Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:32, 9 February 2008

If you want me to look at an article, 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.

Archives

2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013–2015 · 2016–2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · FA archive sorting · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 Jan–Mar (DCGAR) · 2023 Apr–Aug · 2023 Aug–Dec · 2023 Seasons greetings · 2024 · 2025

Robert Peake the Elder

Sorry to bother you, Sandy. We anticipated there might be objections to the gallery, and so it has turned out. Karanacs doesn't like it (see Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Robert Peake the Elder). I don't think he/she will actually oppose on that basis, but the edit summary said they would support if it was removed. We really don't know of any policy against galleries, but you would, I am sure. Because we feel that this gallery is an intrinsic part of the article, we'd rather keep it and fail FAC than ditch it for a star. What's the position on galleries in art articles? qp10qp (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate them as well (haven't looked at your article, nothing personal :-), but I'm not sure on guidelines governing them and/or precedent. I'll do some homework and get back to you. Do some of Giano's FAs have galleries? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I did some checking. WP:MOS#Images currently recommends the use of a gallery when there are too many images. MOS also mentions the option of a commons link. I couldn't locate in FAC talk page archives any past discussions about galleries. I think as long as there aren't so many images that we trigger WP:NOT (an art gallery or an indiscriminate collection) they should be fine (assuming they're all freely licensed, so Fair Use issues aren't triggered). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I put some images inline for Giano on Queluz National Palace as there were so many images that were referred to in the directly accompanying text. You might want to try something similar, though I really think in the case of an artist nobody can reasonably object to a gallery. I might have a look over later, but I always find Peake sends me to sleep (you can get away with snoozing in the Tate Modern as people think you are an installation, but it's frowned upon at the Tate Britain). Yomangani 16:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, and very nice they look too. I hate galleries in a FA, and have none in any of the pages I edit. That was why Yomangani was called in, to avoid a gallery. I suppose though on a page about an artist, they could just about be OK. Giano (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• My biggest concern is that the pictures in this gallery don't have context. The article does an excellent job describing or explaining the ones embedded in the text, and then just drops a bunch more on the bottom of the page. It just seems out of place. Since there's no policy about it, I can't/won't oppose on that basis, but I can argue a little and pout a little. Karanacs (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dare I say it? On my screen the images in the article are so huge, that if they had specified sizes and were smaller, most of the galery could be incorporated, and referred to in the text. Giano (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's probably to keep Yomangani from snoozin' :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the elderly Mr Peake only has one more image than Queluz (the beautiful page!) so encourage Yomangani have a go, and loose the gallery. Then a brief mention of each in the text. Giano (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If qp10qp wants me to have a go at integrating the gallery picture I will have a shot, but I must say it's a pity that the text refers to the portrait of Elizabeth Pope, but makes no mention of her amazing breasts which, if they exist at all, sprout directly from her stomach. She should join a freak show with the giant-thighed nun in The Vale of Rest (No article! who was complaining that there was nothing left to write) Yomangani 18:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, a woman takes an afternoon at the spa and comes home to find talk of breasts and thighs in her own house ... I expected to find a delicately roasted chicken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That will teach you to leave your house without arranging for adult supervision. Kablammo (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought Yomangani was snoozing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder

I fixed one of the DOI problems and hope you can use that as a template to fix the rest. Eubulides (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment

Sandy, I know you usually work on FA nominations, but this article I wrote is up for a GA nom and I think it has been placed on hold for several rather questionable reasons. If you have some time, I would appreciate your input. I understand you get a lot of requests for editing assistance, so I thank you in advance for anything you may be able to do. You were a huge help when Youngstown, Ohio was up for FA, so I figured I would come back to someone I knew was going to be able to provide top quality editorial assistance. Regards, Daysleeper47 (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: If you need further compliments as enticement, please let me know! :-)

LOL, I'll look as soon as I have a free moment, but bad timing, weekend guests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked in, Daysleeper, and you have a knowledgeable reviewer. Some of Jackyd101's standards may be higher than GA (which are too low anyway), but it looks like Jacky is willing to cede those points. Personal websites will be a problem if it comes to FAC, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick look. I haven't had the time to put in with this article as I would like but will work on Jacky's comments. Cheers, Daysleeper47 (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

