User talk:Gimmetrow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 04:06, 14 March 2007 (→‎[[Talk:Kulintang]]: thanks (eom)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:FAR

Hi Gimme. I've replied in full re the potential bot process for FAR on the talk. Hope all my questions make sense. Marskell 09:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gimmetrow - I've sorted through your list and mine, and started a list of work needed here. I've got a lot to do. I have some questions, and will need some help. Are you totally swamped with the bot work? Should I ask Yomangani to help me? My main concern right now is that FFAs that are now GA are not in the cat - I think they should be. I'm OK that FFAs that are re-promoted FA aren't in the cat, since we track those separately at WP:FFA, but I don't see the reasoning for losing the GAs from FFA? Move discussion to the FFA talk page (above) to keep it all in one place? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder when the bot deal with Beer - Talk:Beer/Tags may mess you up? Baseball looks good - yikes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All in sync now - left you a question here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, can you look at the problem discussed here? The FAR is being vandalized - is it possible to point the bot at it now, archive it, and put the closed box around it, or are we not at that stage yet? I'm not really clear on where we stand on the bot and ArticleHistory as far as getting everything implemented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helping

Gimmetrow, I'm trying to figure out how I can help. I noticed that Talk:Adolfo Farsari had an old facfailed template after the bot went through, so I added it myself to the ArticleHistory template.

  1. Is it helpful for me to do it manually in cases like this, or is it better to wait for the bot?
  2. Did I do it right? I found the date in talk history when facfailed was added, and I found the most recent article version corresponding to that.
  3. In what way should I help?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that one, the facfailed template was subst'ed - the bot is only looking for transcluded templates. Only way to handle it is to un-subst it before the bot operates, or handle it manually after. You did fine. (The bot actually does it even simpler - it looks for the last date on the FAC page and uses that as the close date. Not entirely correct but avoids digging through histories.)
There are some problems for the bot, like articles that have been through FACs before, but someone didn't update the link when they archived the old FAC. Ipod had a {{oldpeerreview}} and a {{FACfailed}} that wasn't updated to point to an archive. This only stood out because the two Peer Reviews pointed to the same page. Would be nice if someone else checked the talk pages after the bot for such oddities. They usually stand out. Sometimes they are simply variations I didn't expect, like {{FAC}} instead of {{fac}}. Also haven't programmed for featured topics yet, but those are pretty rare. If we could only get Raul not to delete the GA templates that have dates or oldids... Other things to look for, on FAR-removes, I also change any mention of class=FA to class=? so these need to be reassessed as A or B or possibly GA; if they have a CD template they will probably appear in Category:Version_0.7_articles_with_invalid_quality_ratings. Gimmetrow 21:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I'll follow the bot looking for exceptions, watch for re-assessments on projects, and keep an eye on featured topics when I'm able. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, is there a better way to handle reassessments? They all could just automatically become B, but it seemed like a good idea to make them stand out for the project. Gimmetrow 22:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List

Gimme, sorry to take so much of your time, but if I can learn all of this, I should eventually be helpful. I completed checking through Jan 21:

If a FA becomes FFA, I don't think it's easy to just assign it GA just because it was a GA before FA. For one, the GA info was usually deleted when an article was promoted. More important, if an article was GA-FA-FFA, the article has gone through a lot of changes, and the GA was a long time ago. Wouldn't be fair. I posted a question about how to handle something related to GA on the WP:GA page a few days ago, still no response. They will need to be informed about the FFA/GA status, but other than that the bot will just try to sweep in any new GA events during subsequent FACs. I think the list above were processed before GA events were even being included. Gimmetrow 22:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of those are failed facs - they were never featured articles - in other words, they would still keep their GA which they had before they postulated for FA, and I should add it to template? Still not sure? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, going through talk history, Talk:DuMont Television Network became GA on 21:17, 10 November 2006 - so it would still be GA - should I just add that date to template? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we've agreed that failed FACs keep GA. Go ahead and add it if you want. Gimmetrow 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Dumont - if that's correct, I'll keep going. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. Looking up the date for GA is a pain, though pda's script helps some. Nice that some of the reviewers leave an oldid for reviewed version. Gimmetrow 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything above is done, in case you want to check my contribs. I'll keep going from Jan 21 on after dinner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - so the only project assessments I should be touching are:

  1. new FA = FA
  2. demoted FA = B

?

