User talk:Tony1

This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.

Real-life workload: 3

• 1 = no work pressure
• 5 = middling
• > 5 = please don't expect much
• 10 = frenzied

Please note that I don't normally (1) copy-edit articles, or (2) review articles that are not candidates for promotion to featured status.

"Official site" quiz question

Hi Tony, first off, big ups for your work here. I'll stop there to avoid gushing. I have a personal dislike for hidden weblinks within infoboxes. That is, when you look at the page it says "Official site" or similar but to find out what the website listed in the infobox you have to click on it or otherwise take steps to access the information. Many people and groups have more than one official site further compounding the issue. Since the infobox is part of the lede is this spelled out that we're suppose to be masking the actual official websites of the person/group?

My hope is that a group, for instance "XYZ" could have their website "XYZ.com" simply displayed as such in their infobox. Likewise Janey Person's website "JaneyPerson.com" would simply read as such. The number of article subjects with official websites is only growing; surely we don't want them all to simply read "official website" which only confirms that such exists? With the exception of uber-lengthy websites wouldn't this make sense? Thoughts? Suggestions? -- Banjeboi 13:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Benji. I'm not the best person to ask, so I'll get a few others to comment. Is an infobox really part of the lead? Can you provide a link to an example? Tony (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Infoboxes are a part of the lede when used to ... lead the article. They are presented side-by-side with the most important overview of content. For an example of the "Official Website" in action Chi Chi LaRue is one example. Compare to how a company, Titan Media appears. -- Banjeboi 00:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and supported by Wikipedia:LEAD#Content_of_the_lead. Tony (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify on the Chi Chi LaRue example I've done a workaround which looks horrible but is better that a tease link that simply says "Official Website". -- Banjeboi 03:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, it looks messy now. I don't quite understand what was wrong with it ?five edits ago, when both were neat blue. The square brackets don't look good at all. Tony (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Instead of saying their website is ChiChi.com (or whatever it is) the infobox coding has been corrupted to force "Official Website" overriding what the actual website is - I don't think we should tease readers. With the rare exception of web addresses that are too long there is no reason to do this. Which is more helpful;

Official Website

En.Wikipedia.org

There really are few reasons to force "Official Website" as such and I see no reason to do this on biographies or any other infoboxes in any categories. -- Banjeboi18:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Not sure if you're addressing this somewhere presently but Jeffree Star is a good example of what the links should look like instead of saying simply "Official Website". -- Banjeboi 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Any update? -- Banjeboi 19:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Star: perfect, IMO. Tony (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Date delinking

Hi Tony. Just thought I'd let you know that User:Tennis expert is systematically undoing your edits once again. I've tried to remind him that his edits are not actually improving the article but I suspect (a) he'll delete the message with a smug edit summary and (b) he'll continue applying his own consensus to articles he seems to own. Just thought you should know. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and he damages them by reinstating glitches and worse, wholesale wrong date formats. He's very eccentric. Thanks for the info, since I don't keep tabs on my work; those who run the scrip are sworn off warring, so he can stew in his own little world, and eventually will see tennis articles turn into a shag on their own little rock in this respect. His colleagues at the Tennis WikiProject largely disagree with his fanatical stance.

