Comparison of the 2008 United States presidential candidates and User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between pages

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
1914 FA Cup final	Review it now

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:38, 10 October 2008

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link.

I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.
The current time is Friday, 10:12 UTC.

Template:FixBunching

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Borobudur	Review now
William Wilberforce	Review now
Polio	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now
Edward III of England	Review now
USS Wisconsin (BB-64)	Review now
Doolittle (album)	Review now

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

Homer Simpson

I know how annoying it is when users complain about their FxCs being closed. However, in this case, I feel the opposition had been addressed, but the opposers just hadn't returned yet. Anyway, I really don't think there is much else I can do to improve the article for another FAC, so when can I resubmit it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 11:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you've put into it, but I think the reviewers' comments provide scope for improvements in the next few weeks. Looking at the top of the article, I agree with comments about the prose. Here are random examples:

"titular" --> "eponymous". "voice"—there's a more appropriate word, isn't there, but I can't think of it right now.
"Although Groening has stated in several interviews that his father is the namesake of Homer, he has previously stated in several 1990 interviews that"—unfortunate repetition, "previously" is redundant, and the tense "has" is wrong.

Look, they're just two examples: it's basically well-written, but when you resubmit it, polished, I'll be hoping to support it—I'd expect that it will be a relatively painless process. There should be no issue in resubmitting; it's normal. Congrats on your existing work. Tony (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this has been resubmitted. -- how do you turn this on 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Note Tony1's response above: "I appreciate the work you've put into it, but I think the reviewers' comments provide scope for improvements in the next few weeks." I apologize to Scorpion0422 for not responding myself, but 1) I thought Tony had covered it (several weeks between nominations is the norm, unless there are extenuating circumstances and Raul or I have made an exception), and 2) I'm trying my best to wean FAC off of the notion that I must do and respond to everything, particularly when other FAC reviewers know the ropes and can field the queries. We need to allow time and space for other articles to get reviewer attention; FAC should not be a revolving door. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony1 also said "there should be no issue in resubmitting" which I took as meaning that I could resubmit it whenever I felt it was ready, the "next few weeks" thing completely slipped by me. It has been copyedited extensively since the FAC and one of the opposers now approves, so I felt that it had been improved enough to resubmit it. I will withdraw it if you want me to. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of consistency and fairness to everyone else, I'd rather you wait a week. Reviewers are clearly expressing that they can't get to everything, and asking that I throttle back on the re-noms. To withdraw, just remove the transcluded file, revert it to the GimmeBot version, and remove the template from the talk page. Again, Scorpion0422, my sincere apologies for not responding directly to you: I'm trying to get my "talk page stalkers" to take a more active role in dealing with routine FAC queries, and I thought Tony's message was clear. I see now that it wasn't and I see how you misunderstood. I'm off for the night, and hope others will help you with this. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Gondjout

Why did you close this FAC 4 days after it was opened? the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 20:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delay; I see you've gotten an excellent answer from Steve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Manu Sharma

Hi Sandy, could you please close the FAC? I don't have time to address the nominations, and some pretty good alternatives have sprung up on WT:FAC. I'm about to log offm and will be away till Monday. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll do it to take some tasks off of Sandy. --Moni3 (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, Karanacs, or Maralia should check to see that I did it right. I'm not sure I did. I should stop trying to be so freakin' helpful. --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You got it right - in the case of a nominator withdrawal with opposes, just remove the listing, add it to archive, make sure the withdrawal is noted on the FAC itself, and make sure the {{fac}} template remains on the article talk page till Gimme gets to it (I see he just did). Maralia (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Back to Back

Sorry, I was messing with Julian and after I saw he had placed an {{fac}} tag on the talk page beat him to the punch in creating the nomination as a joke... I put his name under nominator (I didn't think he would transclude it first) :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

All right, but considering how exhausted reviewers have expressed that they are, I suggest that limiting the horseplay on FAC might be helpful right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry... you can blame IRC for hijinks like these :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Sandy, I would like your opinion on an idea we have for reducing overall kB on this page to help with page load time. Ottava Riva asked me if I would be open to creating a separate page specifically set up to handle all the quotes in the references on this RCC page. We could then provide a link in the reference that would take Reader to the actual quote on a separate page. We could eliminate 20kB by doing this bringing the overall kB below 145,000. It is currently 160,000. What is your opinion of this idea? Has this ever been done before on a FAC and if so, can you point us to that page so we can maybe follow the example? If it has not been done before, are you in favor of making these changes to the refs? NancyHeise ^talk 18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to see Ottava is helping move the article forward! But I'm almost certain (although I can't put my hands on a guideline right now) that that idea would be unwise and should be/would be rejected at FAC. Remember that Wiki is mirrored on many other sites, and that would disconnect the quotes in the sources from the actual article on mirrored sites, as well as messing with printable versions. Disconnecting the sourcing from the article isn't a good idea from an editing standpoint, either; remember, the article is dynamic and editors need to have everything in one place for future changes. When I looked this morning, I saw that progress has been made on the size. I seem to recall a lot of images; have you considered looking at how much the load time is affected by images with a program like this one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Sandy, to have to put this here, but I wanted it so everyone could see my suggestion. Current: ^ Noble, p. 446, quote "The most chilling tribute, however, was in humans for sacrifice. When the wars of expansion that had provided prisoners came to an end, the Aztecs and their neighbors fought 'flower wars' –highly ritualized battles to provide prisoners to be sacrificed. Five thousand victims were sacrificed at the coronation of Moctezuma II (r. 1502–1520) in 1502. Even more, reportedly twenty thousand were sacrificed at the dedication of the great temple of Huitzilopochtli in Tenochtitlan." p. 456, quote "The peoples living in the Valley of Mexico believed that their conquest was fated by the gods and that their new masters would bring in new gods. The Spaniards' beliefs were strikingly similar, based on the revelation of divine will and the omnipotence of the Christian God. Cortes, by whitewashing former Aztec temples and converting native priests into white–clad Christian priests, was in a way fulfilling the Aztecs' expectations about their conquerer."

My proposal ^ Noble, pp. [[Roman Catholic Church/Sources#Noble 446|446]], [[Roman Catholic Church/Sources#Noble 456|456]]

With subpage reading: ===Noble 446=== "The most chilling tribute, however, was in humans for sacrifice. When the wars of expansion that had provided prisoners came to an end, the Aztecs and their neighbors fought 'flower wars' –highly ritualized battles to provide prisoners to be sacrificed. Five thousand victims were sacrificed at the coronation of Moctezuma II (r. 1502–1520) in 1502. Even more, reportedly twenty thousand were sacrificed at the dedication of the great temple of Huitzilopochtli in Tenochtitlan."