I can see that what I need to do to make this whole process easier is to go through FACs and FARs before they close and make sure talk pages are ready for the bot. I'm starting to get it, but hope you're watching my contribs to make sure I'm not goofing anything else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've only encountered two I had to rate - most of the Projects have already added a new rating - should we raise the question on talk:ArticleHistory? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New question - Talk:Hurricane Ismael - featured topic info shows on talk page, but I don't see how/why, since nothing is in the template? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added FTC (featured topic candidate) entry. May eventually get around to programming that into bot. Not high priority.
The bot was already handling the first: promoted FAs it updated all existing assessments from A/GA/B/Start. Wasn't checking unassessed though, so I'll add that. The other is only an issue for FAR, so let's just make them B all the time. (If they were really A, as in close to FA, they probably would have been kept anyway, right?) This will make it straightforward to send to GA if the editors want. Gimmetrow 01:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm caught up with the bot - I thought I'd run through the talk pages of all of the current FAC/FAR candidates next to see if there's anything weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would only "prep" the page for the bot with simple cases, maybe adding one thing. If you do much more than that, you probably could have just put the AH template on the page with little more work. . Gimmetrow 01:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just looking for unidentified GA versions and talk page mistakes. For example: editors are adding the template, and adding fac to it: Talk:University of Oklahoma (I undid - have a look). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's a problem. I was hoping for simplicity. KISS principle has an appropriate point: "When dealing with a problem, there exists a frequent tendency toward complication that can lead toward solutions that are far more burdensome than the problem". Gimmetrow 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The things editors do - it took me 45 minutes to sort out Roman-Spartan War and Pashtun people, but at least they'll be in shape when you run through them - better doublecheck my work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've been helped over at Talk:Pashtun people. Sorry but that makes me chuckle. Gimmetrow 03:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My brain is fried - I didn't get it on Kevin P - afraid to look at Pashtun, finding a mess in E.T., think I'll call it a night. I can see this will be much easier once we're all set, but it's a lot of work now. Is Pashtun fixed now? The GA categories are good - will need a list sooner or later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Pashtun is OK now. The image had a little something added over the shoulder. Gimmetrow 03:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR bot

Can you check here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK date wiki?

I thought I'd try doing the RBPs, but they're over my head - I'll leave them to Placebo. I started throught the current FARs and FACs. At Talk:2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone, I noticed that the DYK date doesn't wikilink for date preference - do we need that? The old DYK template had dates wiki'd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing both, Gimmetrow - I guess I'll ask my stupid questions on your talk page from now on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project assessments

Have a look at Talk:Tank; Kirill had reduced the Project assessment to Start just before the bot changed it to B. What to do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops, I misread - the bot changed the V5 assessment to B, so maybe we're OK? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe MilHist labels it a "start" since it's uncited, and that will force citing? Tenacious D, IMNSHO, should not have happened - it came back after only two days. If this is going to cause a problem for the bot, I suggest we press the issue at Talk FAC that there should be a minimum lag between noms (say, a week?). It sounds like I can help prevent some of these problems by alerting you to cases like that. At one point, the NYC FACs were working - I'll see what I can find. Any chance you can remember the facfailed page so I can see what might have happened there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York City

I found the problem on New York City - it has to do with Archive vs. archive. Someone archived the earlier versions to capital A, the bot archived the recent one to lowercase a, so there are two number fours. I'd better let you straighten it out, since I don't know what all that entails. archive4 needs to go to archive6, Archive4 needs to go to archive4, Archive5 needs to go to archive5. YIKES! This means the bot is going to have problems with every instance of cap A on archive, and there was a point that the FAC instructions said specifically to use cap A, and I moved many to conform. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Atlanta, Georgia

Saw you found it and fixed it, but I'm not sure what I did wrong there. I'd better understand, as I've probably done it elsewhere. There was a failed fac at archive1, so I put failed on the new fac, assuming the bot would put it at archive2? What should I do in these cases? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that leads to another question - what is the status of the bot and when is it "going live"? I changed some recent ones to failed because several days had passed, and I was concerned some editors wouldn't know and would continue adding comments. Once the bot is fully approved to run automatically, will it close the facs fairly quickly? What triggers the bot to run on the fac archive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bot is "triggered" when I have time to run it. There are now too many cases to check, so it has to be run with manual approval of every edit. Gimmetrow 15:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean too many cases at bot requests, so they haven't approved it to go auto yet? I can't remember where to find the bot request page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Picked up a missing DYK date at Talk:Centennial Light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The code doesn't look for substituted templates like that. Gimmetrow 18:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought - just checking. I left a note at Dr pda - Joel types in "no longer FA" on talk page entry when defeaturing articles, and Dr pda's script doesn't pick that up. I'm stumped on Talk:Race - gave up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this link will provide some insight into the BP nomination process. There was no subpage- an article was listed and people voted. "Self-noms" needed to be seconded, so this one was either not considered a "self-nom", or promoted because nobody objected. Gimmetrow 18:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer us to put some markers in for the bot to recoginize in the substituted templates or just not substitute them? I'm thinking the first option would be best, as unless you run the bot over every new article listed at DYK, we'll end up with a lot of transcluded templates that have no need to be transcluded. Yomanganitalk 01:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is only dealing with articles that have been through the FA process. I don't really see why transclusion is so bad. Even with markers I would need to write a parser for subst'ed templates. Gimmetrow 01:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems an unnecessary overhead to add 20 or so transclusions of the DYK credit template ever day when the info will never change and the vast majority of those articles will never hit the FA process. Yomanganitalk 01:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenacious D

Raul just removed the nom - have fun with that one :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Raul is back, should we request his input on the RBP/FFA thingie, or do you have a coding plan? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullfighting

Exhausted all my resources/abilities - can't find original nom. I wonder if someone mixed it up with Bulldogging? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Lion King

It is on its fifth FAC; two in the same month (Sep 06). I assumed that two in the same archive might mess up the bot, so I went ahead and updated the archive files. Is that what I should do in the future now; does that make it harder or easier on the bot? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worklist