Have you seen the latest proposal for a different but related matter that flared up recently at MOSNUM talk? It's at the bottom, and I'm quite hopeful that it might satisfy both sides of the debate about solitary year linking. It's not my idea, but I'm promoting it and attempting to gain consensus. Tony (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a classic example of rampant incivility and a systematic (intentional?) failure or willful refusal to WP:AGF by The Rambling Man and Tony. Exactly which glitches have I reinstated and which wrong date formats have I inserted? And thanks, I guess, for labeling me as "very eccentric". I don't remember calling you names. Tennis expert (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Some people would be pleased to be considered eccentric. Strictly speaking, it means "off centre", which your extreme views on linking certainly are. You have failed to move with prevailing practice at WP, and tennis articles and their readers are the losers, plus your colleagues, who mostly disagree with you. You have persisted in stalking me and reverting my work and that of others who have tried to retain the improvements against your handiwork. More than once, I've been made aware that you've reinstated the wrong date format for Australian tennis players, for example, in your rush to make all of the dates and years bright blue again. This is unacceptable behaviour, as is changing UK-related articles into US spelling. You risk making a pig of yourself. Tony (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Wow, Tony, calling someone a "pig"---how civil. Also, your mischaracterization of the norm as "extreme views" only serves to show how far off-base you are. This is Wikipedia, not a paper book. That you push for date delinking simply for appearance' sake says a lot about you. This coup of yours doesn't make you right, and harassing those that stand up for the right to wikilink doesn't make you a good editor.Ryoung122 08:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What coup? I didn't call him a pig: I said he's making a pig of himself. However, I will soften this to "you risk making a pig of yourself". Tony (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony: (1) My views, which have been expressed many times in very simple and direct language but which you still do not understand, is that there is a consensus in tennis articles to link years and dates. I personally am not in favor of linking years but am in favor of linking dates. (2) Which UK-related articles did I turn into US spelling? Which wrong date format for Australian tennis players have I imposed? If you'll point out my errors, I'll correct them. Otherwise, stop misrepresenting, trash talking, and gossiping about my edits. Tennis expert (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony, sorry that I've dragged you into another debacle. "Tennis expert" has continued to revert your edits against the WP:MOS. Despite being asked the purpose of relinking years and the odd country, plus turning "runners-up" into "runner-ups" (!), he is adamant that his impression of consensus rules over others. I think this one is doomed. RIP WP:Tennis. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Khalid al-Mihdhar

If you have some spare time, I would appreciate if you would take another look at the Khalid al-Mihdhar article. Substantial amount of copyediting has been done, with help of User:Momoricks. Please let me know if there is anything else needed with the article. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony, do you have time to revisit this one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

Your input would be appreciated here. --John (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting request (gasp!)

I am deeply unsatisfied with the writing in History of a Six Weeks' Tour. It is a strange literary work and somewhat difficult to explain. I was wondering if you would consider copyediting at least the lead and "Composition and publication"? I am positive that I have not written as clearly and concisely as possible. :) I would greatly appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Tony, I constantly see you on FAC's and you always oppose. Well Veronica Mars is undergoing a peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Veronica Mars/archive2, in the hopes of getting it to FA status. Anyways, I don't want to nominate it and have you list 1000 points as to why the prose is bad. This is my (kind) way of saying that your comments would be appreciated, and if you could state any problems, that would be great. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Link intersection

Where you aware of Wikipedia:Link intersection? It seems relevant to issues of linking. Carcharoth (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What distortions does "what links here" have? On some pages, "what links here" is very useful (usually the ones with very few links - I agree that on pages where there are lots of links it is not useful). I find selecting namespaces helps filter some things out, and if you are looking for a deletion debate, "what links here" limited to the Wikipedia namespace is very useful. I also use the "what redirects here" function all the time (the options to remove or combine links, transclusions and redirects has made 'what links here' very useful). I'd really encourage you to take another look if you are basing your opinion on your use of 'what links here' from last year or so. But I've gone off topic. What were your objections to Wikipedia:Link intersection again, and how exactly does it affect readers? If it could be a useful tool for editors, why on earth would you be glad it is "dying"? Dare I point you at Wikipedia:Category intersection and Wikipedia:Semantic Wikipedia? I dunno, it sometimes seems there is a big philosophical divide somewhere around here that people keep waving at each other from the other side of. I find rummaging around links and following things up and browsing (even if rather random) to be fascinating. I suppose others want more focused and precise navigation and browsing. It's difficult to provide both. Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide enough?

Tony - WRT major depressive disorder, I have added bits to the diagnosis and treatment sections, as well as noting presentation (one line) in Signs and symptoms. Tricky ot know how much to add. Further detail would go into general issues of all psych disorders in 3rd world countries. Do you think it is enough as is? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Martina Navratilova

Hi Tony, any chance you can rerun your script over this? As usual, Tennis expert has relinked the dates but made other changes so a simple reversion is impossible. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As one of the promoters of the change in practice, I've cautioned other supporters against edit-warring on the matter. After all, one of the arguments put against the change was that DA stops edit warring. Although I don't believe it was a valid argument, I don't want to give ammunition to those who might throw back at me their prior warnings.

