Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:59, 4 February 2007

If you want me to look at an article, please provide the link.
To leave me a message, click here.

Featured article removal candidates view edit Boogeyman 2 Review now Shoshone National Forest Review now Northrop YF-23 Review now Emmy Noether Review now Concerto delle donne Review now User:SandyGeorgia/FAs for review About me Talk to me To do list Tools and other useful things Some of my work Nice things Yukky things Archives 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

Whats up

How do I make my user thingy blue like the rest? Do I need refernce for that? Superplaya 01:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To make the link to your userpage blue, you add some content to your userpage: have a look at WP:Userpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That helped. Thanks alot!Superplaya 06:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: External links?

As I told you, there is nothing decided yet :-) I just created the list because I remembered (a year or over ago) when I bumped into a similar page, and haven't found it since then. If you do really want to review articles, you could give a different background color to the ones you have reviewed. To do so, in the |- that is above the item you have reviewed, add style="background-color: lightgreen;". However, since this process is not automatic, the next time I create the dump the cells will have to be painted manually again. As I said, we are just starting. -- ReyBrujo 02:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding the lists here for my reference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bolding the ones you recognize as having no problems. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject External links would be the correct place to search for help, but the wikiproject is seen as "competing" with WikiProject Spam, which takes far more resources. I do not expect this to change soon, but hopefully someday people will pay attention to the lists (just as some pay attention to {{external links}} and work with the backlog there from time to time). Cheers! -- ReyBrujo 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Technical question

Sandy, Is it possible to define the width of a collumn? If so, how is that done? Specifically I want to set the width of the second column to 410 px and let the first column float with the screen resolution. Thanks for your help. Frank van Mierlo 03:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it's possible, but I don't know how to do it - whenever I have to create a column or box, I have to copy someone else's. You could ask at WP:VPT. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Gallery formatting

Hi Sandy. As Adolfo Farsari seems to have ermerged from the FAC process, I've pasted your objection and responded to it here. -- Hoary 08:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Hoary - goodness, I didn't remember my Object on that article, and I'm sorry I didn't get back to strike if concerns were met. I view four different monitors - the only small screen is my laptop. I've had problems with wrap on image galleries and math formulas on all four. Maybe it's my screen resolution settings? I don't think it's only a problem with my settings, though, because on some of the math articles, the printable versions also wrap and text is chopped. Congratulations on the FA, and if I ever leave a resolved Object again on you, pls do ping me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Barbaro

I have to refuse to do my penance. I was tempted, but it is going to fail 1(e). Maybe next year. Until then it will have to be Hail Marys. Yomangani 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL - well, it was hard reading about tortured horses while I was watching the sad Barbaro news on the TV :-) Hail Marys will not suffice - we'll have to come up with something else. Have a look at the Anne of Great Britain far - there's a new helper on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessments within projects

Regarding the edits to U2 and Snow Leopard - an assessment of GA within a project is not the same thing as an assessment of GA from WP:GA. Projects can, and do, use somewhat different scales, and a project assessment of A can coexist with a WP:GA. (Even WP:GA does not change project A assessments to GA when they list an article.) I've taken care of the U2 one. With Snow Leopard, it's remotely possible the project assigns a GA within the project without going through WP:GA, but I don't know if that's the case there, so I left it. Another problem is what to do with articles like Talk:Bruce_Springsteen which use one of the obscure GA template including extra categories. Gimmetrow 01:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think all FAR-demotions should be B's, the bot can do that in the future. Gimmetrow 01:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

More amusement at Image:Kevin-pereira.jpg. Take a look at the version uploaded at 10:45 January 26. (It's safe.) Did you notice what was amusing about the Pashtun FACs? You dug out the old version and put it in /archive1, but one of the article editors is apparently an admin who "fixed" your cut-and-paste move by splitting the page history. But left one of the pages a redirect... Gimmetrow 03:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The latest pile-up

I've decided the best metaphor for FAR is a wilderness stream: it gets blocked at points, and often meanders, but the general flow carries on... So then:

• Are you happy with the LEAD and prose at Panavision? Lots of good work there.
• I think Superman will clear out soon enough; just waiting for Wiki-Newbie.
• Illimatic only has one remove but hasn't had much work in a while. There were some efforts early in the review.
• Firefox is far from perfect, but there was work on it yesterday so it will have to stay up a while.