Gimme, would it work to put that worklist at Template:ArticleHistory/Worklist, so we can all work on it and strike completed items? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on them - but I thought subpages of talk pages were disallowed or some such thing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, I just spent a century trying to get Venus to work, had a conflict with you, and found it already finished - I thought I was working from the bottom of the list ?  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been following your edits and running the bot when it looks like you're done. You can have the bottom. Gimmetrow 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got really messed up on Venus. First, the (planet) wouldn't take, so I decided to do the whole thing manually. Then, I couldn't figure out how to make the topic work, so I had to go check another article. When I finally got everything done, you were done LOL !! I'm surprised the bot could fix it, because I left the Venus (planet) link not working - don't know what was wrong there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to separate the peer reviews at Talk:Tyrannosaurus so that GimmeBot can handle them. Are they OK as is? If not, I can't figure out how to make an archived oldpeerreview link work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-substitute them like this. Final result is like this. Venus came out nicely too. Gimmetrow 23:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ah, I see what I did wrong - I didn't add the "rex". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize the reason I'm so slow is that I'm also checking Dr pda's articlehistory script to see what else is missing on each page - can you see if I did it right at Talk:Transhumanism? I had to add GA and oldpeerreview as well, so the bot could get them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add GA stuff if you want, but if we do archeology on all 3000 articles, this will take forever. Gimmetrow 23:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm still learning all of it - as I move along on the learning curve, I should get better. If not, I'll ditch GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time for an icecream and jacuzzi break :-) More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia has an AfD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with Talk:P. K. van der Byl - doesn't seem to be working right - the successful fac was the second one (backwards). Done for the night, finished up through Ps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add the AfD at Talk:Removal from the Order of Canada - don't know what's wrong.

FYI; [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm really done for the night-too tired to sort out Max Weber. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-promoted FFAs

All of these will be tricky; maybe we should get them out of the way first? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Platypus should be ready, with all the pieces on the talk page. Can you point the bot at it to see if it works? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Max Weber should be ready now. It's complicated, so have a look at it before you point the bot at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Crushing by elephant‎ I found some of the pieces, but I can't find the original nom. The templates that are on the page now lead to some of the pieces, even though the templates aren't working right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Bodyline should be ready, but doublecheck my work first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Belgium should be ready, quite complex, so doublecheck first. That should finish up the repromoted FFAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prep work on current FACs

Can you look at Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins and Talk:United Kingdom? I put all the pieces in place there, but they have specialty GA templates, so I'm not sure adding oldid helps - it doesn't show. I periodically run through all FACs and FARs to make sure they're ready for the bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caught up - nice work! I'm at the spa for the afternoon :-) As far as I know, everything at WP:FAC and WP:FAR should be bot-ready. I'll work further on the worklist tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missed GA?

I'll go fix this one manually, but I wondered why the GA was missed at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a failed GA. Haven't programmed everything. Gimmetrow 04:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get them manually SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SmthManly (talk · contribs) has offered to help.[2] He currently places the mainpage dates on ToFA's, and he's offered to help with maintenance tasks in the past. He's not imbedded enough into the FAC/FAR/GAC process to make it worth the effort to explain to him how to install the templates, but I was wondering what you think of the idea of having him go back and update the log files on the completed old/missing facs from our worklist? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, I've done nothing compared to what you've done. You won't believe this one - I was working on Dallas, Texas by hand when the bot came through, edit conflicted with the bot, lost the GA history I had re-constructed. I think it's time for me to move aside. Is there anything else I can help with? Would you mind pointing the bot at Talk:World War II? It's a mess, and I put all the pieces in place. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dallas is set now; I was wanting to reconstruct the entire history of GA, GA-delisted, GA again, so that if someone comes along and wants to nom it again, the history might give them a hint that the article needs work. Same for WWII - long ways from FAC, but on its third nom, so I'm hoping the articlehistory will encourage people to read the old info. The Bot is Beautiful! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know; now I'll know how to process those types in the future. When SmthManly offered to help, I couldn't imagine explaining all the different pieces to someone who hasn't been previously involved. G'night, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured topics

Maybe you can point the bot at Talk:Sun and Talk:Mercury to see how it copes with featured topics? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Fibonacci_number

Thanks for your note about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Fibonacci_number. As closing admin, my role is to judge what the consensus opinion of the community is. In this case, the opinions were overwhelmingly for deletion. If you think the wrong decision was made, there is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Happy editing, Bucketsofg 04:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically do you have in mind vis-a-vis the redirect? Bucketsofg 04:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned you can go ahead with the redirect if you think it will be useful to anyone. Bucketsofg 04:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone will try to speedy a redirect, maybe not. Let's cross that once we get to it and decide that one on its merits. It's only a redirect. I say go ahead with it. If someone objects, then we can rethink it. Bucketsofg 05:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest batch of FAs

Raul just did a bunch, and he was updating some of the templates directly: I told him that wasn't necessary. You might want to make sure I didn't give him any bad info, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Friend