===Noble 456=== "The peoples living in the Valley of Mexico believed that their conquest was fated by the gods and that their new masters would bring in new gods. The Spaniards' beliefs were strikingly similar, based on the revelation of divine will and the omnipotence of the Christian God. Cortes, by whitewashing former Aztec temples and converting native priests into white–clad Christian priests, was in a way fulfilling the Aztecs' expectations about their conquerer."

The reason why I suggested this is that I have a similar formatting for online holdings here. The encyclopedia page doesn't need the actual quotes, there are there only for convenience of verification for the most part. This would allow an online edition of the excerpts (assuming the amount is allowable by fair use, which is a concern if they are part of the page or on a subpage regardless) that someone could easily check. If its on another Wiki system, it wont matter, because the references are still there to manually check. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's wise for the same reasons I give above; you can't disconnect information in citations from the article page. And if it's true that the current article doesn't required the quotes in the citations, then why are they there? They're either needed or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, what would the difference be between the above and not having the quotes anywhere online? These are convenience only quotes. Nancy wants them available for people to check. No quotes in references are ever truly needed. Its all for convenience of someone wanting to check the source material. Would you have a problem with what I did with the Prometheus Unbound page? I don't see a difference between this and linking any primary source so someone could easily click on the fuller version. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've given you the best answer I can; if you disagree, consult others. But if you're telling me the article has 20KB of unnecessary quotes in footnotes, then I'm really confused. Copy this whole thing over to RCC talk, because this isn't my decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's what ArbCom said; you're welcome to dig back through the evidence and see what that case was about, but I'm not in a "troll through ArbCom" kind of mood these days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So, it appears that ArbCom states "we don't deal with content, get a consensus first". I took it over to the talk page, so you can feel free to remove the above or whatever. Sorry for oranging up your day. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Double doo-doo

You ok with my nominating Harvey Milk while Stonewall riots is still on the list? Dank55 and I are tag-teaming on Stonewall. I think I'm flying solo on Milk. --Moni3 (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't caught up on FAC; if it has no major unresolved issues, and has garnered at least some support, it's fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Once I fell asleep in Spanish class in high school, putting my head in the crease of my textbook. Where my pencil also was. When I woke up the pencil was stuck to my forehead. I didn't learn a lot of Spanish in high school. --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

RS question

SandyG, if you have any thoughts and had the time to have a look at this query about sources for Carmen Rodriguez, I'd be most grateful. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's spelled out somewhere as a clear no-no ... I think it's at WP:NOR ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources" :) A goldmine? Indeed. Totally against policy? Yep. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But it's dealt with specifically at WP:PSTS: Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Think of the nightmare! "But Mary Shelley told me in a waking dream that Frankenstein is really about..." :) Awadewit (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Did she tell you to pronounce it FrankenSHTEEN like Mel Brooks? --Moni3 (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) Yes, I feared as much. In fact, mind you, I think the taboo that's being broken here is less WP:V than WP:OR. After all, research (particularly historical and scientific research) for instance, relies precisely on primary sources: letters, interviews, diaries, as well as experiments, lab notes, and so on. It's not that the students are drawing on personal experience--per the example of an eyewitness report of an accident--let alone a waking dream. In fact, they are being suitably scholarly in searching out primary and unpublished sources. It's just that when scholars do this, their reputation and training is what provides verifiability. Here on Wikipedia, because these are sources that nobody else can access, they are regarded on unreliable.

NB the use of primary sources would not make Wikipedia a primary source; it would make it a secondary source, along the lines of the sources that Wikipedia itself uses. But Wikipedia's goal is to be a tertiary source, that relies on (usually scholarly or journalistic) secondary sources.

I do wonder, however, how much leeway is provided by the final paragraph at WP:PSTS: "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be responsible for redefining editors as scholars, though! One important reason to severely limit the use of primary materials is precisely because the vast majority of Wikipedia editors have no training and are not able to properly assess primary materials - that is the job of experts. Finally, I think there is a world of difference between quoting a few lines from published novel and quoting from an unpublished interview with the author of that novel, for example. I tend to use "primary source" quotations when scholars have used them, for instance, to restrict any quotation bias, and the novel is available for anyone to read. However, an unpublished source is not available for perusal and will undoubtedly be used as evidence in an argument constructed by the editors - the kind of original research that belongs in academia, but not on Wikipedia. If we allowed everyone to post their own views with their own "unpublished" evidence, this place would be totally anarchic. Take a gander at the Joan of Arc archives, for example. You will find an example of an editor who wanted to add the results of his own personal, family tree to the article. It was unpublished, but reliable, because it was "family tradition", you see. :) It makes for a good read. Awadewit (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your thoughts. I am going to encourage them to write up their interview for some kind of publication... and of course not primarily so that they can then quote the material on Wikipedia, but because that's a good thing to do in itself. They're quite thrilled with the Wikipedia thing (getting sufficiently into the assignment to contact Rodriguez and so on), but I think they'll be equally excited with the possibility of some other kind of publication. (Meanwhile, note to Malleus: I disagree quite vehemently, but admire your own faith!) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting discussion for another time. As David Hume said, "Truth springs from argument amongst friends." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd cringe to know what hell spawn springs from one of our arguments. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My lips are sealed. Imagine two scientists who spawned artsy children; I get enough of this in real life. "Why can't they just be physicists?" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There's an inherent imbalance in these discussions, in that Jbmurray and Awadewit, for instance, have chosen to make their academic credentials public. That others of us have chosen not to be so open should not be taken to mean that that our opinions are of lesser value. I will make one confession though; my first degree was in psychology, but I think that gives me a view into both the arts and science camps. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a problem in all of Wikipedia, honestly. Look at all the "But it's an interview, it must be reliable" arguments. It isn't helped by the fact that primary/secondary changes meaning across disciplines. What *I* know, as a historian, as a primary source isn't quite what say a biology professor would understand as one. (Also isn't helped by the fact that in ancient history, a "primary source" can often be written a couple centuries away from the events it's recording i.e. Livy) Sourcing in general at WP is ... scary. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid my hackles rise when I see comments like "the vast majority of Wikipedia editors have no training and are not able to properly assess primary materials". It may well be the case that the vast majority of the 7.9 million or so registered users do not, but I would suspect that of the 153,000 active editors many have academic training, and are quite able to make judgements about primary materials, even in fields not directly related to their specific academic qualifications. From a scientific perspective I'd have to say that the evidence and arguments presented in literary articles often seems to be little more than the opinions of earlier generations, sometimes even risible. But I digress. There are different standards in the literary and scientific fields. Is Shelley's Frankenstein a good read is not a question that can be compared with "Can mass be converted into energy?" One can be tested, the other is a matter of faith. Discuss. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just look at any Simpsons article, for example. There is such a mishmash of primary and secondary sources as to make the skin crawl. There is no real understanding at that project, apparently, of what a primary and secondary source is. :) If you want me to defend my field, I'm ready to do so - not all of it, mind you, but some of it. I would like to point out that no literary scholar worth their salt would ask "is Frankenstein a good read?" That is not the kind of question we ask. If you would care to learn about the field, I would be happy to teach you. Currently, I can only assume that you have erected a strawman argument in order to throw out an insulting comparison. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you found the comparison insulting, that was not my intention. Neither do I agree that the argument is a strawman, as it it clearly rooted in the philosophy of the scientific method. But I will say no more, for fear of upsetting you further. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just tired of seeing my field maligned unfairly - there is plenty that is wrong with literary studies that I will freely admit to, but what you are describing is not it. You described a type of question that no one asks - since no one does what you claim, the comparison is false and your argument falls apart. If you want to have a real discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of literary studies, I would be happy to do so, but caricaturing the field is not the way to do so. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem of editors not understanding the difference between and correct usage of primary vs. secondary sources is also big in bio/med/science articles; in fact, it's the biggest issue at WP Medicine right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Malleus ... !! I took a day off this week. After the Johnson debacle, I was thinking just that, and that I can't wait to get that thing behind us and get back to some science and medical articles. Good gosh, there's no such thing as a hypothesis that can be tested in those literary articles, and a fact is never a fact. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think those of us who've had scientific training think about the world differently. We're open to ideas, but we know that to have any value those ideas have to be testable, else they're just faith. I'll save you from my monologue on Karl Popper, another dreadful article that I wish I hadn't just looked at. For instance, do ghosts exist? Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. But to get the right answer you have to ask the right question. What do you believe a ghost to be? How would you identify a ghost? I'm starting to ramble now, even I can see that ... :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
PS. I'll be interested to see how this pans out. My guess is that the scientists will whup the arty types. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

