User talk:Wikipedical/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

speedy

Thanks for your work in checking articles, but please use speedy according to WP:CSD. Speedy for lack of notability is only when there is no notability asserted. Saying someone won an award, as for Amma Asante is a clear assertion of importance. If you think the subject insufficiently notable, but any reasonable claim to importance is present, use PROD or AFD. And when you tag speedy, you should mark the edit summary accordingly--otherwise it makes it very difficult for us overworked admins to check and get things deleted. In fact, it is important to use edit summaries in all cases so it can be seen what is being tagged or whatever. DGG (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Boone Carlyle

Hey, I've reviewed the article for GA status, it's on hold pending some stuff I've added on the talkpage. Cheers. The Rambling Man 17:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

I noticed that you are citing IMDb for the awards and nominations. IMDb is not considered a reliable source since it is user-edited. Someone will remove it once it is added to the main Lost page, so you should look for different websites. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominatons for "Good Article" status

This nomination is best discussed first on the Talk page of an article. For Alberto Gonzales, it will fail immediately, if it were to get attention this week by an evaluator, because it is not stable, as the subject is prominently in the news, and the article is both subject to many edits, and is "semi- protected" from anonymous IP addresses editing. Not a good status for a candidate article. -- Yellowdesk 01:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.
(Also useful to know, is that the comments made by evaluators can entail a lot of corrective editing, and its good to know (thanks to prior conversation on the talk pages) that there are several people willing to respond to suggestions to move a nomination forward...and that they agree each other as well.) You may want to turn on reminders to put in an edit summary on edits, as I see more than one other has commented on the lack of summaries.
See: Special:Preferences and the "editing" submenu, and
checkbox "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary "
-- Yellowdesk

Lost (season 1)

I have been working on the page and I believe it is ready for an FLC. However, before I nominate it, I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at it and telling me what you think (ie. If anything big is missing, if anything is unneeded, etc, etc). I didn't add any production info because I felt that none of it was really season specific and was better off in the main Lost article. Thanks, Scorpion0422 17:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The season 1 page never had a section like that. -- Scorpion0422 23:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
A lot of that information is already in the article, it's just in the lead. I didn't think there was really any need to branch it off into its own section. -- Scorpion0422 23:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have expanded the article a bit, what do you think? -- Scorpion0422 00:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of Brown v. Board of Education

The article Brown v. Board of Education you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Brown v. Board of Education for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Gavin Collins 11:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Renaissance architecture

I don' know why you've put this article up as a Good Article nomination, when it is already an "A" article as an architectural article and that is what it is about, specifically. The next step is not GA, which is one down from where it is now.

It has remained almost completely stable for months. The last worthwhile suggestions on the discussion page were made in April by someone with expertise, and were responded to. Nothing substantial has been done since then, It was written by three people with expertise under the watchful eye of a number of others. It should be a "FA", but since I am its main author, I'm hesitant to put it forward. I've met some very rude people reviewing "FA"s, who knowing little, thought they knew all, which is disheartening. Particularly since I'm one of the few art editors who has had the time to take on really big generic projects and complete them, rather than just doing one painting or one building.

I am also the author of Italian Renaissance painting, Gothic architecture, Romanesque architecture, Sistine Chapel ceiling, rewrote most of Leonardo da Vinci which had lost its FA status, Fra Angelico, Giotto, Cathedral architecture of Western Europe, most of Stained Glass and quite a number of other associated articles.

If you feel inclined to put Renaissance architecture up as an "FA", I won't complain. Since it is already an "A", if it gets reduced to a "GA", I will feel extremely badly done by.

Amandajm 12:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Weedypickle! Have a great vacation! Amandajm 00:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TeddyScrooge.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TeddyScrooge.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipidipoo!

I have just put a whole lot of articles up as potential FACs. You wanna take a look? Amandajm 07:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of The Holocaust

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article The Holocaust you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 3 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. VanTucky Talk 04:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination of Star Trek

I have placed Star Trek, an article that you nominated for Good Article status, on hold for a period of up to seven days so that concerns that arose during the review may be addressed. You may view these comments on the article's talk page. Cheers, CP 04:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:IndyKingdomCrystalSkull.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:IndyKingdomCrystalSkull.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DIRECTORY

Um, I'm not sure how the lists you've been deleting fall under this policy; I'm sure notability may be an issue for some, but they are not loosely-associated topics or anything else I can see in the policy. — TAnthonyTalk 00:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

doh!

opps ! my edit to the AFD explains what happened. :-) --Fredrick day 01:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

FL Main page proposal

You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination recently. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1, 2007, voting starting December 1, 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1, 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of Larry Craig

The article Larry Craig you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Larry Craig for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 19:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of September 11, 2001 attacks

The article September 11, 2001 attacks you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 15:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Star Trek

The article Star Trek you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Star Trek for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 04:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)