Maelefique (talk | contribs) →Lord of the Universe: question on RfC durations... |
→Sorry!: new section |
||
Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
|} <!-- [[{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]], [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]] --> --[[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 17:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
|} <!-- [[{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]], [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]] --> --[[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 17:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Thanks! [[User:Cirt|Cirt]] ([[User talk:Cirt#top|talk]]) 20:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
:Thanks! [[User:Cirt|Cirt]] ([[User talk:Cirt#top|talk]]) 20:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Sorry! == |
|||
Sorry, I think that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Getting_It:_The_psychology_of_est&curid=14629980&diff=205040746&oldid=205021376 this] is my fault. :( --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 01:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:03, 12 April 2008
WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia.
| |
|
|
|
WP:AFD/T
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Other neat portal ideas for longer term
- Longer term ideas to think about from other portals:
- Events section, like: "On this day" e.g., Biography, Religion; "Selected anniversaries" e.g., War; "Calendar" at Holidays. Interesting idea of "Month selected anniversaries", at Oregon.
- Model intro with some rotating images, after Portal:Oregon, Portal:Iceland/Intro and Portal:Philosophy of science/Intro.
- Revamp DYK sections w/ free-use images, model after Portal:Criminal justice and Portal:Oregon.
- Portal palettes at User:RichardF/Palettes/Portals. Comparable color schemes can be developed from the various hue lists at User:RichardF/Palettes. Also see Portal:Box-header.
- If there are a lot of categories, then categories section to 2 columns, like in Portal:Indiana.
Hope I didn't come across as testy last night in FP talk; I was fighting bandwidth issues and was frustrated with my provider. I should really thank you for helping to make the portal better. I can see you've been watching portals as they evolved (this is a 2006-era antique portal). The candid feedback you've provided was just the tonic I was looking for during portal review, but I left the portal up there for a month and got nothing. I'm just starting to help the P:ARW, and I want to incorporate the lessons learned here to start that project off on a more modern path. Any helpful words will be appreciated. BusterD (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at that portal when I get a chance - feel free to message me again when it goes up for WP:PPREV. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I hope I've resolved all the issues you've raised, with the exception of the "things you can do" list. Please give the portal another look when you have time. Thanks for spending so much time making this portal a better one. BusterD (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll take another look. Cirt (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree with you here (as to redundancy), but I'll defer to your first hand knowledge of what is expected for an FP. I'll concede this portal is a bit "busy" compared to some FPs. Is the redlink block in the to do list going to be a sticking point? BusterD (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, consensus may differ from my positions, but yea, I still think there are too many redlinks - better to highlight 3-5 requested articles and have the rest on a "Suggestions" subpage of the relevant WikiProject, or something like that. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- The big issue here is that this may not be up to me; I'll need consensus at ACW task force to change one of their tools. I don't suppose collapsing it would help. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Easy fix - just create a separate subpage of the portal for that, and include selected contents from that template, just more succinct/concise. Cirt (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm committed to using the TF tool. I might claim a Portal:WWI precedent; this issue was never raised during that FP process. Looks like they use the same template we do, and they've got just as deep and rich a subject matter as we do. The other way would be to use tabs, like P:USN. BusterD (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Easy fix - just create a separate subpage of the portal for that, and include selected contents from that template, just more succinct/concise. Cirt (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- The big issue here is that this may not be up to me; I'll need consensus at ACW task force to change one of their tools. I don't suppose collapsing it would help. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, consensus may differ from my positions, but yea, I still think there are too many redlinks - better to highlight 3-5 requested articles and have the rest on a "Suggestions" subpage of the relevant WikiProject, or something like that. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree with you here (as to redundancy), but I'll defer to your first hand knowledge of what is expected for an FP. I'll concede this portal is a bit "busy" compared to some FPs. Is the redlink block in the to do list going to be a sticking point? BusterD (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll take another look. Cirt (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I hope I've resolved all the issues you've raised, with the exception of the "things you can do" list. Please give the portal another look when you have time. Thanks for spending so much time making this portal a better one. BusterD (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No, what I mean is to put a smaller list of Things you can do, right at Portal:American Civil War/Things you can do, instead of transcluding the entire Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/American Civil War. You can still link to that template "For more ..." or something like that. See Portal:Comedy/Things you can do for a smaller version. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the example (and the reset). I was having a hard time visualizing your suggestion. Let me absorb that today. Is this your only still unresolved issue? BusterD (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've been AFK for a a day or two, and now P:ACW is featured. Thanks for all your input. I've already trimmed a bunch from the redlinks on the to do list, and now I have a bunch of remedial editing to do to get the blurbs shorter, but thanks enormously for teaching me what's expected in a FP. I'll try to pay you back by volunteering for Portal Peer Review, getting other portals into a position where you have less work to do at FP. IMHO, we've got enough portals to start a "Good portal" strata along with "Featured portal." By creating this slightly lower performance bar, we might be able to get a more dynamic portal promotion process going. Again, thanks! BusterD (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- There's no question I chose the harder path on this portal. I also agree that we need more volunteers for the processes as they are before we could add the GP process. I'll be helping Kirill with Portal:American Revolutionary War first, then trying to create something very special with Portal:Civil war. Please feel free to stare over my shoulder and make suggestions. Plus I'm submitting myself for editor review soon, so I may ask you to contribute there. Again, thank you! BusterD (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've been AFK for a a day or two, and now P:ACW is featured. Thanks for all your input. I've already trimmed a bunch from the redlinks on the to do list, and now I have a bunch of remedial editing to do to get the blurbs shorter, but thanks enormously for teaching me what's expected in a FP. I'll try to pay you back by volunteering for Portal Peer Review, getting other portals into a position where you have less work to do at FP. IMHO, we've got enough portals to start a "Good portal" strata along with "Featured portal." By creating this slightly lower performance bar, we might be able to get a more dynamic portal promotion process going. Again, thanks! BusterD (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the crown
Thanks for the Imperial Triple Crown and your kind remarks. JGHowes talk - 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
golden era of knowlege
I thought, since it will be deleted soon, it wouldn't matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.166.24 (talk • contribs)
blocked?
this is the library of a college, so please don't block it becuase of some idoit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.166.24 (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Speier
Thanks to you to.I'll see if I can help get it into further shape in the next few days.--Dr who1975 (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. Thanks for correcting my spelling errors and not giving me a hard time about making them.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the MOS issues are now fixed. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I see jossi has jumped in regarding your removal of "satirical", you should probably know, he's nothing if not tenacious with his viewpoint, might wanna prepare for a bit of a grind, and I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought "satire" was out of place here. Maelefique (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
How long is usually given for discussion to be ended on an RfC like this? (It doesn't seem like we're getting too many opinions on either side yet). Maelefique (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Augusto Roa Bastos
I just heard from User:qp10qp, one of the editors working on Augusto Roa Bastos, that he now thinks the article meets the criteria for a good article. Would you be able to take another look?
I also wondered if you were aware of the FA team project, which is currently supporting the project that the Augusto Roa Bastos is part of. I know you have a lot of FA experience, and I thought you might be interested in participating, if not now then in some future mission. Mike Christie (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I will take another look at Augusto Roa Bastos shortly, sorry, been busy w/ other stuff lately. Yes, I am aware of WP:FAT, quite flattering really to ask me about it, thank you - but I have a list of pending articles I'd like to get to FA status before committing to something so ambitious as the FAT. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Jonathan Swift
As per your interest on the subject - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Drapier's Letters. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Updated refs on The Drapier's Letters. No line should be unsourced as of now. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay I'll take another look. Cirt (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed all of the ref/citation problems, so it should all work properly now. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have added scans of the original five letter title pages and added two sections on post production. I hope most of the problems should be fixed by now. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed all of the ref/citation problems, so it should all work properly now. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay I'll take another look. Cirt (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Thanks for letting me know DYK included a fact from Payment on Demand. Today I nominated an article I expanded two days ago. Do these nominations generally get seen, or do they tend to get lost in the shuffle when submitted two days after the fact? MovieMadness (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Not right
This is not right for a news report, and not good for Wiki's credibility.[1] You don't slant the news to make a good story if you want credibility. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, I passed the message along to you, because you have an account over there, and I don't plan to get one. Especially if they cook up stories like that :-) I guess I'm a nitpicker, but that kind of slant troubles me. Anyway, I didn't know if you were following that thread or if he would come back to it; just wanted to make sure the message was delivered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Goodness, where would I find the time ? :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Cirt, this page is ironic reading. They're seriously talking about being Wikipedia's "watchdog" on the one hand, while actively advocating to falsely slant a story for better publicity impact on the other hand? This is bothering me more and more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
AWB
My e-mail is now enabled. I can't send attachments through Wikipedia's email system, so email me first and I'll reply with an attachment of the AWB file. Epbr123 (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the appreciataion! Just keep hoping that I don't break the portal when I keep tweaking it! --BelovedFreak 12:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
DYK
--Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry!
Sorry, I think that this is my fault. :( --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)