- sigh* Couldn't we agree to learn from each other? For example, why do you think scientists have failed to convince the majority of Americans that evolution exists? It has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with philosophy. We have failed to convince people that rationality is important. Moreover, I'm surprised to see someone on the science side of question referring to the "right" answer. It is my understanding that all answers in science are provisional - you are mistating the case for scientific rationality. It doesn't help your cause to make an undefendable argument! :) Awadewit (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That evolution exists is not in any doubt; there are many examples which demonstrate that perfectly satisfactorily for those with eyes to see. That so many Americans (in particular) seem to cling to a belief in creationism is a sociological and religious issue, nothing to do with philosophy. I find the presence of so much religious TV in the US just as puzzling as the apparently widespread belief in creationism. In closed systems of belief no proof is possible, therefore none is required for belief; faith substitutes for proof. BTW, that an answer is provisional is not the equivalent of saying that it's not the right answer, simply that it may not always be the right answer. The more important point, which you have studiously avoided, is selecting the right questions, ones that empirically testable hypotheses can be drawn from. Everything else is just blind faith. Oh, and before I forget: *sigh* to you too. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the question about faith has everything to do with philosophy. When I teach argumentative writing to my students, we have to spend days discussion why reason and logic are important: they do not understand why it is important to be logical. They often argue that faith is more important/better than reason - it is a fundamentally different philosophy. Moving on, though, let's resist the idea that the only questions worth answering are those that can be empirically tested. For you, apparently, philosophy is worthless. Ethics is of no concern. Etc. I am a rationalist and I turn to empiricism when appropriate, but I do recognize that it cannot answer all of the questions I have. How do you decide questions of morality? How have you developed your code of personal ethics? Also, you want to divide knowledge-gathering into neat little camps of "empirical" and "non-empirical" and then say that everything that isn't empirical is faith-based. That is a simplistic view that doesn't hold up and will get you into serious trouble if you really follow out the logic. For example, mathematics is not based on empirical evidence - it is only based on axioms, proofs, etc. Nothing in the "real world" proves that the "truths" of mathematics exist. What does that mean for the sciences that rely on that mathematics? Sciences like physics rely on data collection and correct prediction to justify their assertion that they are describing the real world, however much of that data collection and prediction rests on difficult mathematical constructs that are themselves unprovable. You are trying to make such mixtures seem much simpler than they really are. Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not at all the case that I believe philosophy to be worthless, quite the reverse. Simply that I am more drawn to empiricism than I am to other epistemological frameworks. I welcome disagreement and argument though, because without it there can be no "truth". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And I find it puzzling that great numbers of people seem to think that ALL Americans are creationists or that we ALL watch religious TV. (tickles Malleus) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps what many Europeans find puzzling is that any Americans are creationists, or that there are any American religious TV programmes? Anyway, I'll stop there. Don't want to upset you as well as Awadewit today. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Nah, won't upset me, as long as you don't assume that I, as an American, am necessarily creationist or a viewer of religious TV. Just because I write about bishops doesn't mean I'm necessarily religious. Just like I won't assume that just because you're from England, you're a soccer-mad fanatic! (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I love debating! A good thrust and parry always brightens my day. Awadewit (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I enjoy lurking, apparently, as I don't feel strongly enough to join in anything. As a very skeptical artist married to a scientist who had a very strong fundamentalist Christian background and reads evolutionary theory along with Tim LaHaye novels, I recognize that neither science nor philosophy exists in a vacuum without people to believe in either, or require either branch of study to be explained. The question of "do ghosts exist?" (they can exist for individuals) is not the same as describing the properties of fire, or wondering why some typos are more prevalent than others: is it a question of what the fingers are used to typing or is it insight into the secret desires of the typist? Does Awadewit want a new apartment? Does Moni secretly hate the Everglades so much that she wants the spelling "Evergaldes" to throw off Google hits? Such questions - will they ever be answered? --Moni3 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) For what it's worth... My university endlessly wants to bring the Sciences and the Arts together. I'm deeply sceptical, for many reasons. Not least because I think interdisciplinarity is much more difficult than their happy-clappy vision of everyone sitting in a lecture hall singing kumbayah. And some of the above gives the merest inkling of why such dialogue across the disciplines requires such work. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't be any more work than packing up a house. A house owned by bibliophiles. (whimpers) Last count we were about 6-7 thousand books, something like that... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I live with a physicist. We do the interdisciplinary thing every single day. It is wonderfully exciting. Hard, frustrating, but we both learn so much. We go to lectures in each others' field and we have huge, long debates afterwards. Stanley Fish and Roger Penrose come to mind. Who doesn't want to have great discussions like that? Disciplines are too cut off from each other, in my opinion. I have always wanted to teach a writing class for scientists! :) Awadewit (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I live with a physicist, too; why haven't you reviewed Quark? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't want to be the person who starts the long discussion about whether we can use popular science books that omit huge chunks of information as sources for science articles. I would rather that a scientist do that. I'm sort of surprised no one has. Awadewit (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I may take off the delegate hat there and review it myself, but I don't want to risk another long FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I spent 15 years with a Mathematician (which I probably just mispelled). I'd go "such and such really resembles (historical event here)" and he'd go "Huh? What was that?". He'd babble something about planes and integers and stuff, and I'd go "But why can't you balance a checkbook?" (grins) Fun, but... while I miss him every day since he died, I can't say that having to repair the mess he'd make of a checkbook is something I miss. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I live with a biochemist, who wishes to explain her enthusiasm with labwork with me, and good partner that I am, I wish to share that enthusiasm. More often than not, I fail miserably at understanding anything unless I frame it in my own way. While she tried to explain Constructive and destructive interference to me, I could only get it when I equated it with human social behavior. Now I think someone should develop a branch of math and sociology to predict why people do dumb things over and over. --Moni3 (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Quantum inference? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's you and me write the books about it, Dan. We'd be rich. That is the framework by which all science and philosophy is judged. --Moni3 (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Tacking on to the bottom: A, I hope you know that the context of my earlier reply to Malleus is the sheer exhaustion, frustration, disruption to my normal Wiki editing, and dismay at spending six weeks of my time on the Johnson FAC and seeing it (the article) deteriorate in the last few days. I have a hard time imagining that discussion about a bio/med article could proceed as this one did because of the scientific method, but I could be biased. And I could just be plain worn out and tired. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read the archives of homeopathy, evolution, and several other articles which should have been straightforward but which turned into battlegrounds because of fringe ideologies. Scientific reasoning did nothing there to save the articles. Awadewit (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but that's a whole 'nother story, more related to Wiki's refusal to get a handle on disruptive editing and incorrect use of primary sources. I think (?) with Johnson we're generally (limited exceptions) talking about good editing, but there is still disagreement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Test cite templates vs manually formatted citations

