards. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a big deal but I do prefer the individual titles below (the way it is now), and from what I've seen around Wikipedia it's how it's normally done. As for the categories, I removed them because they weren't directly related to the subject—as WP:CAT says, "Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article." Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I assure Tony, I think about every comment I make, whether it is interpreted in the way intended is not at my discretion. I maybe a critic, but I am not a combatant. I am not your FL critic either, simply a critic of your suggested LOTD process. I agree that an FL on the main page might produce better turnover and more visibility for the FL process, I simply disagree that your process is in any way the best way to go about it.
With regards to "Please may want to make a comparison between a person who is trying to promote a democratic process versus one who is trying to promote a co-dictatorship and reconsider your choice of words when saying which one is ego-driven." First, not really understanding that very much. If you are suggesting that your process is democratic, then remember, democracies always have leaders, someone who enacts the policies decided on by others. That is what the FL will do. With regards to my schedule comment, it may seem flippant but it has its meaning, your post seemed entirely caught up with how changes would affect you and seemed to give no thought to the benefit of the project. Woody (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
O'Malley
Your going to need a whole page just to hold all the Good Article and Featured Article icons for articles you have pushed even beyond GA status, you should write articles for About.com and get paid for it. What do you think we should do about the broken link? I can switch to the cached version in Google, but the site may be up again, I left the website owners a message. And pointed out to the official O'Malley biographer what you have added to the biography. He will read it and leave comments, he found a typo last time, and filled in some missing dates. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The only one left is some negative fan reactions in chrono order on the move, I am looking through Time's archive, do you remember any good quotes about resentment and anger? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Re:Landmark District reports
Yes, I have printed copies of both reports I cited. I'm working on a general map to show all three sections of the district. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Back then, I thought we'd deprecated the "Major Cities" box WRT U.S. Routes. As it turns out, we didn't deprecate the Control Cities box, which I had lumped together with Major Cities, but some people seem to think Control Cities are more useful than Major Cities and still deserve their own table.
Since there are only 2, I still think it's a style issue and that the control cities can be mentioned in the text, but you can revert that edit if you want. —Rob(talk)15:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Re:Residential buildings
I think it would be a great idea to create a List of tallest residential buildings in the United States and a List of tallest residential buildings in the world. Do you think the "all-" modifier would be needed in the title? However, separate sections in regular tallest building lists wouldn't be necessary IMO; the buildings are already listed in the main table, so repeating the information would be redundant. In addition, if we listed residential buildings in a separate section on tallest buildings lists, we might also have to separate and list buildings by commercial and hotel use. At present, the tallest all-residential (and hotel) building building in a city is noted in the city's tallest building list, and I think this is suitable in regards to regular tallest buildings lists. Cheers, Rai•me19:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
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) 06:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)
Wow! I'm really impressed. I just did a quick read through, but the article seems to flow great! I like the pictures and love the quantity of references!
If I had not edited it in the past, I would have loved to do the GA review. But I've done some edits in the past. Happily, though, the entire article has been redone and looks 1000x times better now! I hope it passes the GA! Fine work. Chupper (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Re:FLD
I see no reason why my new role would impose on "your" experiment. I have no interest in it (and as far as I know, neither does Rambling Man). -- Scorpion042214:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you please stop pestering people about the LOTD thing? If you have to canvass, could you at least make sure that you only ask people who have not had any previous FLCs promoted? -- Scorpion042219:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: GAN on hold removal
I decided to remove them because...I wanted to. In truth, I'm feeling the strain of different things, and I'm feeling the burn out. Right now I'm trying to focus on other things, on and off the Wiki. Hope you understand. Noble Story (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
GA on Chicago Race Riot
Thanks for the notice, Tony, and congratulations on getting it there! Sorry I couldn't help you more with the last stages but had gotten burned out. Had done a lot of work on another article converting links to in-text citations, and was just tired of it. Thanks again--Parkwells (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Guess there wasn't any way for ya to throw me a link
(to the "articles series" part of the proposed HRC featured article discussion). Still, I found it and commented...although while I was typing it, her "series" got dispersed, in any case. Hmm, by the way, is there some pertinent forum to discuss WP guidelines with regard to articles series' formations in general instead of doing so only on a case-by-case basis? If so, I'd be able to cut and paste most of my comment there. — Justmeherenow( )16:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking better, though I'd prefer a shot (or diagram) of the sign to go into the infobox using the route_marker parameter. I'll see about drawing you up a SVG for the ground-level sign (often referred to as a "sign blade" in roadgeek jargon). I still think that perhaps some of the bridge photos should be moved over to a Commons gallery; see Kansas Turnpike and its accompanying Commons gallery for an example. As for a street level view, which seems to still be missing, perhaps this and this will provide an idea of what I'm looking for. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]16:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I know how, but finding data that fine-grained would be difficult. Most GIS data sets I've seen only contain state-maintained highways. Also, my copy of QGIS seems to have a mind of its own and decided that no matter what I do, what I really want is blank white images. I've queried on their forum but the only advice I've gotten so far is "wait for the next version". —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I hereby award you this barnstar for your outstanding edits and also your highly regarded philosophy. Thank You! Buddha24 (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, I want you to know that I think you have been doing some really great work on this portal, and I highly respect your quality-contributions to this project. However, it is beginning to become frustrating to attempt to collaborate on Portal:Chicago, because it seems like you are disagreeing with me and bucking virtually every single change I try to implement (and I am simply making changes based on comparisons to other portals that have successfully gained consensus as Featured Portals). I still value your contributions and will continue to think highly of you, but perhaps on this particular portal it seems that it might be best for you to work on this on your own, as you seem to have your own vision for it. If you want my advice on further work on this portal, let me know.