& nbsp;

I was reviewing the MOS today in order to adequately copy edit an article and I noticed that the &nbsp page number requirement was removed. You just saved me a lot of time! Thanks! Lazulilasher (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the idea :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

FA formatting

Thank you, I'm glad I could be a help. Medvedenko (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bold font on volume

I adjusted MOS:BOLD. I don't know where the change came from. At first I didn't like it, but on reflection the volume numbers aren't really worth bolding in citation lists, so it's probably an improvement. I just hope they don't change it back now that I've fiddled with several articles in response. Eubulides (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Something has to be done about the ongoing fiddling at MOS; I don't think the "fiddlers" understand how that affects FAs. Same change should be made at WP:MOSBOLD, which is a different place than MOS:BOLD (and that's a whole 'nother issue). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PR stats

Hi Sandy, I replies on GeometryGuy's talk page, here. Ruhrfisch _><>° 22:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Article History

Thanks much, I wasn't sure how exactly to do it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New article query

Sandy, I'm wondering if you can advise me on the following. I am considering creating an article on Asperger syndrome psychologist Maxine Aston's concept 'Cassandra Affective Deprivation Disorder' but want to check first that the sources are what Misplaced Pages considers "reliable". What I have is M.Aston's own website material on CADD at the link above, as well as a recently published secondary source article from the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Focus Journal (the largest organization of professional social workers in the world). This secondary source article is written by Harriet F. Simons, Ph.D., LICSW and is entitled: 'Asperger’s Syndrome’s Impact on the Non-Asperger’s Partner: Introducing Cassandra Affective Deprivation Disorder (CADD)' detailing Aston's work in this area. The article is online but I don't think it can be accessed by non-members of NASW.

I don't know if you are familiar with her work, but Aston holds a Masters degree in Health Psychology, and has been a notable individual in the AS therapy world for over a decade.

Are these sources reliable?

Thank you for considering Goddessculture (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You would need multiple independent reliable sources to justify the article, as well as evidence that it's a notable term. It doesn't pass my personal turkey test because I've never heard of it. The medical group will quickly delete an article that isn't the subject of multiple, independent published reliable sources. It gets negligible ghits and no hits at scholar.google.com; I probably wouldn't personally support it unless you could show me a lot more independent sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Sandy. I won't bother with it then. Goddessculture (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic job

Just a small note to say I think that you're doing a fantastic job with FAC; it languished a bit while you were away, but you've really taken the bull by the horns since then. Respect! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to pile on to this congratulatory statement. Have been watching many of your calm helpful posts, edits and comments (when others may not be so measured) over the past few days. Best wishes --VS 04:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Peer review/Concussion

Hi SandyGeorgia, thanks again for the helpful comments at the review of concussion. I think I've addressed the concerns you brought up, would you mind taking another look at it? Thanks much, delldot talk 09:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's looking pretty good; I left some suggestions in edit summaries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert?

Why are you reverting? No time for a discussion? Timneu22 (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Up for discussion: village pump. Timneu22 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied. Timneu22 (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Preuss School FAC

Hey. Last night, you closed the FAC I had for the Preuss School. I completely understand, I had been inactive for almost a week. At any rate, I had been planning on responding to Karanacs's suggestions today, and have done so. Would it be preferable so close to a close to re-open that FAC or to create a new one? Thanks, SorryGuy  Talk  20:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, SorryGuy; once the previous opposers agree that issues are addressed, you can re-nominate; re-opening a closed FAC is a lot of work, and isn't optimal. You can work off-FAC with the opposers; once Karanacs agrees issues are resolved, you can re-nominate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Just wanted to make sure that was your inclination in light of your recent FAC talk page comments. Yesterday I went ahead and opened a discussion with Karanacs and hopefully that will work out. Thanks for everything, SorryGuy  Talk  03:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are currently five facs which came back almost immediately after archiving without (AFAIK) making sure issues had been addressed; I'd like to see an effort to resolve issues before re-nominations are initiated, in fairness to reviewers and to give equal attention to other FACs. In the past, several weeks was assumed; I'd like to see this new trend nipped in the bud. Thanks for asking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy anniversary