Sample. Let's check how much the cite templates affect page-load times: could you compare load times for versionA and versionB? Gimmetrow 02:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to go dialup for worst case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

According to websiteoptimization.com (I'll go to dialup next and test them myself):

Version A: Connection Rate Download Time; 14.4K 553.95 seconds; 28.8K 283.38 seconds; 33.6K 244.72 seconds; 56K 151.95 seconds

Version B: Connection Rate Download Time; 14.4K 553.95 seconds; 28.8K 283.38 seconds; 33.6K 244.72 seconds; 56K 151.95 seconds

Shows absolutely equally. Did I make a mistake on Versions A and B? Off to dialup now to manually time the loadtime.

(Did you really write a script to strip citations? Hillary ! The problem I see at RCC is they would have to maintain citation consistency; I do that at Tourette syndrome, but with more people dipping into the pot at RCC, citations will get out of whack, so unless the savings is substantial, it may not be recommended.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Download rate should be determined by the size of the rendered html. It's *possible* the rendered html is exactly the same size, but I doubt it. If you used that optimizer website you linked above, it may be striping off modifiers to a page, like "&oldid=". If so then the page loaded would be the same. Gimmetrow 02:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm a dummy, I shutdown and restarted to be sure my cache was clear, Version A, 73 long seconds, ugh. Now going to restart again for Version B. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Version B, 40 seconds. Since Version B is the version with templates, does that mean I had a caching issue even though I restarted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly the images. The html is different, however, if for nothing else than

Accessed 2008-04-12

replacing

Retrieved on <a href="/wiki/2008" title="2008">2008</a>-<a href="/wiki/April_12" title="April 12">04-12</a>

That accounts for about 8k (91 refs x 88 characters). Gimmetrow 03:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steve Bruce

I was just headed over to Oppose Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steve Bruce, but it's been promoted. Well, move on to the next one... it's still in the Urgent FACs template; perhaps a bot could rmv articles from the template when they are closed? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Bruce has been up since the 22nd ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorta pretty much getting into the habit of ignoring the long list of FACs on the FAC page, and working only from the template on its Talk. I spent all last night creating a second version of the lead of quark, and this morning dealing with other things.. and so just now was headed over to Bruce to say that the lead is really poor (in my cranky opinion)... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)}

As I've long suspected, this is a big problem with that list. If people would review articles at the top of the list, we could cut the list in half because I could archive the deficient FACs sooner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Are things like this allowed in FAC's

[1] Supporting or Opposing per another person? Doesn't the user in question if opposing have to provide a better reason in FAC's than that? D.M.N. (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's common to see opinions of others all over Wikipedia who support or oppose something "per" another person. It's shorthand for "s/he said it and I agree with it". It's not something I do, mainly because I so need to be original, and I don't want anyone stealing my thunder. Seriously though, I speak for myself, but I recognize other people agree with "pers". --Moni3 (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone said everything that needed to be said, it's fine. Obviously, I give more weight when it's clear that the reviewer fully engaged the article, but neither do I discount per so-and-so Opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Waterfall Gully FAR

I placed the notification on its FAR listing on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities on 30 September. However, did not know till now that it was supposed to be mentioned on Talk page. Michellecrisp (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

Battle of Berlin is a work in progress. All dates should be in the form "day month year" as that is what the majority are in. The reason why the start of the article is without links is because it has been edited in the last month the rest of the article has not and the recommendation on not linking dates has only recently been agreed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Work in progress"? But it's at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Kiko (2007) FAC

Oh, ok. I didn't know that, sorry. I'll see what I've missed on reviews. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dylan FAR

Sorry if Michael Gray's opinion was WP:TLDR. We were discussing what was an authoritative Dylan source, and he's the only expert I know who could give us a well-informed opinion. Thanks for guidance. Mick gold (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC comments

Already fixed, see FAC review. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 07:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Too much caffeine, I think. :-D Jayjg ^(talk) 07:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I added it to a bunch of other articles, for when they all make FA status. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As of linked years

I left a response at Tony's talk page, but wanted to leave a note here as well to avoid confusion. You said at the FAC, referring to "as of" links: "I don't know when those awful things crept back in to MoS" From what I can see, they never did. Wikipedia:As of says clearly that 'as of' links are deprecated, and Template:As of was recreated in February 2008, and outputs plain text instead of whatever it did before. Hopefully that is clearer now. I'm dropping a note off to User:Ikara to make sure I'm not misunderstanding anything. Carcharoth (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The following is the reply I left on Tony's talk page:

The "as of year" links are deprecated per WP:As of and the discussion regarding it that took place at the Village Pump. However, they should not be outright removed as they still serve a functional purpose. Instead they should be converted to the {{As of}} template as appropriate. Links of the form [[As of Year]] should be formatted as {{As of|Year}}, and links of the form [[As of Month Year]] should be formatted as {{As of|Year|Month}}. This will output the plain text "As of [Month] Year" and categorise the article appropriately, but not create a wikilink in the article. See the template documentation for more options and information.