Your latest response and the tone used is unfortunate, and I take it from your lack of a response to my comment here that perhaps it is best for me to take a break from this particular portal. I wish you the best on it, and I want you to know that I do value your work and your contributions. Hopefully we can interact positively on future collaborations in a civil manner. Cirt (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I might come back to it at some point, but RichardF (talk·contribs) seems to agree with me that it is best for me to take a break from that portal for a bit, and I respect his input. I would encourage you to seek out his advice. And of course feel free to drop me a note if you are having particular trouble with something. Cirt (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm upgrading to netural. Quite a few photos have been swapped out and relate better to the topic at hand. The article is sound, but in comparison to other encyclopedia articles, there are so many photos strewn around that they might be better served moved to a gallery of sorts. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There are still more photos in that article than any other FA I've seen. While you've swapped out a bunch to make the current selection more relevant, and the templates help to reduce the clutter I'm still not sure about the overall quantity of photos there. You have two and three photos in a template where other articles use a single photo to illustrate a point. I've yet to see any other articles using that template yet to gauge my acceptance of it yet. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, since the template is so new, you're bound to encounter resistance until the Wikicommunity at large sees it in use. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Prairie Avenue looks fine except the width of the template at 5 images wide. Also, I don't recall those templates in use when I last read through that article though, meaning they are newer than the Prairie Avenue FAC. I hope you're not trying to use one FA to justify a newer practice in another. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
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) 09:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Purged images in the intro
No, I don't believe there is an policy which is relevant or even stated within the boundaries of promoting featured portals that states that changing images is mandatory; that said of course, there is opinion, and I know for certain that Cirt (talk·contribs) does prefer to use this sort of rotation in preparation for the numerous FPOCs he's had over the past few weeks/months. I am certainly partial to not having the rotating, but as I say, its personal preference. If this is down to just the Chicago Portal, I'd ensure to get broader consensus at FPR. Regards, Rudget (Help?) 18:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Portals
While I cannot speak on behalf of all coordinators, I think we like to see rotations instead of monthly update. A lot of featured portals should have been delisted because they were updated frequently only when going through the nomination. After that, the maintainer just forget about it and move on. Having rotations saves time. I personally update Portal:Environment once every 2-3 months and having rotations saves me a lot of trouble (not to mention the feeling of reading something new everytime you go there). OhanaUnitedTalk page21:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Trump Tower Chicago
The article is great; I am very confident that it will pass. Well done! I especially like your use of the mutiple image template to display construction progress. After the article becomes a GA, you should strive for it to become a featured article. You may be happy to know that List of tallest buildings in Chicago is the next list to be brought up to FL status after List of tallest buildings in Denver is finished. Alaskan assassin has been working on creating articles for all of the redlinked buildings for awhile now, so hopefully it will be ready for FLC soon. I will comment/vote at LOTD today; I have really not edited Wikipedia at all over the past week, as I have been too busy. Cheers, Rai•me22:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know about the Roanoke Building's landmark status. For the Roanoke contriversye, you may want to consider posting a question at WP:NRHP. But as for the land being set aside as a park by Trump, it appears that that is correct. This source clearly states that a "fact" about the Trump Tower is its:
Riverfront Park and Riverwalk: 1.2 acre park with 500 lineal feet along the Chicago River
I am guessing that this would include the land between Wrigley and Trump Tower, as I doubt that the narrow strip of land between the river and the tower itself would account for 1.2 acres. Cheers, Rai•me19:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Source 2 in the article says "Demolition of the recently vacated The Bon-Ton department store to make way for the new home of a 12-screen Regal Cinemas movie complex on the upper level and a Barnes & Noble superstore on the lower level." Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)03:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I've never even set foot in New York State. I think I've re-worded it enough to clarify that the theater complex is new. By the way, do you think that the Walden Galleria page is anywhere near WP:GA status, lack of pictures aside? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)03:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