Hope you enjoy your 3rd year on Misplaced Pages. Haplolology /_{Contributions} 21:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Goings on

I suggest that you post this message at WT:FLC, because several active users have it on watch while not many have WP:FL on watch. -- Scorpion 22:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This caused a mess. I'll be putting something in AH to look for this. Gimmetrow 01:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

RAD

I put this before the League of Copy Editors but they have about a 4 month backlog. Do you think it would be appropriate to nominate it now as a FAC? Fainites 23:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you run it by WP:MED and WP:PSYCHOLOGY, and given them a good long time to look at it, telling them you plan to go to FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Never crossed my mind. Nobody at WP:PSYCHOLOGY ever responded to requests for help from various editors when the attachment articles were dangerous nonsense for over a year. I assumed they were pretty dormant. I'll give them a try though. Fainites 07:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a problem. I don't expect you'll get much from Psychology, but at least if there's any opposition, it will surface pre-FAC. MED will be more helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Good. Fainites 22:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Gunna call you "De Delinkquent"

But nevermind, it needs to be done. Barnstars for you. I wrote some of that section on overlinking, myself! There are compulsive linkers who would link every word if we let them. And then there are the people who think all red links must be stamped out like somebody stomping out germs, and they go around doing that. Glad to see somebody's getting the word out. Too many hyperlinks is worse than none at all, as it detracts from the good ones. SBHarris 08:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Dmoz

Hello. I see your vote at the Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_15#Template:Dmoz. I agree with you.

Best regards, nejron (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you spam

		My RfA
		Thank you very much, Sandy, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES  16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

FAC nominator etiquette

Hi Sandy. When I change my vote on an FAC nomination from Oppose to Support, I've started moving my previous (stricken) comments and the responses to the talk page of the nomination, with a note on the main page saying I did that. Sometimes my comments and the replies can get pretty long, and I was worried that they would turn off other reviewers (or be confusing for you). I've only done it twice, and I thought I'd better make sure that is okay with you before I do it again. If you'd rather I not do it then I'll move those back. Karanacs (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd prefer they stay. If you have a lot of comments that are resolved, the technique I like best is using a cap, like I did here (including your sig, so I know you capped them). My concern is that we not start a trend of editors moving comments to talk, lest it get out of hand without me becoming aware. I'd rather see comments moved to talk on very rare occasions. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know how to do the hide box, so thanks for pointing me that way. I'll fix the ones I moved to be in this format instead. Karanacs (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good; the reason I'm wary of moves to the talk page is when I'm running through the entire FAC page, I don't see talk page tabs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

On Alice in Chains

I've done a review on the article so don't worry about the date linking and hyphens, they'll address it soon. See the talk page. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think that all the article needs is a thorough copyedit and opposers will change their minds. There are seven supports unless I do not count. —Burningclean  01:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, BritandBeyonce; that is quite a list on on the talk page! If a thorough copyedit is still needed six weeks into the review, and considering the questions about the sourcing, would withdrawing the nom to properly prepare for FAC make more sense? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Its really a long list. =) Anyway, I think the article is ready for FAC. Reviewers have to wait until the copyediting is done to suit their objections. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been at FAC since December 28. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? Just let support accumulates or worst, opposes. Its been months there so withdrawing will make the effort of addressing objections futile. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, if you have time can you check out the FAC page again for AiC? You mentioned there that there was "no indication that the opposers' issues have been addressed since I last asked." With this last copy-edit thanks to BritandBeyonce, I do think that all opposers issues have been addressed(and I adress each one at the FAC page) Tony has also had a look at the article and his concerns were addressed as well. Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, it has been suggested at the Alice in Chains FAC page that due to length, the nom should possibly get restarted... but I know this thing has been lingering for a looong time, and with the recent work it is really close, and IMO will probably get through soon. What do you think? Would it be easier to restart and put this through again, or wait this one out for a few more days? Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Raul had already restarted it once, so I don't think a restart will address the issues, which have been raised consistently. I haven't looked today, but as of yesterday, there were still issues being raised about the use of non-reliable sources. If those can't be resolved somewhat quickly, one option is to withdraw the nom, complete the work needed, and re-submit in say a week or so. On a slim margin of Support, I can't promote an article when there are questions about the reliability of the sources used. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC) PS, it's not clear to me if you're using the words restart and withdraw synonymously. Raul and I restart noms when they are messy, unclear, need a new look, etc. The nominator can request a nom be withdrawn, and later resubmit. I don't see the need for a restart here, since the Opposers issues are clear, and need to be dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Catching up, I see that Ceoil has been there today, done some ce work, and indications that some of the non-reliable sources have been removed. If you get agreement that there are no more non-reliable sources, it's good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oddball