All of these are pushing two months, but that's becoming par for the course. Marskell 08:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, just messaging to hope that my occasional notification of FARs of late is doing you a favour as intended, and not being disruptive. LuciferMorgan 14:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Utter frustration". I can imagine. I hate to repeatedly ask you, but at least in terms of referencing, you're the last word... A victim of your own success? :) I've started ce'ing Quartermass, BTW. Seems quite good. Marskell 14:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The bot has already swept the archive once and got it right. I asked Gimme on FAR talk if he wanted different archives, without reply. Marskell 16:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:sign

Hi there. Thanks for reminding me. Next time you see unsigned statements, you can use {{unsigned|username}} template. It will produce: — Preceding unsigned comment added by username (talk • contribs) . Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 14:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAR

Hi, there - wanted to check in with you regarding your FAR nominations; we try not to overwhelm any given WikiProject with too many nominations at once. We now have four MilHist articles at FAR. The instructions also say, "Nominators are asked to improve an article that they nominate for review to the best of their ability," so we discourage nominating more articles than an editor can work on at once. Are you planning to nominate other MilHist articles right away, and are you able to keep up with two reviews at once? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I only nominated two and wasn't really aware there was two that had already been nominated. However, if an article doesn't meet FA criteria, I'd be concerned about not being allowed to promote it for delisting on the basis that the wikiproject was too busy. The wikiproject MILHIST is one of the largest projects to my understanding and can hopefully withstand this. I have been trying to offset my nominations by commenting on other nominatins for articles seeking FA and articles nominated for de-listing as FA (see my contribs). I currently have no more articles I wish to nominate as de-list as FA. I was just struck how articles listed as FA in the past fail to meet the rudmimentary qualifications for articles currently seeking FA, which seems wrong. FA should reflect the current article state and the current FA qualifications, not a historic version of either. I apologies if I have overloaded this wikiproject, but I will be monitoring both FARs on my watchlist. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help - PocklingtonDan 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military History project is indeed huge, so if editors worked on the articles I'd say they'd be able to fix it. The worrying thing is that when I nominated World War I, which I would class as a core topic, it went through FAR/C without much effort. Also, Battle of the Somme, one of the major World War I battles, looks destined to be FARC. I hope I'm wrong, but I think they'll go through FAR/C and end up being defeatured. LuciferMorgan 21:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who FAs

Hi, Sandy. Thanks for your help during the Dalek FAR — sorry it dragged out as long as it did.

I'd like to get the Doctor Who WikiProject to work together on improving the citations on our other featured articles (Doctor Who, TARDIS, Doctor Who missing episodes and Sydney Newman), but I think our energies would be best spent working on one at a time. Early discussion suggested that members would like to work on Doctor Who first, but I remember you mentioning that you were considering putting Doctor Who missing episodes on FAR after Dalek was finished. Are you still planning to do that? LuciferMorgan suggested that he'd be willing to let us work on our FAs in a more relaxed atmosphere than the FAR produces — how do you feel about that? Which article do you think we need to work on most/first? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't say I was going to put it at FAR - I said it's on the list of articles lacking citations that will eventually need to come to FAR, and anyone else could do it at any time. I think it's the one you most need to work on, but I personally have no plans to FAR any of them any time soon, hope you'll be able to work at your own pace, but we can't control if someone else FARs them. Perhaps put a message on the talk pages that the Project is aware of the need for citations and plans to address it soon? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Where editors have asked me, I'm reviewing articles also. Apartf from "The Quatermass Experiment", all the FAs I nominated are coming through FAR without any editors trying to improve them. I actually gave feedback in "The Quatermass Experiment" also. I'm sorry if you feel that I don't participate much, and don't "actively read the articles" and give feedback - I'm unsure if I was included in this comment about FAR reviewers on Josiah's talk page, but if so then I'm sorry you feel this way about me. It was me who actually suggested the Doctor Who Wikiproject for them to improve their articles, and I'll be helping them review the article as much as I can. The problem is prose isn't my strong point. I try to help where I can though, and that's why I've been trying to notify Projects since you've been swamped. LuciferMorgan 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, Lucifer, I wasn't referring to you at all - I was speaking about the general lack of reviewers, at the same time we have some off-topic rambling on the talk page from people who don't actually do anything to help !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok ok, chill!! My point was "someone else" is reviewing them, so no need to feel lonely. LuciferMorgan 21:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so there's half a dozen of us - that's still pretty lonely :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact there's 6 of us is a good thing, as it forges a stronger working relationship. LuciferMorgan 21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Never got round to thanking you for your comments to Slayer, so thanks :). If you have any concerns, feel free to give me a message and i will deal with them ASAP. Thanks again. M3tal H3ad 06:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