Thank you friend for leaving my changes on the category tracker in effect. I really appreciated it. The backlogs on "Summary Tracker" makers it redundant with "Immediate Requests", which is first on the summary tracker, so there is no need for it to be listed again at the bottom; that was my reasoning. Peace. --Parker007 22:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SelketBot

Thanks, but didn't look like it was going to get aproved anyway. I have a list of the worst article, and I think I'm jot going to do them by hand. --Selket (Talk 07:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the revert! diff Hersfold (talk|work) 01:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list

You may be interested in reviewing Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/United States Navy enlisted rate insignia. This list has substantial prose sections so I'd appreciate your expert eye. Colin°Talk 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Banners template

Something new - I bet you could easily add this to Gimmebot.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New project

A new project, if you're interested. In the past, I was told it wasn't possible to sync WP:FA with Category:Wikipedia featured articles. Not to be deterred. There's a statement on the cat saying it has four times more articles than actual, but the number is actually only off by a few hundred. Glancing through the cat, I found an exception easily—Talk:Sharon Tate. Not listed at WP:FA, can't find a FARC, she appeared on the mainpage, still listed on her talk page as featured. Can you produce those two lists like you did for FFAs (on list, not in cat; in cat, not on list) so I can begin to track these down ? If so, you could put them at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example - Tate's there, but anyway, still want to try to find the problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All done except Franks - can't find the original nom. I left some of them ready for conversion (see my edit summaries). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started back through the worklist—intending to update all archives and strike as done—but found it extremely slow going to do it that way, and I was encountering too many odd situations. My current plan is to read through each month's archive/log, looking for out-of-place dates, as that will give me a faster clue as to which archives need updating. Does that make sense? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, sounds good. 22:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It's slow going, but I think giving a better result. Here are some articles that are ready for the bot:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got through July 2006. Two more busy old ones that could be botified:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to ask you about the FGAN vs. FFAC; which should I use? My thinking was that a failed good article trumps a failed featured article candidate, showing the article has some work to do still? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Took me half an hour to sort out Talk:Noel Gallagher; can you botify it pls? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got it (on the War) - thanks! Did you know Raul belatedly filed the facfailed in the archive file? He forgot to file them when he promoted, but they're there now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one was fun ! Talk:Salt Lake City, Utah SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2007 on United Kingdom; archive is achive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sofixit. 05:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Will do - just wanted to make sure it wasn't hard-wired in the program. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The typo was in my edit, not the bot's. The bot crashed (due to a misformed template parameter) before it had updated the links. (I copy-pasted all the /archive1s.) 05:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

History of South Carolina

arrgggh, I'm getting tired of this, but the end is in sight. I don't know what to do with Talk:History of South Carolina. First, I can't find any indication of the GA, so I guess it could go in without a date. Also, it was FARC'd even though it was never an FA, so I'm not sure if that will confuse the bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea, if you think it's worth it; as I go through the incorrectly archived old noms, I find items that don't show up in the Table of Contents, because they're linking to the new (cleared, redirected) nom, which doesn't have a title. Do you think the bot could do this when it clears the redirect on the FAC file? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a while ago. Perhaps you should see what the bot does recently. 18:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Ran through South Carolina. You're welcome to change things around - looks rather odd to have a "not promoted" fac followed by a "kept" farc. At least some of the oldids are done. Gimmetrow 18:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any input from GA. I've thought of posting over there to try to get them on board, but the problem is there's no "them" at GA; it's a different group of people each month. Am I missing something, or is that edit simply hiding the facfailed from the GA process? Doesn't seem right. I keep getting stalled by spamblocks on the archive files, or I'd be done processing the found archives by now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah, thanks for letting me know about adding in old facs found - I was afraid the bot would choke, but from now on I'll mark them for the bot. Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ah, I see - they just didn't understand how the template works? Should I go fix it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am single-mindedly focused on finishing these darn archives now, so would rather get involved with updating the GA folks as soon as I'm/we're done with this task. Look what I just found—a mess at the bottom of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2004. I guess I should re-construct each one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I decided just to link to the archive file on these - will that mess up the bot? Also, watch Talk:Pope; I already cleared the fac, because it had garbage in it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regrouping. I handled the ones that don't have files (Nov 2004 and earlier) by linking to the archive file, but I didn't do all of them—only those that I recognized as articles that the bot would need to go through anyway. It doesn't seem worth it to add in every three-year-old FAC on articles that have had no other action. I'm done going through all the archive files, although I should probably also check the older promotions (pre-FAC files) to make sure they're recorded on each talk page. I wasn't able to post all of my archive updates to two of the archive files, as I was spamblocked—I left Raul a message and saved them on my hard drive to post once Raul unblocks whatever it is. I have an idea for the next phase of checking things before we proceed, if you're game. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do Graffiti and HoP . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next?