María del Luján Telpuk
That was not a review, I just happened to read the article and thought I'd make some suggestions for improvement. The review is Noble Story's since he's marked it as 'on hold'. Considering it's been on hold for over a month - and it's really not supposed to be for more than a week - you might wanna give him a nudge. LampmanTalk to me!13:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I've given Noble Story a nudge on this and other GA nominated articles that he had placed on hold about a month ago; he is suffering from burnout and is withdrawing from reviewing this and the other two articles he had taken on (Dravidian parties, and Minority Treaties). These three articles now constitute a bit of a snafu; I've tasked myself to clean it up and am starting with Dravidian parties simply because its the oldest and first in the queue, by a few days. Since Noble Story is out of the picture, but has left a partial review on the article, I am going to ask for a second opinion editor to review the work that Noble Story has done on this article and conclude the review. If this article is still in play when I conclude the Dravidian parties review, I'll take it on. That will be a few days, however, for I am from a careful, conscientious school of GA reviewing. Apologies that you have been waiting so long on this article and have gotten caught up in this tangle. Since you have submitted a good number of articles in the past, however, I trust that you can appreciate how the Good Article review pipeline can get tangled up from time to time. Take care. Post any questions, comments or concerns here or on my talk page. Gosgood (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Campbell's Soup with Can Opener.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Campbell's Soup with Can Opener.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Got your inquiry. No further news that would change what I believe is now in the Roanoke Building article (mention of it as NRHP, no mention of NHL because it is not an NHL). The newspaper article author did not get back to me. The only other source citing NHL referred to that article. At WP:NRHP, i raised the question of whether we would have heard of any new NHL announcement, and consensus is that we would have, by general news announcments, by press releases from the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, and by news notices in the National Park Service NHL webpages.
The only thing further you might do, to add to the article anyhow, is request the NRHP/NHL nomination documents for the site. It may have been nominated for NHL but been rejected for that, as not sufficiently meritorious by the NHL's higher standards, but accepted for NRHP. Request by email to nr_reference (at) nps.gov, provide a postal mail address to receive copies of the documents and accompanying photos, etc. in a week or two's time. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we have been sure that it is listed on NRHP, because we did have the "New Listing" webpage source at the Department of the Interior. However, that new listing URL is no longer valid, so I updated the reference in the article just now to point to the main NRIS search screen. This is the best practice available, there is no way to link to a static webpage for the Lumber Exchange Building and Tower Addition specifically. doncram (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
In response to your new request for same, to WP:NRHP, Ivoshandor further added back a link to the "New Listings". I don't know if it is for a different URL than was there before, but this one works at least right now. So it is doubly/triple verified, if you like. However, double verification in the article is not needed: you could just delete one of the references; i would choose to delete that extra New Listings footnote. The NRIS search reference is fully adequate. doncram (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Great Start on the Philip Roosevelt Article
Tony - I was totally unaware of this man's contributions to aviation so your article was really exciting. I read that account on the early problems of coordination and the development of US Army Aviation tactics in the Great War and it was really interesting. Are you any relation to the Roosevelts or to Philip J. Roosevelt II, of Chappaqua, N.Y.? SimonATL (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
5/17 DYK
On 17 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philip Roosevelt, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 18 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Malcolm Baker, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I protected those articles (and the rest of the geography FAs) only against pagemoves. We've had a problem with a serial pagemove vandal moving all the prominent geography articles. I don't see any reason why any of these would need to be moved without discussion of the move. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Tony, long time no chat. I am as of right now, very busy, and don't think I am going to be able to participate in the feature list section. What I can promise is that I am going to be working on a bunch of lists to hopefully get up to feature status soon, and think this project you have going on is a great idea to get lists known by others out there.