Was just going to block them anyway after looking in on TFA Ronald Reagan. I have blocked them indef, I see nothing but vandalism from that account, and particularly spiteful vandalism at that! (Oh and yes, I am online ;) Woody (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. Just put the TFA on your watchlist and you will get to use it quite often! Woody (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

:( into :)

Basketball110 Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, or Paul? has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Geography of Ireland FAR

Concerning your comments on Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Geography of Ireland, I believe I have addressed them all, so please have another look. If not, please point them out. Hope you approve of the new climate table; it reads better now. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bedtime here, will check in tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too; tomorrow is fine. Actually it is already tomorrow! ww2censor (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your name is on AN/I

Just wanted to make sure that you knew your name has been brought up. Risker (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I know. Nothing there, nothing to see. Thanks much for letting me know, though. At least the "new editor" (whose first post to Wiki was a POV tag with no attempt at discussion) has now acknowledged he's an old editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:ArticleHistory

Thanks for your help with the use of this template - I wasn't aware that you could have no current status. Thanks --Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Online Opinion.com

Just thought I'd point out you've been mentioned in this opinion piece. Apparently, you undid someone's edit, and he's upset.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6954

-- Ec5618 09:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ec, thanks for dropping by with my two minutes of fame. That would be Manning53 (talk · contribs), who says he would write to Znet. Original research, biased sources, synthesis, et al to string together his own conclusions in a poorly and unsourced entry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

See Sandy, even they think you act like an admin! ;)) Woody (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should add "not an admin" to my sig :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That might work! Or we could just ignore an opinion piece by someone who can't even get their facts straight... Woody (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Do I look worried?  :-)) Since I always edit civilly and within policy: no :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't think you would be!!! ;) Woody (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Article History Correction

Thanks, I appreciate the assist, but could you tell me which article it was and what I had done incorrectly so that I'll not do it again? Thanks again. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I totally missed the link (it's been kind of a long day). I'll poke around under the hood of the template and see if I can figure out what my error was. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni Villani link removed from FAC

In a recent edit of yours here, you state in the edit summary "promote 4" while removing 4 articles from the main FAC page, including one on Giovanni Villani. I'm assuming you mean that Giovanni Villani is one of a few new articles that have been granted Featured Article Status. But this is absolutely false; if you check the talk page here, the article is clearly still in the FAC process; uber-moderator Raul has not promoted the article upon its consensus yet (although there are 4 supports as of now). I'm curious as to why you removed this article from the main FAC page as a "promoted" article. Does your authority now override Raul's? If so, I bow to you, O New Monarch of Misplaced Pages. Lol. :P--Pericles of Athens 22:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:FAC/ar; yes, Raul has delegated me as a proxy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I am still a little confused. So it's been dropped from the main FAC page because a bot will slowly but surely update the Talk Page to say that it is now a Featured Article?--Pericles of Athens 01:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is now a featured article; it's at WP:FA, and you can add the star if you'd like. A bot will update the talk page and articlehistory (GimmeBot is probably delayed because I usually promote at night). Congratulations !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks!--Pericles of Athens 04:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Preity Zinta GAC

I am attempting to advise the most complicated GAC review I have ever handled (it is only my fifth as a reviewer however). I notice a bunch of edits which are mostly yours. These edits came after a comment you made about fixing overlinking among other problems. In my GA on hold commentary, I had a list of things I would like to see linked for the edification of the reader. None of them are redlinks. Many are terms international readers may have differing understandings of. In reviewing Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Overlinking_and_underlinking:_what.27s_the_best_ratio.3F I honestly think the reader would be better served if links were included for the following: single mother (seems to be linked twice later in the same paragraph), heroine, columnist, car accident, Los Angeles (using {{city-state}}), commissioned officer, Indian Army, literature, basketball, boarding school, psychology, criminal psychology, modeling, audition, commercials, catalogs, middle class, fiancee, Delhi, poetry, screen time, lead actress, Killer, critic, prejudice, reporter, protagonist, junta, accolade (transwiki), patriotic, hospital, ensemble cast, affair, Telethon, humanitarian, Blood donation, army base, temple, and paranoia.

