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.
Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching

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 Jan–

Template:FixBunching

This - The Drapier's Letters, PR, AR, or Restart? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an ARchive. Gimmetrow 17:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - the archiving didn't happen until a while afterwards, hence the question. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all explained in the {{fac}} template used to submit FAC nominations, particularly in the link to WP:FAC/ar. But Gimmetrow and I get asked the question several times a week :-) Raul has joked about making instructions blink so people will see them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't that, Sandy. It was that the bot didn't respond yet so I hadn't a clue what happened to it. It just vanished for a while into "when will the bot kick on" land. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the wording at WP:FAC/ar, "Some time later ... " Vauge, but the best we can do :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to note that FAC for The General in His Labryinth no longer has any "oppose" and that it now has 6 "supports". Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any current discussion going on wrt this issue? Dorftrottel (canvass) 08:39, April 15, 2008

No; it got so acrimonious that everyone backed off. I'll dig up some archive links for you later today. Geometry guy started a new WikiProject where discussion could/should happen, but I don't remember the name, and I'll find the old threads at WT:MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The old discussion first began in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 95, here and here, continued through Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 96, and led to the creation of WP:MOSCO, which hasn't gotten traction beyond a few editors. The verbosity on all of these MoS pages is a huge deterrent; it can be very hard to sort through all of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, conversion from {{GA}} to {{ArticleHistory}} is done for now. Gimmetrow 17:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I've checked those archive links and see what you mean. I guess at some point sooner rather than later there will have to be another big debate about this. Maybe even including, egad, polls. Dorftrottel (complain) 22:49, April 16, 2008

I'm all for a war on overlinking, but surely you don't oppose linking the first instance of a journal title? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, that's not what I said, is it?  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, thanks for your clarification here. I definitely agree that it's not necessary to link a source when it occurs multiple times (although I've probably done this, just not really thinking about it) and I am very much opposed to bots or editors going through adding these links in every instance. Apologies if it seemed like I was endorsing that -- I think you and I are very much on the same page here. --JayHenry (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; funny thing, though, same thing happened twice today (people pouncing on, distorting and misinterpreting my words as that other fellow did), so I should be more careful about where I post, since I don't always have time to follow up. I thought I was pretty clearly answering the notion that Diberri's tool should be altered to link all citations, which would be overlinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you should be more careful so should I. More likely it's just an inevitable consequence of threaded discussions. I was responding to the idea that highly reliable Academic Journals should be de facto "notable", and didn't even consider that it appeared I was also endorsing Diberri's tool always linking to these sources. Oops! All clear now, sorry about that. Definitely never, never, never intended to pounce or distort. --JayHenry (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, wasn't you at all; that other fellow, though, actually put a misquoted distortion of my post on his userpage (never encountered him before, can't remember his name). <shrug> Have three similar situations to deal with today; am thinking about just ignoring the other two :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know about that rule. — Wackymacs (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only back temporarily, sadly. Horrible stuff going on IRL. --Dweller (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry Dweller; I will be thinking of you. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from our brief discussion once The Orange Box failed it's FA, I've organised a peer review and contacted the original editors that reviewed the article. For your information the discussion can be found here. It is hoped that once this peer review is complete that the article will be resubmitted for consideration as a featured article. Many thanks for your time, advice and valuable input. --Gazimoff (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You remember I originally did the one-month summary on 3 April, back exactly a month? So the March summary still includes a change made on 3 April. I think this was the only change between 1–31 March and 3 March to 3 April, and didn't bother to re-do it. Here's the diff. Does it really matter? Problem is, I chose that image to illustrate that and another point together, so I'd have to ditch the image and start again. [1] TONY (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it. OK, that will have to come out. But I can't work out how to get access to the text now that Sam has done this transclusion thing. TONY (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, still a mystery. I can't see what is between any curly brackets, except for things such as /January. That goes nowhere. I just don't get it. TONY (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy. Good points. Colin°^Talk 22:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your ever-widening areas of expertise now extend to Antarctic exploration. Check the edit summary. Yomangani^talk 00:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does; I developed my expertise while I was down there researching penguins and Rodney Marks (astrophysicist) It gets better; google "me". There's one in Russia and there's one with a myspace page ... Yikes, not very original on the name, nothing as good as Yo-mangani. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Brianboulton may be a socketpuppet of Sandy's? Or was this text a collaboration on IRC? Gosh! –Outriggr § 01:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The collaboration was on an iceberg; yea, IRC :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not guilty of anything, m'lady, & don't honestly know what this is about, but I am notoriously slow on the uptake so guess I'll figure it out - in 2011. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it!!! South G. Is nothing secure? Brianboulton (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do wrong? Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 00:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MFC, it appears that it was a drive-by nomination, which means that you nominate it without any significant work and without the major contributor's permission. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a peer review. I was going to request one, but I decided to let the FAC go, and take care of comments as they are given. It was however, 22 edits; not 5. Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 01:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you did make some constructive edits to the article, but it was still over a period of only a couple hours. That is usually disliked in FAC. PR is a good idea, and when you take care of the issues in there, and make a bunch more good edits over a period of several days, it should be good for FAC. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned that article up about a year ago; a number of poorly formatted non-reliable sources have been added over the last few days, and WP:FAC suggestion to contact principle editors (Roswell native) weren't followed. It will take some time now to undo the damage done by introducing non-reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...I just nommed J. R. Richard for FAC again. The web sources used meet the reliable sources policy and are used in almost every baseball article on Wikipedia. Anyway, back on topic... I have noticed MFC's FAC issues (in fact, I "reprimanded" him once for nominating/supporting articles that weren't FA quality). If he wants a mentor, I'll gladly fill that role. I'll see what he has to say. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 01:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]