On a side note, I have been playing catch-up, and noticed that almost all your pictures are not on the WikiCommons? Is there any reason why you aren't uploading them on there? Is it a licensing issue? I thought you were releasing them all to the public domain when I tagged a bunch of them with categories and IL tags. Eventually, I am going to have Satyrbot get me a list of all photos in Illinois related articles, so I can get them moved over to Commons if they fit into that freely released. Anyways, gotta run for now, but I will try and keep an eye on that Feature List page in the future.--Kranar drogin (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
On 19 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Benjamin Murphy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Your speed of response and positive approach are admirable. We can do this. Later today I will post my comments on the second half. I will continue to help in every way I can. Brianboulton (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It was meant to. If you have a look at {{WP Venezuela}}, it is a soft redirect to {{WikiProject South America}}. There is a provision in the South America template to include Venezuela=yes and Venezuela-importance= which is intended to make the Venezuela project template redundant. I have removed the Venezuela one and replaced it with the provisions. I haven't filled out the importance rating, I leave to that someone from the project. Regards. Woody (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(re LOTD) Maybe June 11, for the start of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, and/or June 10, when the last hat-trick was scored. Probably not good to have them on consecutive days, though :)
Re: My LotD's
Thanks for the heads up. I don't have any specific date, but I'd like if the two were on opposite sides of the month. Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to request June 4th, for no better reason than that was date the last NL election held in June took place. Tompw (talk) (review) 17:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that that is a great idea. I did not know of the map "creator" on the U.S. Census Bureau site until you brought it up, so thank you. But yes, maps will greatly add to the articles. Your method of using <br/><br/> on the Trump Tower article seems to work well, but I agree that posting on the infobox talk pages and requesting the addition of a new paramater to the template would be the best option.
Oh, and I plan to remain involved in LOTD in the future months. I just lost track of time, as usual... :) Hopefully that will not happen again. Cheers, Rai•me20:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Five columns are squashed on smaller window/screen sizes, so recommend the previous four-column version or something like it. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Just checked it on my 1024-by-768ish-sized browser window here and yes, it's less squashed, but the hyphenated names (in the fifth column) are still wrapping. I'd favor non-wrapping names, which I guess means four columns, but maybe you don't..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've some catching up to do before I can spare much time for Kemp - perhaps I'll come in when he returns to FAC. If you ever feel like a break from politics you might like to look at one or other of my polar exploration articles. Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, TonyTheTiger, just a note and not urgent. This photo looked great and I would have uploaded it, but the Chicago articles are plumb full of good photos. Maybe you'll know if it belongs in the commons. Best wishes. —SusanLesch (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the LGBTProject has not replaced SatyrBot. I keep hoping he'll be back soon, but I don't know when it will be... In the meantime, our to-do list which SatyrBot regularly updated is not being updated at all. :( AletaSing03:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Tiger, I am sorry to inform you that the information on the residents of the heller house is outdated and some of the information is not completely factually correct. I have attempted to change it in the past but it has been rudely changed. I just chose to once again inform you of your errors.
Sincerely yours pndan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.42.89.149 (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Discographies of Chicago musicians and musical groups, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you're adding the Wikiproject Popular culture template wrong
It appears the survey was conducted concurrently with the Illinois Historic Sites Survey (1971-1975). Seems some of the records are available through HAARGIS, you can use the query builder to search by survey type. I doubt its the only pool of potential landmarks, it's too old to be the only source, but it has likely assisted in many landmark designations, that and crooked politics. God loves Chicago, if for nothing else, the number of politicians who have been to prison. :)IvoShandor (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, looking a bit further it appears the years of the survey were 1974-1993. Still old, but likely to be a large amount of information. The query on HAARGIS will only show 1500 results, and not all of them have links to the background material from the surveys. --IvoShandor (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Pictures
I haven't gone on the photo expedition yet - digital cameras in our household continually being lent out, swapped, lost is a factor, plus this d-d old house, work, other WP articles, etc. The idea is beginning to seem dreamlike...my place of birth, Jackson Park Hospital, doesn't even have a WP entry, much less a photo..Anyway thanks for the source and surely the trip will happen this summer. Best wishes, Novickas (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Image:Ferry field derived from Aerial University of Michigan image.JPG listed for deletion
I'm sorry for the template; it's an unintended by-product of Twinkle. I think I know where to get a PD version of Ferry. I'll let you know. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk03:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, per this, I won't go on the PD hunt. I'll strike on the FAC when the notice of the OTRS ticket is posted. Going forward, it might be helpful to ensure images for which you have confirmed permission contrary to what is asserted by the source have proper notice before coming to FAC. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk03:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Murphy's Honours