Done with archive work, except for the two spamblocked archived files noted on Raul's talk page, waiting for his attention. I'm going to be traveling the second half of Feb, most of March, with intermittent, slow dialup access most of the time, and want to make sure I can do as much as I can to help complete articlehistory conversion before I travel. I'm wondering if you consider this a worthwhile next step. On Template talk:ArticleHistory/work, I've noted the known exceptions at the bottom of the list. I believe my work on the archives should have addressed most of the list (talk page and record in logs), but I can't be sure, since I processed through the archives rather than the list. Also, since I uncovered a lot of strange things in the archives, I'm wondering if you think it's worth the effort to produce that list again based on the work we've completed, to see if we/I missed anything or anything new crops up? That could be a last pass to make sure we've gotten everything, and I could work on any new/missing pieces before I travel. The work you've done here is nothing short of amazing and will really pay off in the longrun and make things so much easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FFAs

As I go through the FFA list, I'm putting the ones that are ready here, and the ones that I need to work on here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm trying to leave a list that's ready for processing, and also leave items that need attention in a place where I can find them when I return and have forgotten everything. I'm not sure how much internet access I'll have over the next two weeks, but I want to finish the FFA list before I travel. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I was thinking a good priority might be to get through Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, so they'll be pretty for the mainpage, and so the folks tagging mainpage dates can use one method (the template rather than the tag). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC) PPS A lot of those are ready; I'm going through them and putting those that aren't ready here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World War I

Processed the whole list of FFAs; I don't know what we should do with the list of articles with no original FAC. Feature Historian (talk · contribs) couldn't find them either. Can you look at World War I? The various FARs and FARCs I added won't link properly, but perhaps the bot can handle them anyway. There is a valid archived FAR, a valid archived FARC, and a FARC that was moved to FAR, so it's all over the place. Since I put all the valid pieces there (even though they don't link correctly), I'm hoping the bot can handle them. DONE (for now). Leaving you lots of lists :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn FACs

Running out of time here :-) Talk:Atomic theory was withdrawn from FAC, but is still listed in the FAC category because it hasn't been closed. I don't know how we should handle those, but it seems that when a candidate is withdrawn with Oppose consensus, we should go ahead and archive it with the failed candidates for Raul? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be dropping problems on you before I travel: Raul did something to Talk:Race and it's returning an error. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Talk:Race is fixed. Noticed a case of someone (seemingly) deleting info you had added. I'm thinking of adding a check for missing action numbers, so if action3 is present there must be an action2. If you fix anything interesting in the error category, it might be helpful to know. I knew about the page using "review" as the result for a PR, and was wondering if maybe that should just be added as a non-documented but valid option? Gimmetrow 04:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (Self-note: edit 12:03, 29 June 2006 fixed 04:25, 21 February 2007; the 4000-hr block from August 31 expired ~Feb 13, and vandalism restarted Feb 20.)[reply]

Experimental

I promoted some new FAs today. You have said your bot can do the talk page tagging, so I will omit my usually {{featured}} tagging to see if the bot does it. Raul654 22:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: {{S60C}}

Oops, sorry. Thanks for fixing that. æ² ✆ 2007‑02‑12t16:09z

Courtesy notif.

FYI, your name has been dropped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another. FA bot stalled again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:GimmeBot

Wow - way neat. I especially like the links to the version of articles at the noted time. Kudos! --mav 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEM talk page banner

Can I ask about your comment on the Template:WP Gemology and Jewelry? ...check if this template has been placed in the right place What do you mean? SauliH 05:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is the one refered to.SauliH 18:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh... how come I missed that? Sorry for the confusion. SauliH 23:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Bessie Coleman. Check my contribution list. I've just spent the last 2 hours deleting vandalism. I don't know how that blurb got back in to the article. I'm trying to make Wikipedia better, not worse. - User:RadiantRay I hope I did that right. Thanks.

Papal arms and supporters (discussion on the talk page is better isn't it?)

I wrote: "The late Mr. Woodward left us an interresting drawing but no pope ever used a coat of arms like these! In a papal coat of arms there are no supporters. The patriarchal crosses with an extra arm are inventions of the artist. A pope uses a simple latin cross as a sign of his office and this latin cross is not part of his coat of arms..." Robert Prummel 23:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The papal coat of arms can be depicted with Angels as supporters, as for instance here and here. The depiction is up to the artist's imagination, to be sure. The article by Arthur Charles Fox-Davies in the old 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia mentions the 3-traverse cross, supporting Woodward's book. Gimmetrow 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an authoritative source indeed!But is it right? The popes use a latin cross if a cross is to be carried in front of them. The eminent catholic heraldic scholar archbisshop Bruno Bernard Heim states that "a triple cross may have been used as a papal emblem but this was due to the ignorance of the artist . It has never been part of the papal coat of arms or a papal emblem".