However, that doesn't stop you from acquiring the script and running it. I'd be very pleased to see that happen. Apart from this consideration, the more people who are able to run the script, the more time-intensive manual labour editors at large can be spared in what is a mammoth task. Tony (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, TRM, reports coming in that he's been stalking other people. Creepy, hey?! I suppose I admire strong views and passion. Tony (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Tony, are you planning to use Wikipedia:FCDW/October 13, 2008? I set up WP:FCDW originally in the hopes it would be a central coordinating spot for the Dispatches, so I wouldn't have to hound people for input; I'm not sure if you still want the first open slot each month, or if I should just wait for you to pop in whenever you want a slot? Can you update the talk page there if you want that slot ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Still confused. Is Wikipedia:Update/Style update October 2008 the September updates? I don't think we can build a Dispatch around that; is there more? Or should I wait a month? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Geoff Horsfield

I don't understand why you keep adding mf=yes to the Geoff Horsfield infobox. As an English player, who has only played for English clubs, it makes sense to use df=yes, i.e. UK date format. --Jameboy (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed my bad goof. Thanks, Jame. Tony (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Have been doing a bit of work on the article and missed a couple of your interim edits, so hope it didn't look like I was edit-warring. Thanks for fixing it. --Jameboy (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well!

Tennis expert caught in action, battling his dastardly foes. (I hope I don't get into trouble for being too frivolous.)

Isn't that just lovely! --Closedmouth (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And my response: User_talk:Tennis_expert#The_barnstar_for_your_fight_against_evil. Tony (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never been called evil before, at least not on Wikipedia. I didn't realise this was such a serious issue! --Closedmouth (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Badge of honour: where is the barnstar for us? Tony (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The evil-doers never get the recognition they deserve. Or maybe they do. I don't know. Alls I know is, we're gettin' screwed!
On a serious note, it's a shame to see the self-proclaimed expert on the sport spending his time edit-warring over dates instead of adding content to the articles. A real shame. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony, not for the first time, your actions have been described as breathtaking! Keep up the good work ;-) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

1942 in India

Hi Tony - see you delinked all dates in this article. I understand the policy in general, but question its relevance in a an article which is actually all about dates and their linkages. Your action means that users accessing this article can no longer link through to articles on specific dates (eg 8 August) to get more information on other events on that date, or, more importantly, be able to link back to the article relating to the birth year or death year of the person listed (eg 1900 in India). Was this policy really meant to restrict users ability to navigate and get further information relating to date articles? Could you please reconsider this action in relation to date articles such as this, otherwise thousands of such articles will need revision and become of very limited value to users. Ardfern (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can see why you might argue for an exception in articles on chronological topics, but I'd like to know how, say, 14 January is relevant to India in 1942. It starts thus:

• 1129 - Formal approval of the Order of the Templar at the Council of Troyes.
• 1301 - Andrew III of Hungary dies, ending the Arpad dynasty in Hungary.
• 1501 - Martin Luther, age 17, enters the University of Erfurt.
• 1514 - Pope Leo X issues a papal bull against slavery.
• 1539 - Spain annexes Cuba.

and continues in the same vein. India is mentioned once on that date, in 1761. Um ... am I missing something?

Links are not intended to be magic carpets for discretionary browsing, but signals to the reader that more relevant information is available that will increase their understanding of the topic. Articles on WP are meant to be serious tertiary sources of information, not "On this day" features for fun.

If an unfocused reader wants to aimlessly wander, the search box is there for that. Tony (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Milk

I hope I've addressed most of your comments at the FAC. Please visit the article again at your earliest opportunity. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Tony. We've gone over this article several times trying to address grammar and prose issues. Please let us know what remains to be tackled for your oppose. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

FACR

Tony, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC revisit

Hey Tony, a revisit has been requested at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Congregation Beth Elohim. Giggy (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Films considered the greatest ever

This edit of yours removed all the links from dates of films to the "xxxx in film" articles they were linked to. Linking dates to "xxxx in film" articles is specifically mentioned as an exception in the link you cited as justification for the edits. I found these links quite helpful, and I think other readers do as well. It is not possible now to easily undue the edit. As you did it with a tool, I'm requesting that you now use the same tool to undo the edit. Thanks. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that your readers won't know that they're helpful unless they have X-ray vision. MOLINK says this:

• Avoid piping links from "year" to "year something" or "something year" (e.g., [[1991 in music|1991]]) in the main prose of an article in most cases. Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g. ''(see [[1991 in music]])'', if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all. However, piped links may be useful:
• in places where compact presentation is important (some tables, infoboxes and lists); and
• in the main prose of articles in which such links are used heavily, as is often the case with sports biographies that link to numerous season articles.

and this: *Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on. Also remember that there are people who print the articles.