You delinked some of these. However, these are all terms that various international readers may have differing understandings of. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't link most (but not all) of those terms; some of the problems were that words were linked many times within the article (Indian Army), some are just common terms that shouldn't be linked (killer). We often see overlinking as a result of GA reviews, which then causes a problem at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

MOS question

I am going to bring Fanny Imlay to FAC in a few weeks and I am working on MOS conformity right now. After reading WP:NAMES, I am still not sure how to handle the name situation in the first sentence. If you could offer some advice, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 03:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really up on bio issues, so whatever you read there, you probably know more than me. An editor who has been involved with naming issues is Tvoz (talk · contribs), or Bishonen (talk · contribs) would probably know. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit | talk 03:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

MoS

I appreciated your note on Tony's page. I already left notes for Trovatore and C. Parham this morning, to point out to them that their remarks may also have contributed to the way the conversation is turning. You may want to look at the three diffs I left on Tony's talk page, as well.

I haven't participated in the discussion of the MoS proposal, but I was confused by one of your comments there. Surely you wouldn't hold up an FA that otherwise would pass simply because you can't decide which style guideline you would like it to meet? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As discussed many times on the talk pages at FAC and FAR, to my knowledge there has never been a FAC failure because of MOS issues. That doesn't mean we need to allow a situation to fester, where unnecessary chaos, confusion and contradiction reign with conflicting information across multiple pages. I'm happy to hear you've also left notes to Trovatore and Parham. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"there has never been a FAC failure because of MOS issues" is good to hear; I was sure I had misunderstood what you were saying.

After looking at it this morning, I don't think that the opposition on the part of the mathematics editors can be attributed to a desire to concentrate power in the math MoS at the expense of the main MoS. The math MoS is more of an essay giving best practices for writing a math article than an actual style guide, and only a few of its statements are actually about editorial style. The only style difference may be with the use of "we".

A possible true source of opposition may be the impression that changes to the the MoS don't take into account actual practice on the wiki. In almost every situation where there is significant disagreement (spelling, units, citation style, etc.) the normal advice is to choose the style of the first significant contributor to the article. So it's nice for the MoS to have flexibility with things that are commonly done in different ways. Unlike a print publication that is permanently set in ink, our articles are never finished, so minor stylistic issues are less of an issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, good, I'm glad my motives, intelligence and professionalism aren't coming under attack as well. There have always been issues with the conduct of the Math Project; I don't participate in the GA process, but I followed that debacle and others and the conduct of the members was unbecoming. A possible true source of opposition may be the impression that changes to the the MoS don't take into account actual practice on the wiki. And that was exactly the issue we seek to address—derailed by personal attacks, uninformed opposition, and group think from certain Projects. MoS can't account for anything if there are scores of sub-pages out there, and no means of coordination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It should go without saying that I have no doubts whatsoever about your motives, intelligence, and professionalism. I think that I can provide some "insider perspective" on the math project, which might help the discussions on the MoS page.

I agree that some editors who have been active in the math project are also extremely outspoken in other areas such as MoS. But I don't like to think it's groupthink - there is, unsurprisingly, a diversity of views on various issues within the math project. For example, the GA debacle that happened was extremely frustrating for everyone; but rather than decide that GA was a lost cause, Geometry guy decided to see if he could help out there as well as with math articles. I think that his efforts were appreciated by everyone and may lead to a rapprochement between GA and the math project in the coming year. I have been helping a small amount with the archiving system for GA reviews.