Source:"Heraldry in the catholic church". Now who is right? The archbisshop or Arthur Charles Fox-Davies? It is worth an investigation. We have to take into account though that heraldry was in a crisis in the 19th. century.I propose that we limit the " papal coats of arms" to those that were used by the pontiffs themselves. Maybe artists have felt the need to embellish this rather simple coat of arms. Robert Prummel 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiepiscopal staff of an Armenian patriarch
Archiepiscopal staff of an Armenian patriarch
The image was meant to illustrate angels are supporters and the keys/tiara. I see two easy solutions to this problem - use this image with a better caption or use Image:Araldiz_Manno_384.png. Both are black and white and should ultimately be replaced by something better. Unless you're planning to write an article on the eccentricities of 19th century church heraldry ;) Gimmetrow 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A better caption will do the trick. In the past the rules were vague or they were not enforced. And there never was a catholic King of Arms ... Heim turned down the job when asked in 1960.Robert Prummel 02:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Priests do not use supporters in the heraldry of the church. Supporters may be used by stonemasons and sculptors when depicting coats of arms on facades and monuments but that is, though it is architectonically understandable and pleasing to the eye, artistic licence. An angel or saint (but never an evangelist!) can be used to hold the shield in an ex libris though. But that is for personal and informal use only and the arms on seals, documents and churches have to be in accordance with the ecclasiastical rules and traditions.Robert Prummel 02:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall mention of some papal coats of arms depicted with Sts. Peter and Paul as supporters, and there are cases of men with military distinction becoming priests later in life and retaining supporters in their arms. I think priests have a fair amount of flexibility because their arms aren't used much officially. Also the ecclesiastical heraldry article here tries to summarize practice in non-Catholic churches. Gimmetrow 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, I did the same in my article on the Dutch Wiki. I am still trying to find out what, if any, is the heraldry the Old-Catholic Church uses.Robert Prummel 02:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S.S. I am impressed with the monsignor article! In the article on ecclasiastical heraldry in the Dutch Wiki I erred because the complexity of these titles. The page that you seem to have contributed to is a great help!

mandyas
mandyas
And still a lot more to do there. By the way, the robe looks excellent in your GrandMaster of the Order of Malta coat of arms. You should use something like that to make the Eastern Christian coat of arms. Gimmetrow 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The grandmaster's mantle was, I think, my best drawing so-far,I'll try again with the mandyas. I will have to find a picture of yellow silk for the lining. I've send you a small drawing that I made today just for fun. Greetings from the Netherlands! Robert Prummel 02:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Gimmetrow, I tried my hands on the manyas again and this is the result. It is basically the same weapon but this time "bling-bling". I have used two pieces of silk and a fragment of the Dutch royal crown for the gold. Now what style of heraldic drawing do you prefer?Robert Prummel 18:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about a mantiya in this style, similar to examples from here? This is very similar to the Malta form. Gimmetrow 19:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

With the danger of sounding infinitely stupid, can you explain to me how the Bot works in cleaning up talk pages with peer reviews, old GAs, etc.? I'd like to help, only I'm confused as to how the Bot works and how a person helps prepare a page for the Bot. Anything you can tell me is greatly appreciated. LuciferMorgan 03:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you very much for fixing the template on Talk:The KLF for me. It's much appreciated. --kingboyk 15:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArticleHistory error cat

Gimmetrow, what happened? I have *really* slow access, but see that the cat was suddenly populated with a lot of errors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on another feature. It will get straightened out. Gimmetrow 15:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldry

Thanks for putting the archived PR back on the page. I was unsure of the formatting on how to do it. It's appreciated.--Eva bd 21:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halle Berry

I think we should go "Miss Stone" as her character name. Why? Well no one seems to be able to agree. I did a google search and found lots of links that say Rosetta, including Yahoo Movies Australia, Hollywood.com, TV Guide.com, Showtime.com, IMDB's listing by actor (which her website links too) and lots of others. IIRC, the movie always just says Miss Stone. So. Since we can't seem to find sources that agree, I'd say just go with Miss Stone. I did a search of "The Flintstones Movie Rosetta Stone". I am on page 6 and I'm still seeing references of "Halle Berry as Rosetta Stone". --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find:
  • "sharon stone" flintstones halle berry -rosetta : 27200 ghits
  • "rosetta stone" flintstones halle berry -sharon : 761 ghits
"Miss Stone" is fine as an interim measure, if the BBC article stays linked on the talk page. Gimmetrow 06:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot?

I promoted a bunch of new FAs today - I thought the bot had tagged them as promoted, but I just checked and it hasn't. What's going on? Raul654 23:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

That is not an odd date format, it is standard ISO format which wiki accepts. What is good about it is that if you go under your prefs and select a preferred date fmt, the ISO date will display that way. What you saw as odd format shows in my selected format on my screen.Rlevse 02:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A valid point, but I like them because it's less and easier typing-;). Rlevse 03:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed your concerns about the FAC now. Thanks.Rlevse 02:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured topic

Thanks for the tip. I've listed Scouting as the topic and all 10 of our FAs for the program. We'll see how it goes. Rlevse 03:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that runs the danger of making the topic too narrow in this case, with only 2-3 articles per topic, it sort of defeats the purpose of having a topic. Thanks for the tip though.Rlevse 03:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wigwag (railroad)

Saying hi; tried to straighten this one out, but too hard from a dialup. Wigwag must have had a name change, since the original fac isn't there, and the talk page mentions two prior FARCs; I'm hoping you'll have time to run them down, since the article is currently at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found one piece, needs to be added in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/April_2004#Wigwag

First FARC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Wigwag_Archive_1

Second FARC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Wigwag

Hope the above helps. LuciferMorgan 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Papal Oath