It's not the links themselves but the concealed piping that is the problem. There are several options for dealing with this. One is to simply spell out the pipe. See whether this works; it looks much more likely to attract clicks now. I think you're overestimating the likelihood that readers will click on single year links, which normally lead somewhere very unfocused. Tony (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't find your alternative appealing. Instead, how about a note at the top of the article that mentions that "all years in this article are linked to articles about the year in film" or something similar. This is mentioned as an option for dealing with this. I see this article as a portal to the history of film. Contextually, I suspect a common thought will be "what other films came out that year?" I don't see the option of having the slightly unexpected destination is worse than having no link at all. Making them all explicit fills up the article with gobblety gook. Would you be agreeable to restoring it as it was while adding a note? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Check your edit. You removed links from all the years in the entire article, not just in the table... -- ☑ SamuelWantman

Linking in information-dense articles

Hi Tony. I was working on (and creating) some information-dense articles recently. Well, created one today and the other examples are from April, but that's neither here-nor-there. What I wanted was your opinion on whether the "sea of blue" effect applies here? My feeling is that the same criteria for linking information-dense articles will, because of the density of the information, produce more of the "sea of blue" effect. But maybe they are OK. Could you have a look at one or two of the following and let me know what you think? Sir Robert Muir, Basil John Mason, Thomas Lewis (cardiologist), Harold Baily Dixon, William Mitchinson Hicks, William Carmichael McIntosh, Walter Gardiner, Arthur William Rucker, Henry John Carter, John Allan Broun, Martin Barry, Thomas Snow Beck, George Fownes, Augustus Matthiessen, Joseph Spence (author), Ramsay Heatley Traquair, John Curtis Chamberlain, Baruch Harold Wood. Oh, and I date-delinked all of them! Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the first two and left comments and edited here and there. A basic structural change can help to make a smoother read. En dashes: you might be interested in whipping through this. Do watch "from 1996–99", which is incorrect. LInking: yes, these stubby articles are like leads in a way—thick with facts. The linking is mostly appropriate, except for a repeat link and another that I though was unnecessary. Tony (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I did an update on Muir. Could you have a very quick look? Turns out I missed quite a lot. That textbook (in revised form, of course) is still going today. You say "from 1996–99" is incorrect, but you corrected the articles to that form. Did you mean to say "from 1996–1999" is incorrect? I don't think it is incorrect in terms of information, but yes, if one style is preferred over the other, then yes, that should be used. I just prefer to give full years at all time, rather than worry about the times when giving the full year is needed. I'm thinking mainly of numbers. For example, 2-5000 people versus 2000-5000 people. But maybe that doesn't apply to years? I'll have a quick look at Mason now. Carcharoth (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, from looking at the Mason changes, I think you mean changing "1996-1999" to "1996 to 1999". So when should one use the dash (or it is a hyphen) and when should one use "to"? Carcharoth (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just thought you might be interested to know: I found an obituary for Muir in the British Medical Journal. Second page of it is here. It details when he got the various honours. He seems he really was a very big cheese in the world of pathology, if that is not too disrespectful a term to use. It is rather impressive when you read biographies that lament in this way, but you have to be careful to avoid hagiography. I'm now almost regretting that I didn't kick Robert Muir (the Canadian politician) out of the way to make room for the Scottish Muir. But then I suppose if I looked in more detail into the Canadian politician's life, it might be equally well documented. Or maybe not. Anyway, thought you might appreciate the follow-up. The father was United Presbytarian, btw. Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dashes and name initials punctuation

A follow-up to one point you raised above, and one that you raised at WT:MOSLINK. I get very confused about dashes, so I will try once again to read your guide and see if I can finally understand what the big deal is... About name initials and punctuation, what is the story behind the difference between J.J. Thomson and J. J. Thomson? Is it the spacing, or is it the line-breaks, or both? Sometimes, when I see J. R. R. Tolkien break across a line, I put in non-breaking spaces, but that is laborious to do all the time. Unfortunately, line breaks occur in different places depending on the reader's set-up. Also, J.J. and Thomson and still break across two lines and look awful. So maybe it is a spacing thing. Wouldn't thin-spaces work as well as no spaces? I think we have an article on types of spaces. Here we go: space (punctuation). Hmm. I think you might be about to tell me that this is to do with dashes and the puctuation for those as well. I'll go and read that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I can't stand the spaces. In a justified on-screen format it can stretch, too; even worse when the column is narrow against an image or infobox. Tony (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Chronological versus thematic