your point is taken about this commission belonging in the article. but it doesn't belong in a list of honours. knighthoods are honours.nobel prizes are honours. honourary degrees are honours. maybe being elevated to general officer or flag rank is an honour. a commission as a first lieutenant is pretty ordinary. also, i think it's probably army reserve medical corps not 'army medical reserve corps'. but it's getting very late. i'll take this up tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toyokuni3 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Germany Schulz
Thanks for putting the Germany Schulz article up for FA status. I will try to help this weekend, if not sooner, on this. Is there any kind of time deadline like there is for a GA review? Cbl62 (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I responded to your comments at FAC. My understanding is that an infobox is not required. I understand that some hate them, some love them; I'm fairly neutral and in fact usually use them, but think that in this case it wouldn't add much. I'd love a picture of Wall, too, but doubt that there is one we can use. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American Rights
TonyTheTiger, I know you obviously like photographs, as evident from two of your articles, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) and Rush Street (Chicago). I have edited both of these to reduce the number of images (I have actually removed the thumbnail galleries). As Ruhrfisch (talk·contribs) rightly said at Rush Street's peer review: "When there are so many images crammed into tiny thumbnails, none of them really stands out or adds much to the article. By trying to include everything, you add nothing (or by trying not to lose any images, you essentially lose them all)." - I couldn't have said it any better myself. Lots of little, hard to see, thumbnails is certainly not better than fewer, but much larger and more meaningful images. Please understand that Wikipedia is not an image gallery, and that is what Wikimedia Commons is for. In regards to both of these articles (Trump Tower and Rush Street), I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages! I hope my edits and advise have been of use to you in improving your articles. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits)19:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It is understandable that you reverted my edits (but also predictable). At the moment, it seems to be you v. everyone else here. At the FAC, Rush Street failed mostly because of your use of too many images. The same applies to the Trump International Hotel and Tower article. You have the full capability of moving the images to the Commons page - they are not thrown out, they're still here. It is also useful for you to fully understand why images are used in articles. It's not all about appearance, but also meaning. On the Trump page, you have images of the exact same thing three times, in those thumbnail galleries. Why are you not more selective with your images? When you've got three images of the exact same thing, just choose the best one. I would like for us to come to a general agreement on this. Even though that particular Trump tower is under construction, this does not make it an exception when it comes to appropriate use of images. Indeed, readers might like to look at a few construction progress images - but the Wikimedia Commons will always serve this purpose better than Wikipedia, as it was created with multimedia storage in mind, whereas Wikipedia is intended as a comprehensive encyclopedia. As evident from the Rush Street FAC and peer review, editors do not like the thumbnail galleries and do not think they are beneficial to Wikipedia readers. In addition, it is also important to note that, as one of the world's most popular websites, Wikipedia is visited by people on a range of screen resolutions from as small as 640 x 480 and 800 x 600. At those resolutions, your articles would be most difficult to read. Please reconsider this, and if you agree with my advice, revert back to my previous revision which uses images in a more wise and selective manner. If you still disagree, I hope we can come to similar terms - and I might also consult the attention of other editors who have experience dealing with FA-class articles (assuming that's where you want your articles to end up.) — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits)21:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right, and it's confusing me somewhat, because I can't see what's changed in terms of the sortkeys since I switched the banners over. Both before and after all the categories use the sortkey {{PAGENAME}} which means that, as far as I can tell, the defaultsort categorisations should also have been overridden with the old template. If that wasn't the case, then something very wierd is going on. I'll have a look into it, but the solution I'll probably implement is to only add the {{PAGENAME}} sortkey outside the Talk: namespace: for some reason I don't entirely understand the default sortkey if nothing else is specified seems to be {{PAGENAME}} for that namespace and {{FULLPAGENAME}} everywhere else. I'll get back to you if and when I work out what's going on. Happy‑melon12:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've withdrawn the FAC now, so won't be commenting there any further. But there was something I did want to say, in response to your comment that "It sounds to me that you want a substantive objection." Actually, for what it's worth, I felt your comment was perfectly substantive, and I didn't have a problem with it. But thanks none the less for the further comments. I would have got around to addressing them had the FAC continued longer. And I'm not sure how I feel about working on the article just now, but if I do get back to it, I will certainly refer to these points in any subsequent revision. So, again, thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
(copied from my talk page:) Thanks for this. Not getting hung up on any one article is certainly good advice. Oh, and I wanted to say that I laughed at this comment: "You use the word as more than any writer I recall and use it in many of its half dozen or so forms (adj., con, etc.)." You're quite right! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
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) 07:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Expansion of Millennium Park, Lakeshore East and related articles
I just wanted to say that you have been amazing when it comes to these expanding these articles. I currently live in one of the buildings of Lakeshore East and have been very interested in expanding the related articles. I briefly started but then got a bit sidetracked. You, however, have rekindled my interest in the project. Let me know if there is anything specific you would like me to help with, otherwise I look forward to working with you to further expand these articles. Torsodog (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Freedom From Fear painting.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).
, see Talk:Barry Bonds for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