The additional category was one that I put forward "tentatively". I do not intend to defend it. In fact, now that other people whose work I appreciate are interested in the discussion, I think I need no longer be even generally active in it. The original question was whether the article should be deleted. I must frankly say that I do not see why, after Kendrick changed his mind, it was judged that the discussion "does not provide enough to determine consensus" on the point at issue. If the judgement had been, as I thought it would be, that nobody wanted the article deleted, the other discussions that to my poor mind seem to have little or no relation with the question of whether to delete - in particular on the title of the (non-deleted) article - would have taken place, in a less confused way, on the Talk page of the article. Lima 05:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crusaders

Hmm You forgot to add the Featured Article tag to this articles main page so I added it for you..I hope its not a problem..--Cometstyles 14:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't add tags in the article itself, only on the talk page. I think it's appropriate for the main article contributor to handle that. Gimmetrow 14:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article History Template

Does this template have to be used on articles? i dont particularly like it on the Aquinas College, Perth article, can i possibly revert it? SMBarnZy 05:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant to reduce the number of templates on talk pages. The Placebo Effect 13:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Messy talk page; could benefit from Banners and standardization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Since GimmeBot has worked well on FAC, do you think it is time to suggest it be applied at peer review? The Placebo Effect 13:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. Too much other stuff to do. Gimmetrow 13:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan is at WP:FAC, but was set up as archive2. I straightened out the talk page and removed the redirects, but left the fac at archive2, since that's where it will end up anyway. Not sure if the bot can handle that? Do what you will with it ... I'm slowly catching up, but won't be full speed until at least the weekend. Cheers, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that; someone changed it all, don't have time to figure out what's up now, just take care with this one on closing—the bot will encounter an empty archive2. I guess we can't force editors to read instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop ups

I'll see if I can figure out how to try that. Thanks for taking the time to drop by. KP Botany 02:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Google

ArticleHistory template removed, so it showed up as a current FAC (found it when I tried to reconcile the number). I left a query here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD

That's fine, I was just following point 6 of template deletion process and the nomination statement included associated categories, but I apparently missed some that were populated outside of the template. I'll undelete them. Best, IronGargoyle 01:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Antioxidant

An interesting one; GimmeBot changed class=B to FA, but there was another class=b (lower case) which wasn't caught. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another lower case, here (class=start). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bah. I thought they were supposed to be capitalized. Gimmetrow 07:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom

This article is at FAC; I can't figure it out. Query here; looks like it was GA, but it also looks like you removed it from WP:GA - not sure? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Was part of a reconciliation of WP:GA and CAT:GA. Gimmetrow 18:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS - did you add it back to WP:GA? Gosh, GA is a lot of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Timber framing

Checking the count in the FAC cat, I found one extra: Timber framing didn't get botified in the last archive. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all those fixes, and for all you do to make everything easier for the rest of us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing pieces

There are two articles currently at FAR that I don't know how to handle: Talk:John Major and Talk:Éire. Can't find FACs, but they are listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2004. Is there a way we can use that page to fill in the missing pieces? I'm traveling again in a week, so I won't be of much help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created WP:FAC subpages for these from their Brilliant Prose nominations. Dr pda 17:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dr pda, because there are so many of these still to do, can you toss me a cluestick as to how/where you found that info? We still have to deal with these and more. Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In principle the nominations for all featured articles should be found in the Featured log, but I've noticed a number of articles which weren't archived properly here, particularly at the end of 2003/beginning of 2004. Before the advent of sub-pages for FAC noms, nominations and comments were added directly to WP:FAC. This means that for the cases where no one has retroactively made a sub-page for the nomination, one has to go digging through the history of WP:FAC. This can be sped up if you know the date or approximate date the article became featured. User:Feature Historian has a list of articles and dates when they were featured/defeatured which is useful for finding the date. (The list also links to the subpage or the diff of WP:FA for the older articles). Once you have the date you need to get to the right place in the history, which is pretty slow, even at 500 edits at a time, however you can speed things up by manually inserting the desired date in the url. If you go to the history of WP:FAC and click next 500 the url of the resulting page looks something like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&dir=next&offset=20070303163608&limit=500&action=history.
The key thing here is offset=20070303163608. This number is actually a timestamp, 2007-03-03, 16:36:08. To go to the date you want just change this number to the appropriate date, e.g. to jump to the date 7 February 2004 (which was when Éire was featured according to Feature Historian), change the offset to 20040207163608 (where I haven't bothered changing the last six digits, which correspond to the time of day). The url is then http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&dir=next&offset=20040207163608&limit=500&action=history (clickable version here). If you're lucky at this point you'll be able to see an edit summary which mentions the article you're interested in; if not, you'll have to click through a few diffs. You can use this technique to jump to a date in the history of any page or talk page. Incidentally you can also change the number of edits shown per page by changing limit=500 in the url to any number up to 5000. Dr pda 21:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before the advent of sub-pages for FAC noms, nominations and comments were added directly to WP:FAC. That certainly is key; I wasn't aware, and had no idea where to look. I'll have to digest the rest of this info when I get back from my travel and can dig in on the missing pieces. You two are the glue of Wikipedia ! (I also didn't know I could get more than 500 diffs at a time.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I've created the pages I've included a diff link. BTW, I wrote the bot assuming it could find a date on the page. Almost all will have dates, and it seemed silly to do odd stuff to try to find one. I grab the last reasonable-formatted date on the page. That's why I skipped a couple articles - the FAC subpage existed but there was no date. Gimmetrow 23:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if articles "referred to peer review" were simply moved to WP:PR. That way the FAC comments would remain somewhere without wasting another page, and the redirect left at the FAC page could be set up for next time. Gimmetrow 23:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did something get moved? There's a question on my talk page about Myocardial infarction, but I don't know if it's moved. I was going to consult with you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comment had nothing to do with that article, but the ones that get two terse comments about peer review. Would make most sense to just move them as if they were at PR to begin with. Alas, many such articles won't get any comments at PR... Gimmetrow 23:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reaping the benefits