Hopefully that clears things up – Ikara ^talk → 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; most likely, Tony will clear up the MoS page so editors don't think they're still supposed to be adding "as of" year links (likely because of not reading that entire other page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beyoncé Knowles

Thanks for the note. I left a message there. --Efe (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Connie Talbot/archive2

Can I ask why this was not promoted? Was it the concerns about over-detail/prose? Or was it that the biography may, in the future, change? Surely, using that logic, I can't ever hope to get this to FA, as, inevitably, she's going to outlive me? J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

At 11 days, it had a solid oppose and one of the supports was a weak support that actually identified deficiencies and read as an oppose. I suggest following the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to open a peer review and invite Karanacs, as well as other peer review volunteers to comment there: that should pave the way for a successful FAC next time. Hope to see you back in a few weeks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

J Milburn, it is quite normal for a period off and a re-run. Little weight is given to Supports (see the thrid bullet in the instructions. Good luck next time. Tony (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:GO

Sandy, I just read the thread at User talk:Gimmetrow#WP:GO. I got the impression that the Gimmebot isn't going to maintain it for much longer, and you're frustrated by it. Since WP:FL adds a high number of noms, I don't mind looking after it. What exactly needs to be done to maintain it? Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, thank you for the offer to help! Here is the history, so you'll understand the issue. If you read through the talk page and the talk page archives there, you'll see that for years Raul was mentioning that no one else helped do the weekly page archive, and it was a lot of work. The archiving instructions are in the actual page. The dates have to be added to the template, etc. When I came in as FAC delegate, I quickly understood how exasperating it was to maintain this page, particularly since no other process was sharing the burden, and I was having to do it all, every Saturday night at 0:00 UTC; fun way to spend my Saturday night. If I didn't get to it right away, at midnight Saturday, other processes would just add their promotions, without bothering to archive the page, creating even more work. So, Gimmetrow eventually wrote the code into GimmeBot to do the archiving automatically on Sat nights. But there are still issues, and other processes haven't helped. For example, the dates still have to be added to the template about a month in advance. We have to watch for errors: the last thing that tripped up the Bot was a sound with a # in the name, but the Sound people don't even notice or check. I had to manually correct the archiving, and Gimmetrow had to adjust the script to account for the sound files: who knows what's next? So, when I come along to promote, I have to correct the page and re-archive, when I'm in the middle of promoting with six tabs open (my circuit breakers pop :-). If other processes would: 1) help watch on Saturday night that the page archives correctly, 2) make sure the page has archived before adding new entries to it on Sunday or Monday, and 3) help maintain the template dates in advance, it would be most helpful! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Content policy updates

I removed WP:Attack pages and added WP:NFCC to Category:Wikipedia content policy, so now it's just 7 pages: the 3 core content policies, plus NAME, NFCC, BLP and NOT. Would you like like monthly updates of the 7 content policy pages? I won't have time for all of them but I bet I can find people who are interested in contributing, given the activity on those pages.

Sounds like a lot of work; have to leave tht decision to you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to delegate the work if I can. The style part of WP:Update is ready; is that useful? Do you want changes? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Ottava's talk

Hi, I noticed your discussion on Ottava's talk page, where he/she mentions six editors who complained about Jbmurray. I am one such editor, and made my concerns about this publicly, on the Mark Speight FAC and his own talk page. I do agree with you to an extent that discussion should be kept on-wiki as much as possible, but sometimes issues are rather too personal to raise publicly. I have however let Murray know of my thoughts publicly, before I began discussing him with Ottava in private. This FAC is my first, and his is the only oppose so far (that wasn't stricken). As someone who is well versed with the process as he is, he could have been much more helpful than he was with me. Instead, he's left a rather rague unhelpful "bad prose" strong oppose without actually bringing up the issues he has. I have spoken to other editors, and other editors think the prose is fine. He asked me to get others to look through it, so I did, and they think it's fine. I hope his oppose is no longer considered, since I did everything asked of me. It really is a stressful process, and opposes are a bit of a dig, especially when the opposer refuses to explain to me how to fix the problems, or even what the problems are. Best wishes. -- how do you turn this on 20:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to the guideline against inline queries? I've never come across it; this is the first I've heard of it, and I haven't yet found it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea about any such guideline. The closest I can see is here, but that doesn't say they aren't allowed. I thought it was a very odd way to raise concerns, when there's a perfectly useful talk page and FAC page open to do so. However, my real issue with him was his lack of helpfulness to a newbie FA writer, as I explained above. -- how do you turn this on 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec:) As I've tried to explain repeatedly, there are various issues here. But the most important is that a reviewer is not (and should not be) required to mention all instances of an issue at FAC. It's when a nominator views the FAC as a place to get quick fixes and subsequently badgers reviewers (or even, as here, the FAC delegate) to strike opposes, that's when the FAC process starts breaking down.

My own approach to FAC, and I'm hardly alone, is first to do some copy-editing on an article, and raise some minor issues inline, to which ideally the nominator can easily respond without fuss.

You chose rather to make a fuss. I hardly see that as an improvement.