One final post here! I wanted to just briefly discuss the chronological versus thematic point you made. I think having something be too thematic can result in the article getting ahead of itself and jumping around in someone's life too much. On the other hand, I do see what you mean when you say a thematic arrangement can work better. One of the reasons I went for a chronological order was because in some cases the sources I was working from used a thematic order, and by the time I had finished writing an article in thematic order, what I had written looked very similar to the source. Effectively, I was trying to rewrite the information in a different order to avoid plagiarism. This is a problem with short, stubby articles. Initially, they will look very like the (also short and stubby) sources - the biographical databases and short summaries of people lives (eg. Dictionary of National Biography). It is only when the articles start to expand, and use different sources, that this problem lessens. John Allan Broun is a good example of an article that expanded as more sources were used. It is still a bit too short to justify the sections I split it into, but those can be seen as a map for future expansion. Some, though, like Martin Barry, are probably doomed to stay as stubs unless someone digs out some really obscure stuff (or that stuff gets put online). Carcharoth (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for User:Tony1/Know your Manual of Style

I just finished going through User:Tony1/Know your Manual of Style and while I knew some of it, I learnt quite a few things I didn't know before, and the examples are really well-chosen. Quite funny as well: "No hint this time". I got that one right, and I spotted the lack of a minus sign and spacing in the units for the "25 degrees Centigrade" one (er, should what I wrote there be hyphenated?). I failed the 30-kilometre (16 mi) one though. Anyway, thanks again. I'll try and point other people to that guide if I see them asking questions about hyphens and dashes. Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review comment request

Greetings Tony1! I've seen you around several times and I just think that you are pretty experienced editor, so I wanted to ask you if you could have a look on Meshuggah and leave you opinion/sggestions on Wikipedia:Peer review/Meshuggah/archive2. = A small request :) Have a nice day...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oct 13 Dispatch

A pity to subject Signpost readers to my prose, but this is the best I can muster: Wikipedia:FCDW/TempFAS. I cribbed the top from an earlier Dispatch you wrote, just to have something in there, so if you're able to update and tweak ... The flow is a bit weird, but that long Signpost logo down the side dictates other image and graph placement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I knew you'd do that... thanks :-) But it breaks the sortable table. Whoever designed sortable wikitables used the wrong minus sign, and I don't know how/where to get that fixed, but if we switch it to a minus, the table doesn't sort correctly as a negative. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for Gimme asking if he knows where to get this fixed. (You do know you can click at those little buttons at the top of the table to sort, right?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You're entirely forgiven, mathematician! My knowledge deficit, not yours, it looks like. Yes, those little buttons are rife in FLs and elsewhere; while sometimes overused, I guess they're handy occasionally. Tony (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Still haven't figured out where/how to get it fixed, though; thanks for the ce ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your assistance with copyeditting USS New Jersey (BB-62) while the article was up on the mainpage I herby award you The Editor’s Barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Periods in citations

Tony, can you point me at a MOS page? I am certain I've seen a page that asserts that a footnote like this: <ref>Burke (2004), p. 237</ref> should have a period after the "237", but I can't find a MOS page that says this. Am I misremembering? If not, do you know what the relevant page is? Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's consistent throughout the list, you can have either a period or no period. I myself am firmly of the minimalist set (no period), since the line break is already there as a signifier that the entry has finished. I try to eliminate all redundant formatting in my text. Sandy Georgia is one of the experts, who can point you to the guidelines. At a wild guess, WP:CITE. Tony (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no such requirement, Mike—as Tony says, only consistency. From WP:Citing sources#Citation styles: "There are a number of styles used in different fields. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent." Maralia (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC

		USS Nevada (BB-36)
		Thank you very, very much for your constructive criticism on the successful FAC that the USS Nevada (BB-36) recently went through. Looking back, I can see that the article's prose was definitely not ready before you came along...but thanks to your help, it was passed today. :D Cheers, —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 14:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Nevada underway off of the U.S. Atlantic coast on 17 September 1944.

RfC/U

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tennis FA

Hi Tony, I'm trying one last time to get the Tennis crew talking. I've initiated a new thread and invited a few contributors to join in. I don't expect much from the "expert" but it'd be interesting to understand whether his main interests lie in improving the encyclopedia or process wonkery. My best to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)