• Talk snapshot 1 2 Dec 2005
• Talk snapshot 2 4 Jan 2006
• Talk snapshot 3 15 Jun 2006
• Talk snapshot 4 20 Jul 2006
• Talk snapshot 5 9 Jan 2007

A place for people to comment on the table I compiled. It isn't intended to be comprehensive, just list the ones that are both common and useful. Caerwine 13:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the list you have compiled is generally okay. Personally, I'd only advocate using e.g. and i.e., and occasionally cf. (which you've not included). Latinate terms such as ibid and et al are not ideal for referencing use on Wikipedia, though that doesn't mean they can't be used. Happy editing, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks great. Please eliminate the first two columns. --Tysto 14:20, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

Just to draw you attention to the fact that there was agreement some time ago to keep taxoboxes with the standard kingdom-order-family-genus-species so that that they didn't become cluttered with assorted sub-, parv- and super- bits. jimfbleak

I think the intermediate level problem arose with an editor who put in every intermediate level, which really is clutter - that meant a standard was needed, and although your edits are not in that league, you will appreciate the need for a common standard. On the cats, I think it should be categorised to the family, but I try to steer clear of cats as much as possible since there seem to be frequent changes. jimfbleak 05:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern (and hesitated myself), but one of the problems is that unless I can get ahold of vector images of the eagle and leaves or sufficiently high-resolution raster versions, I can't produce the appropriate svg versions. Unlike the chevrons, which I discovered through experimentation were based on concentric circles, I can't "fake" the eagle, etc. for specialist, command sergeant major and sergeant major of the army. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		Tireless Contributor Barnstar Award
		I Hpfan9374, hereby award you with the Tireless Contributor Barnstar Award, for contributing an especially large body of work without sacrificing quality. Hpfan9374 08:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Mollela, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Matt 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please this article, California Pioneer Register and Index,1542—1848 under the entry: Estudillo (José María), 1806, Span. lieut of the Mont. comp. That's why I had it tagged as a Spanish stub. He was not Mexican and several other sources document him serving directly under the Spanish king. I will post this on the article as a source. Thanks, Ronbo76 02:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I stubbed it as US bio stub was because this was a transition point. He is definitely not Mexican - both sources list his service as being directly under the King. There is a real difference on that point that I have seen in other documents. I am doing research on the rancho project and he has a different grant. Jose second article I sourced says "Though native-born Spaniards were not in favor in those days, José María won recognition from the governor for his "activity, intelligence, and services to the republic." His landgrant is different coming from the Viceroy who is a direct representative of the king and not the Mexican government was was still subject to the king. Ronbo76 02:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. On the above CFD you expressed the view that the categories encompassed by this nomination be 'listified'. Given the general rationale of the nomination, that the categories would be better deleted in favour of lists, this appears to imply support for deletion. On the other hand it may well be that you wish to retain the categories and have lists. If you could possibly see your way to revisiting the debate and clarifying your position then this would be very much appreciated.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 16:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]