Meanwhile, I have explained to you quite clearly what the issues are with this article. I'm sorry that you cannot see that. Those issues remain. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't. I'm sorry you can't be just a tad more helpful. Anyway, I'm not going to argue about this on someone elses talk page. -- how do you turn this on 20:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the FAC, so I won't opine on the oppose other than to say that all actionable opposes should be heeded. The guideline on inline queries is my immediate concern. Since I also use this method at FAC, I was surprised to see that it might be against a guideline; it appears that it's not. So, I want to point out that many editors do this as a time-saving, helpful approach to FAC. It is far faster to fix a minor issue right there in the text, based on an inline, than for the reviewer to add minor comments to the FAC or article talk, and for the nominator to have to go back and forth between the talk page, the FAC, and the text. It is a method that is intended to be helpful. If something turns out not to be minor, requiring further discussion, then it can be raised instead on talk. At least that's the way I have always approached FAC reviewing. I hope this helps resolve part of the concern. It is not surprising for a first FAC to be stressful, but little confusions like this only complicate matters, so please do bring them to me or WT:FAC sooner rather than discussing them off-Wiki, where confusion may only fester. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This puts it perfectly. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A similar method of communication was used in the recent FAC of Stonewall riots. Maralia copyedited what she saw needed addressing, and where she had questions, asked in hidden edits. I saw it all when I got up the next morning and got to work fixing what she pointed out. I thought it was convenient enough that I did the same in a recent peer review of Columbia River. However, it is true that if a reviewer sees multiple problems, it's sufficient to point out examples of repeated issues. FAC is not the place for fixing simple prose and sourcing issues that should be caught in peer reviewing. --Moni3 (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

So, unless someone can point me to something else, the practice of limited inline comments during FAC (used by many editors) seems fine. This is one of the reason it's best to keep Wiki discussions on Wiki, so we can all decide these things together :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll just chime in to explain where there is a problem. I'm sorry if this may be condescending since I am relying ont he basic pages, but please bear with me. Wikipedia:TALK#How to use article talk pages - What a talk page is for: A. "The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification." B. "The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits" C. "The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits" D. "Talk pages are for discussing the article," Since we already have these stated, and this is a strong section that has been carefully worked, it seems that consensus pushes for the talk page to be the center of discussion. It also does not prioritize on who gets to edit, nor favors another. It also grants the ability to archive discussions, which the article page does not. Now, from the invisible comment section: "Invisible comments are useful for flagging an issue or leaving instructions about part of the text," This implies (to me) information such as "this is original spelling", "this page is in ___ English", or "This is a list from ___". Also, "They should be used judiciously" implies that they should not be overused. I would prefer if people had a chance to discuss before changing pages, not make it seem like a page should be changed instantly, especially when it deals with content and style, and not a simple fix. That's all I have to say on it, and I would rather not discuss this further. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Ottava here, substantial changes to the prose should probably be run through the talk pages so there is an archive of it and it's public to everyone. I generally don't use inline comments except to make sure that folks do not change something that is a misspelling in the orginal quotation, etc. I think what everyone needs to remember is that first time nominators don't understand everything at FAC, and taking the time to explain thoroughly is well worth it in the long run. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You can say that again (the last part). Not sure how fast I'll be submitting my next article (if I ever do) considering the attitude of some of the commenters. -- how do you turn this on 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to beat the same drum, but :-) Perhaps if you would have brought your concern early on to WT:FAC, it might have gone smoother. I'm not sure it could have occurred to Jbmurray that the inlines were causing a problem; I use them, and think of them as a way to make things easier on nominators. I have checked the FAC now, and see that three reviewers raised prose issues (and that Ottava has now copyedited), so the next step would be to request previous opposers to revisit. I'm sorry you felt the experience was less than optimal, but I think we could all encourage more discussion at WT:FAC as the lesson learned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, was this reply to me? <confused> -- how do you turn this on 22:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a general reply to all of us; we need to make better use of WT:FAC. Sometimes I fear my talk page is becoming FAC central, and I'm not sure we're reaching everyone. The take home message here is that inlines are often used among experienced FAC nominators, but perhaps we should use them less liberally with newer nominators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that

[2]. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem :-) This was addressed in the Dispatch that interviewed RickBot, but it still hasn't caught on with FAC reviewers or nominators. RickBot needs a nominator line first for ease of his script; otherwise, he has to manually intervene. And, we had other scripts in the past that bombed on the capital P on previous FAC, so I try to make sure every FAC is standard, as I can't predict our future script needs. If regular reviewers at FAC would be more aware of this, it would be one less janitorial step for me, designed to help the bots and scripts that make us all happy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"chunk up the text"?

Sorry, I'm trying to learn the stuff to where I can do one of these and you guys don't have to fix a ton of these things in time... what did you mean about the text chunking? I may have gone dumb from a very very long day but I don't get it. rootology (C)(T) 02:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Whenever a cite template has a field that is empty, it's not doing anything in the article but taking up space that you have to edit around; you can remove them. I'll go do a few more samples now so you can see what I mean. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha, I thought I'd gotten all of those. I was trying to remove them all as I went after I found this tool to format them for me. rootology (C)(T) 03:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Navboxes on the side

You may want to look (and comment about :) ) at the solution Jdorje came up with for Hurricane Dean, and which [hopefully] satisfies the WP:ACCESS concerns you've raised lately. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vithoba

Can you please take a look at Vithoba and comment on any problems present on the article? Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Italics or quotes?

Sandy - been through most of the stuff, but there are some words still in quote marks here in this section - Major depressive disorder#Psychological, they should be in italics, right? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ITALICS are used for words as words, sparingly for emphasis, for foreign terms, and for the other main uses in the guideline. I'm not certain why all of those items in quote marks need quote marks, but I don't believe they would be in italics. I also saw a mix of single and double quotes, and still a lot of errors in logical punctuation. Perhaps ask Tony about the quote marks if he's not too busy? Otherwise Dank55 might help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Be happy to help if you haven't checked with Tony, Casliber. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Blue links

Your edit is noticed! I'll get right on with cutting the links down :-) -- how do you turn this on 21:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other papers, you don't have to link every occurrence, particuarly since they're well known. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Do the dates need unlinking, or are references different? -- how do you turn this on 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerned FAC

I took my time, there really isn't any reason why I should wait a few more weeks doing nothing, since I can't think of anything else to do for the article. If it fails again, at least people will point me problems I can't notice otherwise, and it won't be a waste of time. Diego_pmc ^Talk 21:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers are stetched thin, other articles deserve a chance for review, and talk page consensus at WT:FAC and long-standing consensus has been to allow some time between nominations.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but as I said I can't see any reason why doing so here would cause harm - WP isn't a beurocracy, after all. As an alternative, you could point out problems that could keep me occupied for a week or so, so that I wouldn't have to wait a week doing nothing, just so that I would respect a set of rules. :) If it is of any significance, I considered the previous nomination to have been closed prematurely, since the problems could have been solved in a matter of days, as you can see. Not that I accuse you of anything, I understand it can be tiring to review all the noms thoroughly. Diego_pmc ^Talk 21:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In fairness to other nominators, other articles, and reviewers, do not re-nom the article until a few weeks have passed.[4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC isn't an article improvement service, articles should come to it pretty much prepared and ready to go. At least that is how I approach my nominations. I suggest you contact the reviewers who left notices and ask for further help, most will probably be happy to do so without having to have the time constraints of FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of it, I'll wait until a week has passed since the last nom, but I think this rule should be a bit more flexible—I find it very absurd in some cases. Is it discussable (should be it's Wiki), and if so where can I start a discussion? Also if there is any reason this rule should stay as rigid as it is, please tell me, so that I could think it over, if needed. Thanks!