Two subsequent (to articlehistory/GimmeBot) nominations appeared on FAC today: beautiful, working like a charm !! How happy I am not to have to straighten out multiple old archives on malformed nominations. (See Japan and Holden VE Commodore at FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was one during the bot trial period, even. There are currently 21 FAs using the featured template, but they have problems, usually a redlinked FAC page. (Can probably do Eire though, so it will be 20.) Note also how someone did Talk:Leopold and Loeb. I may flag those as errors at some point. Gimmetrow 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ah, heck, I wish folks would let the bot do it. I saw Leopold and Loeb somewhere just today; I'll go see if I can locate it again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to response from CBDunkerson (eom)

Image questions

In re your questions:

  1. We just need to make up our minds about what these things are. If they're just the name of the band in an unusual font, then we should be claiming {{PD-ineligible}} with maybe {{trademarked}}. If it's a creative design, then it is unfree, and we shouldn't be using it unless we need to discuss that design. It doesn't make much sense to say it is okay in the infobox but not in the navigation template, but it is also true that people like firm rules, and "not in template space" is an easy to understand rule.
  2. "Galleries of unfree images are bad" is another easy to understand rule, but we don't seem to be very good at following it. I think that the "don't use galleries of album covers in discographies" advice is buried somewhere in the music project's pages, maybe at WP:MUSTARD? In any case, it's this kind of thing that gets people wound up about en:'s unfree image use. Most of our discography pages are largely unfree content; we've made them just about as not-reusable as we possibly can. I suspect that we are going to get told "You don't get to make gallery pages of unfree images on Wikimedia projects", so I think that the real question here is how to best go about the cleanup project without upsetting editors unnecessarily.
  3. Image:12728 jlo 04maerz 10 122 101lo00.jpg was from Getty Images, and inexpertly manipulated, resulting in terrible artifacting. I deleted it; even in the unlikely case it was uploaded by the photographer, they no longer had the rights to license it. Jkelly 18:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I have anything of value to add to any convesation about band logos. I guess that I don't really understand what we are trying to do here. If the band's logo is important enough that we want to make a Wikipedia:Fair use claim, then doesn't it follow that the image really needs to be the band's logo? And, on the other hand, if we can substitute some other design for it, why not pick one that isn't derived from it? Oh, this is for userboxen. Well, I suppose that User:Postdlf is saying much the same thing as I did above, and the only complication here is whether the design is a derivative work or not... and I could see it either way. As for the larger issues, I would say that a good album article should discuss the album cover art. "Whose photography is on the cover?/Who did the design/What have people said about it?" is definitely encyclopedic information, and that "for identification" line in WP:FU has caused a lot of confusion, leading to "As long as an image has a subject, it is fair use", which is nonsensical. Someone adding "this is disputed" to WP:MUSTARD pretty much sums up the entire en: fair use problem. Our guidelines and policies are written from the perspective that everyone here is here to work on giving away a freely reusable encyclopedia and would voluntarily be very conservative about adding any unfree content. This is, of course, not the case at en: at all, and our licensing guidelines are as freely editable as the rest of our content. It's not obvious to me what the elegant solution to the problem is. Edit-warring between image cleanup people and editors who don't care about the free culture movement is not elegant. Asking project leadership to rule on category or individual image usage is not elegant (and might endanger DMCA safety). I note that we have a freely licensed image related to the band whose logo we were discussing above at Commons. It's not used in the article about the band, but it is used in userspace, because unfree images aren't allowed there. I don't think the solution that suggests is elegant either, but it is getting harder to argue against. Jkelly 22:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref stuff on my talk page

When you get a chance, can you look at the ref proposal on my talk page, under Stuff? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[4] :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just complained to an admin

about this editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents) and recieved a reply in like 47 seconds saying what he was up to is okay. I don't think so. So, what do we do. Carptrash 03:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Oh yes, here is his recent record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_McStub[reply]

I don't see that on WP:AN/I yet. My issue is that the user is deleting not just the imageshack link, but any other text inside the link - at least sometimes that other text is important. I'll respond on AN/I once it appears for me. Gimmetrow 03:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's there with a response from Jersey Devil. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was looking for a slightly more descriptive title for the section ;) Gimmetrow 03:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that they were forbidden, I pointed to WP:EL and WP:Spam in order to show that they were discouraged.--Jersey Devil 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kulintang

Currently at FAC: user converted to ArticleHistory himself, resulted in an error. Rather than check the work, I just reverted it and asked him to wait for the bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gimmetrow&oldid=114978161"