Check my evil strawpoll on the bottom of talk. Marskell 11:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In a stunning reversal (!!!) we may have found a way forward: simply use the existing wording from RS and V in the exceptions section. Third exception out, first and second verbatim from the P&G's now. Truly a lightbulb moment. Marskell 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the heads up Sandy! I had already noticed them on certain articles, but I didn't know what the markup for it was or where it was to be located so I didn't replace any of the articles I encountered without ut. However, if I encounter any in the future, I will go ahead and change them over. I do have one request though, and that is that for the maindate portion, the date listed on the article comes out in American format due to the page being in this format. While I'm American and find that fine, I do normally make the effort to wikilink each date so that it could come out in user preffered format. Perhaps the markup for this new template could do the same. Great job on your hard work!! -- SmthManly / / 18:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add the old system and hen advise you of any who are still using it. Thanks! -- SmthManly / / 22:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Quatermass and the Pit

I have now gone through and had a go at this article, in an attempt to start bringing it up to scratch and preserve its FA status. I hope it's getting vaguely close to being able to avoid FAR, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Angmering 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Expand this ref:

• ^ Newman, Kim in "The Kneale Tapes".

and then make a post at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured articles with citation problems that you would like to have it stricken from the list - unless someone objects and if there is consensus, we can call it a keep from there. That was fast ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if I had to put the full details of "The Kneale Tapes" twice, because I put the full details in an earlier citation when referring to something Nigel Kneale had said in the same documentary? Angmering 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ah, I missed that - since others may miss it was well, how about go ahead and repeat it ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that. :-) Angmering 20:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

El Hatillo PR

Gracias for taking care of some of the items from the peer review. I will get on the rest on Saturday.--enano 01:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Dear Sandy,

Do you have some time to take a look at the references for Activism at Ohio Wesleyan University. It is a fairly short article that came out as a result of moving a section not too long ago to a longer article. It is a fairly quick read and the references are not too many. I'd greatly appreciate any help that I can get. :-) LaSaltarella 05:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Clark

Is there any particular criticism you feel is underrepresented in the article? If not, would merging the now-existing criticism section throughout the article where applicable fix your issues? Staxringold _talk 05:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi SandyGeorgia! I've now heavily rewritten the article, including weaving the criticism into the article as you requested and including other criticisms that others said should be included. I was hoping you could stop by and reevaluate the article and let me know if you either think it's good enough for your support or if not what needs to be done! Thanks! Staxringold _talk 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Firefox 2.0

Get it :)? Well, an editor has suggested that we link to specific revisions of Mozilla Wiki pages instead of pages themselves; I think it's a good start. I've also pinged the folks on WP:RS as you suggested. BTW if you'd like me to stop giving you these "updates", feel free to let me know. Far be it from me to commit the ultimate crime of spam... Fvasconcellos 13:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL - thanks FV, no, pls do keep me informed, since that saves me from having to check back all the time, and thanks for doing the work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Some issues

The bot is going to have trouble if someone re-noms right away, and the archived nomination isn't changed. Then the archived nomination link is pointing to the now-current nom, and the bot closes it. Ran into this with Talk:Tenacious D and had to undo things. As a result, the current FAC is already at /archive2, so it will also need to be done by hand when it finishes.

On Talk:New York City there was a FAC listed from December 2005, pointing to the recent page. Couldn't find it.

On some other page, I seem to recall that the recent facfailed template was not at the top, but later. An older facfailed template was at the top. When there is no {{fac}} the bot is programmed to grab the first facfailed, under the assumption that someone probably already updated the page. I guess I'll have to figure out a way to identify the "right" facfailed. Just something to be aware of.

This was at Atlanta, Georgia. The old facfailed pointing to /archive1 was before the facfailed on the talk page. I can probably program around this. Gimmetrow 15:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: the bot doesn't need the fac templates changed to facfailed. If they are changed, the bot (as currently programmed) expects the most recent facfailed to be first. I'll probably have the bot give priority in the future to any {{facfailed}} without parameters. Gimmetrow 15:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, MILHIST must have fairly high standards to drop a "FA" to "Start". Gimmetrow 14:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