Characterizing the comments of the people who oppose Tony's proposal as uninformed won't make them come to agree with you. I think that you'll find they are able to discuss things professionally when the hair on their back isn't raised - as is true for most people. I'm certain everyone on the MoS page has the interests of wikipedia in mind. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There continues to be some perseveration on MoS talk from math members, derailing any possibility of positive discussion of the issues. Perhaps I'll wait 'til tomorrow to put up my ideas. In the meantime, I'll hope the attacks on Tony's motives will have stopped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Author formatting

You are not the only one bugged by inconsistent author formatting; I wish the cite journal template supported last2=, first2=, last3, etc like citation. (Re planet.) Ashill (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I dislike citation because it's so different from the others :-) The best way to get control of the inconsistency, IMO, is just to use the author field and add the info there in a consistent format, as done on the medical examples I gave. Anyway, it's not a big deal for Planet, but I point out these issues so editors will be aware and can improve future editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

MOS 2

Hi Sandy. I was involved in the discussion, such as it was, over the precedence of the MOS. I have a good deal of respect for you as an editor, and I must admit I was somewhat surprised to see you take the stance you did on the issue. Regardless, I would like to have more discussion and less, well, sound bites. In particular, I'd like to see examples (from you or someone else who supports the change) of conflicts between the main manual of style and project-level manuals of style. Three examples would be good, six would be better. I have a feeling that perhaps there is misunderstanding about what the problem is, especially since you seem to favor a change in the wording -- without knowing what that change is I can't say if I'd support it, but if I had examples of what you see as the problem another wording might more readily suggest itself.

I noticed several math editors commenting (as opposed to other members I might recognize like from the Economics project), probably because the math style guide is one of the larger style guides -- and since the math WP is so large, of course. It's quite possible that they have the same issue I have: being so literal-minded, they paid more attention to the wording of the the suggestion rather than the underlying problem. (I don't know of any such problem, thus my request for examples -- I largely stay out of meta-issues.)

Feel free to post examples on the discussion page as well. It might either bring more support for the current wording or lead someone to suggest a better proposal. I'll watch this page in case you have anything particular to say to me.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

CR, I'm kinda MoS'ed out for the day. I just made a large new post to the talk page; does it help address some of your questions? I'd rather reorient the entire discussion than continue on the path this has taken so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had enough MOS nonsense to last me to 2009 already! I'll look at your post. Good luck to you. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding, CRG; please get back to me if you still have questions or concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The new post is a very good idea. Thanks also for sticking up for my good faith. I made a mistake in backing up Finell (who supported the proposal); it was a mistake made with the good intention to move the discussion forward as you are doing now (which I believe was his/her intention too). I've commented there about this too. Anyway, it was entirely appropriate to revert such a bold move, and I'm not surprised that the editor who reverted it was enraged. I appreciated you asking for apologies, but it is not in my nature or experience to expect them. It will be unpleasant for me to carry the angry section on my talk page until it is time to archive it, but I can deal with it. Geometry guy 21:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The anger will pass, Gguy. He may have felt that his very profession was under attack (and certainly his motives were), so it's not surprising he simmered up (he simmers down quickly, too); the good guys always work it out, and he always does. Not to worry, give it time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

MoS 2.1

Sure is MOSsy in here. Last time this blew up I started writing a "MOS lite" hitting the high points. Think that would be helpful now? Gimmetrow 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Another MOS page? Yikes :-) It seems largely driven by personality differences at this point; I don't know how to "fix it", but since I'm a "fixer" by nature, it's frustrating.  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are we getting malformed noms? Gimmetrow 02:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You want a long list, or the short version? People don't read the instructions. If you want all the recent examples, I'll go back and find them. See, for example, the gyrations I went throught with Roman Catholic Church (check my contribs from yesterday or so). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

We could go to an automated approach similar to peer review. Gimmetrow 02:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the situation at peer review, but I recently had a mess with the automated thingie when an article changed names with an open peer review (see Geometryguy's talk page). Old dog, new tricks, afraid of what I don't understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Everglades National Park FAC