P.S.: Ealdgyth, thanks for the tip. Diego_pmc ^Talk 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There are discussions about this at WT:FAC right now. There are not enough reviewers to keep up, and if we keep having to review the same articles over and over then there won't be resources to go around. If you can't think of anything else to do to the article, open a peer review and recruit other users to take a look and offer opinions. You should especially contact anyone who has already opposed the article at FAC; if you don't address their concerns then your next FAC will likely fail too. Karanacs (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, PR now requests 14 days before an article that wasn't promoted at its FAC be listed at PR. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I keep forgetting that, but it makes sense. A FAC gives the nominator enough to work on, so immediately listing at PR doesn't make sense either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So bottom line, the reason this rule is still up is not that it is too great, but because there aren't enough reviewers? Diego_pmc ^Talk 22:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's also because I don't take archiving a FAC lightly, and they are archived when reviewer consensus is that more work is needed than can be done at FAC. Bringing them back right after archival disrespects reviewer effort. Also, the rule is flexible; if a nominator, for example, is affected by a hurricane or illness, and had to withdraw for a logical reason, I'm open to letting the nom come back sooner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are exceptions from your 1st argument (IMHO Concerned is one of them, as I could have fixed the article in even less than 4 days—I took my time out of respect you could say). Also, it is relative if a renom is disrespectful or not. If you renom an article immediately after it's been closed, without making any improvements than that is very disrespectful. But I don't think that renoming it after fixing the problems is.
And last, about natural disasters slowing down a contributor, I find that kinda funny. I guess that person will have other worries than promoting an article, so a week will still pass anyway.
BTW, don't take any offense in this (you seem a little irritated), we're just having an argument. Anyway, I'm not going to push for renoming Concerned now, because the not-enough-reviewers reason is actually a good one. :) Diego_pmc ^Talk 06:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Scott Mills Show Peer Review request

Hi.

Could you please review The Scott Mills Show and leave comments here.

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Syracuse University copyedit request

I've cleaned up this article from top to bottom. I've got one more subsection to write, although I'm finding it difficult to get good sources of information that aren't just out and out propaganda. Joe Biden is prominently displayed with all the appropriate NPOV stuff... in other words, he was a graduate of Syracuse University School of Law. LOL. I was wondering if you could start a copyedit once-through. Just so you know, I used Georgetown University as my template, since it's one of the few FA university articles that would be similar to Syracuse. And their competitors. So, Go Bosox, and any advice you have for me (no one else is helping, so this is basically mine) would be greatly appreciated. I think copyedit help is the level at which you're not considered a involved editor for FAC purposes. I'd like to nominate it for FA status soon, after you and Tony give it a once through. Again, ignore the one section that needs writing. Next, some medical article, probably Herpes zoster. That should be easy (unless you know who shows up). Then I think it's time to get HIV/AIDS back to FA status--it's an abomination that those two articles aren't FA. So that's my 1-2 month plan around here. Cause trouble here and there. Help out with Multiple sclerosis for Garrondo, who is doing yeoman work in neurological articles. Thanks for everything.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Publishers missing on most citations; can you get someone to fill those in, and I'll chip away as I can? It won't be soon, because this old dead writer is killing me. (PS, On a quick flyover, I see lots of MoS stuff to fix, but I'll also be leaving inlines about missing context ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're fast!!! I just want to get this article off my things to do. I'll start working on some of those MOS things, including publishers.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A question

Sandy, you've kept your opinions out of the short FA discussion, which is fine, but I'd like to know if you have an opinion on how much value there is in trying to shepherd the discussion to a consensus, as I am trying to do. If we let things lie at WT:FAC, and no consensus forms, we stay with the status quo ante, which doesn't seem to be the preference of many people. Do you feel that we can carry on happily without resolving this discussion? If the consensus is to promote Space SF without resolving this discussion, I'd be slightly disappointed; I didn't nominate it to get a star, but to determine if it could get a star. If it gets one without a supporting consensus on the issues I suppose that's harmless; if you don't promote (which even with majority support I'd not object to, since !votes != votes) then that's also disappointing without a consensus to make the reasons for not promoting more explicit. I suppose another way of looking at it is that that FAC discussion, which I've done my best to draw attention to as a proxy for the abstract debate, may itself turn out to be the best location for the debate, and the decision there may be regarded as precedent-setting.

Anyway, I don't want to try to draw you out on your opinion on short articles at FA, but I would be interested to hear your opinion on the status of the discussion, and the best way to resolve it. Mike Christie (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless we hear something concrete from Raul (who knows more of the history of WIAFA), I think the discussion is valuable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

New quark intro

Hi there. I have written a new introduction for quark at User:SCZenz/Quark#New intro. As you expressed concern about the complexity of the previous introduction, I'd be especially pleased if you would take a look, let me know what you think, and help improve it. -- SCZenz (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "complexity" was the word I used :-) The first sentence is much better: it now has something closer to a fundamental definition of a quark, although it's still lacking. The second sentence goes right into the same issues present in the previous version: terms are used before they're defined, and readers who don't speak physics are forced to click on blue links to try to decipher the article.

For some samples of how simple it is to write with clarity about Quarks, refer to the pros at SLAC:

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/VVC/theory/fundamental.html

I also have a sneaking suspicion that most of the article editors are too young to remember how exciting each quark discovery was, how they changed basic physics concepts taught to older generations, or to understand how confusing the Quark article might be to anyone over 40 or 50 years old, who may still think of protons and electrons as the basic building blocks of matter. That's what I mean by context is lacking, in addition to the overreliance on blue links for basic concepts. If you were a 60-yo liberal arts major, who had never taken a course in physics, never heard of a quark, and thought you knew the most fundamental building blocks from your high school science courses, would you get this basic information from the lead of this article? Or would you be forced to click on a bunch of blue links to try to understand what the heck?

http://www.particleadventure.org/frameless/quarks.html "Quarks are one type of matter particle. Most of the matter we see around us is made from protons and neutrons, which are composed of quarks."