More on New York City: the numbering of the archives doesn't matter to me. As long as the page exists, and it's not going to get moved again, it doesn't really matter. There are other pages already with a /Archive1 and a /archive1. No real reason to move 'em around. I think the problem on NYC was that someone made a small mistake trying to incorporate the recent facfailed into AH by hand, and listed it as a December 2005 FAC. I removed it. Gimmetrow 15:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I had the bot use /articleN style because it was the most common style in the WP:FAC pages. Don't recall if I've posted these stats already. Determined January 16, 2007. Gimmetrow 19:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• 3500 files beginning with Misplaced Pages:featured article candidates (includes rdrs)
• 491 contain two /
• 2 article AC/DC, TV/FM
• 260 with /archiveN (including at least one ending //archive1)
• 22 with /archive N (including at least one "/archive one")
• 8 with /archive (no number)
• 59 with /ArchiveN
• 47 with /Archive N (including /Archive I and /Archive II)
• 5 with /Archive (no number)
• 4 others containing archive or Archive, eg:
  • Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Merit badge types (BSA)/RenamingArchive1
  • Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Merit badge types (BSA)/SolvedIssuesArchive1
  • Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Cædmon/FACarchive1
• 12 with /Attempt N
• 3 starting Featured article candidates/Featured article candidates
• 4 using /Month Year
  • Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Sesame Street/August 2005
  • Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Sesame Street/June 2006
  • Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Sesame Street/October 2004
  • Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Sesame Street/September 2004
• 39 containing /Featured log/<articlename>
• 4 apparently numbered AfD style, but note others (probably redirects):
  • Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Charizard 1
  • Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Charizard 2
  • Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Charizard 3
  • Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Charizard 4
  • Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Charizard/Archive 1
  • Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Charizard/Archive 2

Wow - and the bot can handle all of these? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the bot just needs to find one open pagename to move the discussion to. Since /archiveN is used most commonly, the bot just finds the next one of those available in sequence. All the others are just links, it really doesn't matter what they are, which is why moving them around is unnecessary work. But it shows how well people follow directions to archive to /Archive N ;) Gimmetrow 19:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Right - LOL ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

TS edits

Just to point out, that I was editing out being as I have Tourette Syndrome myself. It is fairly serious and I frequently land in hospital due to my tics. And as you will be shocked, I am sure, to know, I am 18 years old. My symptoms exploded at 17, I didnt even know I had it before then. I also know several people who only exploded into serious tics when they were in their early to late thirties. Please try not to be an insufferable smart ass and leave my edit next time please. Thanks

If you are sore about it, feel free to come and chat to the guys on www.tourettefriends.org.uk, all of us have the syndrome and maybe could provide you with a bit of real information. Leave it alone please.

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.24.247 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My rationale here, in case you or the editor who inserted the information wish to read it. Fvasconcellos 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem here. I'm not negating his/her suffering or troubles; the point is, this sort of disorder (manifestation?) wouldn't fit into the present definition of TS, whatever its etiology. Fvasconcellos 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

(Right—now I'm being redundant. Didn't notice your reply on the TS Talk page.) Fvasconcellos 00:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome. Right, let me get out of here before someone thinks we're forming some sort of cabal... 00:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK template

Just to confirm: they should be substituted for the bot to work, right? Just checking because they should already be...probably just means that one of the admins hasn't been doing it properly. I'll leave a note for the regular updaters. Yomangani 00:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If they are subst'ed, this bot won't find them. Gimmetrow 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Per this, I don't think Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis was ever a featured article. Gimmetrow 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I took it off of FFA . If it's still in the category, that means I'm out of sync still by one article, grrrrr ... yes, we should change it to FFAC, and I have to see what article is missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so now I'm short one an FFA in the category - can't find it. Can you run another one of those comparison lists? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Pythagoreun -- going to check now. Think I found it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Pashtun people

I think all of the concerns have pretty much been addressed. More refs have been added (and made consistent), and anything that may have been OR has been removed. Any way you could reconsider your vote? :-) Khoikhoi 00:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Regards, Khoikhoi 01:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Khoikhoi 01:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on the wiki-anniversary. Your contributions and especially your work in featured articles processes are very much appreciated; Misplaced Pages’s featured content is much better now than it was one year ago. Also belated congratulations on the FA status for Tourette syndrome, where you have done very good work. Unfortunately I was away when it reached GA and FA status and could not participate. I am also sorry I haven’t made that collage about which we talked last year; if you still want it (I don’t know whether it would fit in the article now), I’ll try it once I’m done with some real life stuff that is in the way.

By the way, I’ve just noticed this; how would you like an automatic way to estimate prose length? —xyzzy_n 02:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I’m not really on either side regarding the collage, so I’ll just accept the poll result. Thanks for pointing out prosesize.js; it’s a cool script (according to the source code, anyway; I haven’t actually tried it yet) and somewhat different from what I had in mind. There are some minor problems with it at which I’d like to hack eventually, but I’m glad you have something that works. —xyzzy_n 03:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For the unprecedented work on Featured articles review, Featured articles with citation problems and for enfocing WP:GTL among other things, I award you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar to commemorate your first year of excellence on Misplaced Pages.Pethr 03:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)