Having returned home, I addressed what I could in the FAC for Everglades National Park. I am doing my darnedest to do this cheerily and with much forbearance, but I must admit there are parts that are quite frustrating. The copy edit issues that seem to come up at each 11th hour I'm addressing as well as I can. However, much of these complaints are completely subjective, and some exist because other well-meaning copy editors have changed the text to reflect what (I assume and hope) they feel is better. This, however, is the nature of Wikpedia and FAC itself and I understand that. Though at the pace this FAC is going and going and really really going, it seems nothing will make editors satisfied in content or writing, and I'm at a loss. This article is better than others that have passed FA and I know it. Perhaps this is the downside of WP:BOLD; if you choose a topic lots of people know about in an article that no one has worked on, it is the price you pay at FAC. I will continue to work on the article, doing what is requested. I don't know the time frame for FACs, but if the time has run out then you'll do what you have to do. This is an excellent article and I think it deserves featured status. Others may disagree and that is unfortunate. --Moni3 (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been frustrating (it had Support earlier), but with the new recent Opposes, I'm leaning towards thinking you'll have a better shot if you have only one FAC running at a time. Sometimes a fresh slate a few weeks later provides a better chance for success. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I understand what you have to do, but this process has served to teach me that it's really the adding of information to the article to make it the way I would like to see it, rather than this featured article process, that is the reason I do what I do. There was a point where both articles were majority support. I wonder if they're all kept up long if they should all receive majority opposes. Now, with the changes I made today, I take into consideration that the copy edit issues continue to dog the article, and delightfully, they are from editors who no doubt have impeccable English skills who suggest "get a copy editor to look it over". Many have already, but still there are parts of the article that bother some people. It's impossible to anticipate what language will make everyone happy. As I'm sure you've noticed, Birmingham campaign has had LOCE editors look it over and still there are places that make people unhappy. Another editor opposed based on suggestions that are not appropriate for this article, but for the Everglades article or even a new article. One article at a time would be wise, but indeed - to avoid this kind of frustration, no articles for feature would be even wiser. So instead articles on video games and television episodes get featured, and two articles that are well-written, immaculately researched, and address topics worthy of feature will languish at B status. Is Everglades National Park at featured article quality? I believe it is and I'm proud to have written it. Is it perfect and will it make every editor and reader happy? No, but neither are any other featured articles. --Moni3 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you re-contacted Una Smith and Mav to revisit those issues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, and I'll be honest with you that I'm not excited to do it now, although I will. What new items can inspire further opposes? The mind boggles... --Moni3 (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Those editors have been contacted. --Moni3 (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick reference question

I failed to see the note about references till now. What's the correct way to format dates? I ask because citearticle and whatnot still has those vestigial tags like month= year=, or accessmonth=; that sort of thing. I'm hoping they should be done with an accessdate like (2008-12-08). Zeality (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What article? Link please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Radical Dreamers; you left a comment on the FAC page about formatting them. Zeality (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You already fixed the error I mentioned on the FAC. Solo years are incorrectly linked (they shouldn't be), but that's not your fault; it's the stupid cite video template. I left a talk message there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Planet

No problem. I looked at several of the featured article pages, but all of the pages I found were bot-maintained, rather than manually driven, so I wasn't able to distinguish between a genuine promotion and a rogue bot. Apologies for the confusion. Bluap (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Terra Nova Expedition

SandyGeorgia: Hi. I don't understand your message about a "second" FAC nomination for Terra Nova Expedition. I'm sure this is the first such nomination - the article was in a poor state when I took it over. Can you explain? Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Terra Nova FAC nomination

SandyGeorgia: I understand and apologise. I will remove Terra Nova until the Ross Sea Party is dealt with. I'm sorry I misunderstood Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Partially my fault - I suggested he put it up (though to be fair, I don't think either need the amount of work that would render having two noms running problematic). Yomangani 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel badly "turning him away" with the good work he's done, but the situation at the bottom of FAC is weighing on my mind (two stalled noms from one nominator). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

He obviously needs to add in the info about the video game featuring a dinosaur which is based on The Simpsons episode in which Gwen Stefani sings about Ethelred the Unready and Mary Wollstonecraft failing to join the expedition after they were blown away in a hurricane during the battle of Pearl Harbor. That might attract some reviewers. ;) Yomangani 19:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)