Quarks are such a basic concept that the introduction should be clear and accessible to all audiences. Then, the body of the article needs to use scholarly sources, not high school websites. And goodness, the discovery of quarks was exciting to some of us; the history section could use some beef !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Naval Gunfire Support debate

First, thanks for the move. Now that the name issue has been dealt with I am working on the other issues. In particular, I write this message with regard to the quotes in the articles; I left a note with a link to a discussion about the quotes in the current form. I think this is the only suriviving issue relating to the MOS that you had, and I would like to get it straightened up before moving on to address any of the other major issues. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Your quote recommendation was retoractively applied to the article Montana class battleship as well after it occured to me that the article had been using the some curly quotes. Thanks for fixing that, I apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Death Valley National Park

Hi Sandy. Mav feels he's done with this one. Marskell (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tourette syndrome

Thanks for cleaning up my minor edit to Tourette syndrome. I'm still getting used to Wikipedia's MoS, which is slighly different than the writing style I'm accustomed to for research papers and articles, so I appreciate your patience and apologize for making you have to clean up after me so much! Happy editing. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 17:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

He was very rude to us Scots, you know.

		Civility Award
		For outstanding patience, to SandyGeorgia in respect of a particular English gentleman's FAC. Ben Mac Dui 20:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

MBB FP

I'm unclear what is happening here. I've read and re-read things, but don't quite understand the process. Could you offer a little advice and tell me what I should do? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is eligible to be put up as soon as Raul schedules Oct 16. The recommendation that you wait (not put it up right away) is based on not tying up the slots on the page, keeping other articles off for a full month, since you will surely get a slot with so many points. However, waiting too long carries a risk; sometimes Raul schedules far in advance, sometimes he doesn't. If he happens to have some plans that require him to schedule far in advance for November, and you missed the chance to get your slot by following the advice to wait til the end, you could miss the slot. So, you have to weigh the risks, and decide when to put in the request. I was concerned that no one pointed that out to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

But - I thought I'd already put a request in, on the talk page? So should I just leave well alone until Oct 16 is scheduled, and then...well what exactly? Do I create a new section with exactly the same text in the proposal? Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is not a request; the talk page is discussion. A request is entered when you add it to WP:TFA/R; you should carefully read the instructions there. It's your decision as to when you want to enter it on the page; it can be anytime after Raul schedules the 16th, but you don't have to jump right on the 16th. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you. From the main page I see that no more than five proposals are allowed at any one time. If there are already five on the page by the time I come to propose, what do I do exactly, especially since it is by no means certain that the article I want to propose may have those 6 points for a bi-centennial? Thank you for your patience on this, sometimes the finer points of Wikipedia policy can be tricky. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph of WP:TFA/R, and the "Adding requests" section, and let me know if you're still uncertain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if there's a rule

I made these two edits to the article. I wikilinked the name of the person, but not the name of the building. Then I thought about it, and I'm not sure if it's useful or silly. I'm sure you know the exact rule to follow in this case. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that's fine, as there's not enough to be said about the building to make it notable enough for its own article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:cite map

{{cite press release}} also lists publisher first and has no field for press release authors. Maps aren't the only sources where the publisher is the important detail and the person who authors the work, if even known, is actually less important. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Citing video interviews

I have a small question, and I thought you might be able to help. When citing video interviews should I use {{cite video}}, or {{cite interview}}? Diego_pmc ^Talk 09:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I've never used either, I'm really not sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It really depends how you want your end reference to look, and how many fields you can fill in. I doubt there's a strict rule on which to use. -- how do you turn this on 23:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

an alternative to the proposed WP:FSAC?

I should like to suggest, as an alternative to the proposed WP:FSAC, excluding articles on "semi-notable" topics from the ambit of the Featured Article project entirely, diverting them into WP:GA(N) instead. In other words, put more articles into WP:GAN (hopefully increasing the prestige of the WP:GA status, to where people wouldn't want to submit "unencyclopædic" WP:FACs), rather than creating a new process. I know you support the new process but I thought I would still seek your input.

On a different subject, I also have been thinking that when the Featured Article Director's delegate demotes a former Good Article [i.e., WP:GA → WP:FA → WP:FAR(C),] a decision expressly be made whether to re-submit the article to WP:GAN or not. (Needless to say, if the article contains serious error then it shouldn't.) If you think this is a bad idea then please offer your input.

Finally, on a completely unrelated question, does your Shermanesque response to my earlier question still hold? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

1) I'm not sure how we define "semi-notable". 2) Almost all FARC'd articles do not meet WP:WIAGA; I can think of no example of a FARC'd article that would meet WIAGA. 3) yes, Yes and YES. My answer won't change, so you really don't have to keep asking :-) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

will be back

I have to go out of town for a couple of days for family reasons and I may not be able to respond at FAC. I just wanted you to know I will be back soon, definitely by Monday. I have alerted other editors who worked with me on the page and they will be helping out while I'm gone. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 14:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

MIT

Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been through a GAR (kept) and PR in the past three months in preparation for a FAC in the near future. The primary stumbling block seems to be the Research activity section which is a mass of "over-linked" (but really easter egged) blue and probably worthy of some Summary style. I've let the article sit for a few more weeks to see if anything developed from other editors after the PR and GAR, but nothing has. I know of no way to equitably slice and dice it. I would appreciate your thoughts and any suggestions you had for that section or the rest of the article. Cheers! Madcoverboy (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I see quite a few issues there, and an article that is a ways from FAC-ready. Unfortunately, as I was searching around for a better University article to show you as a sample of which way you need to head, all I found was featured University articles that need to be submitted to WP:FAR. I'm afraid you've gotten a very superficial peer review there; I, too, have issues with the way that one section is written, but I see much more work needed to prepare the article for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in your impression...

of my proposal on short articles at WT:FAC#Even more arbitrary section break. (Feel free to respond there, here, or not.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the first sentence :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For the next sub-heading, I respectfully suggest Chaotic section break. Waltham, The Duke of 05:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideas on just what is wrong with people

Are now solicited...

Exhibit A - Seriously...what is wrong with people?
Exhibit B - must listen to let me know what you have always wanted the chance to do...
Exhibit C - there's a sociologist working on this somewhere, right? Right??

Anyone? --Moni3 (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI on Pump discussion

Quiddity gives a number of useful links pointing out potential article problems at WP:VPP#When to use hidden/collapsible sections and asks which style guideline should address these issues. What would you like to see in the style guidelines? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already dealt with at Wikipedia:MOS#Scrolling_lists; once again, what is MoS, chopped liver ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)