User talk:Circeus/december2007

New list

Hey Circeus- it's been a while! I've just created my first semi-serious list and, since I've noticed that you're involved with the featured list project, I was wondering if you could take a look and perhaps give me some suggestions. Thanks. Here it is - List of Amphibians in the Shenandoah National Park Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 03:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your logic, and really the only reason I have it on it's own is because I happened to come across a good list of amphibians given by the park service. Perhaps a list of all animals in the the park would be better, but such a list would be unbelievably long (when you get down to insects and nematodes and such) and probably never complete. I don't know if there are any precedents for this with other national parks, but having a list for each group of animals in a given national park seems very useful to me. Would it be better if there were other similar lists (e.g. list of mammals in the Shenandoah National Park) as well, or would you prefer to see all of these sorts of things treated in a single list? I completely agree that it is very specific material, but what is the standard for when something becomes too specific? "Encyclopedic" is relative to the scope of the project, as I see it. I would hate to throw that all out after working on it, so if you can think of a good way to keep it, either in the current article or in another, just let me know. Thanks! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 04:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that a list of amphibians in Virginia would be good, but also quite general as the state has some very different habitats. I think that a list of vertebrates in the park would also be good, but I think it would be too long for any serious detail/photos. Making a List of vertebrates in the Shenandoah National Park seems, like you said, to be a good umbrella, but I think it would have to be a simple list due to length. It seems to me that when I look at this with a final product in mind, having a list for each class of animals, in addition to the big list, would be the best way to split up the length into more detailed units. Perhaps some short and related groups would be better combined (e.g. Reptiles and Amphibians perhaps). With this as a goal in mind, can the exisiting list stay for now, or should it be removed until the above happens? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 05:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanisms and processes of evolution

i have replied here. kindly have a look pls. i appreciate your comments. thanks, Sushant gupta 05:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are most welcome to share your comments at talk:evolution. Sushant gupta 15:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barn Swallow

Just thanks for the edits you made, I'm feeling my way with my first FA attempt, and it's been a steep learning curve. I finally found a respectable ref for the tattoo too!. Jimfbleak 08:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC caps

Hey, Circeus, a favor to ask. You know I like your FAC caps so much I stole the idea from you :-) It would be easier to know the person who capped the content was the same person who wrote the content, and to know whose content is capped. Would you mind adding your sig to the line that shows on the cap? Notice it's hard to know who's commentary is under there at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opera (web browser), and see how I capped mine here. I guess I also worry that someone else will cap off another editor's commentary, so it may help to have the sig. Please let me know what you think, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The way you've done it now is more clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

concern about DYK

I enjoyed reading about your DYK hook. I have some concerns about the photo. It may not be free use in the US (WP rules follow US law because of the location of the server) if it was published after 1923 (even though the photo is from the 1800's). I've temporarily removed the photo but kept the nice DYK hook. I will ask others, too. Archtransit 20:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you strongly feel that is free use in the U.S., you can put it back and I will not fight it. Again, nice hook! Archtransit 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Charles-Honoré Laverdière, was selected for DYK!

On December 3, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles-Honoré Laverdière, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of inductees of Canada's Walk of Fame

I've been working on reformatting the table on the page (which has been an FL for almost a year) and I was thinking of adding images to the table. I think that anywhere from 40-60% of the subjects would have free images, but I'm not sure if I like the look of the table with images. Could you take a look at the version here and let me know what you think? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried doing that, but the table is so big that it doesn't work. If the notes section was trimmed, then it might be more practical. Another problem with images is the varying height, some are much taller than others and give a table a rather sloppy look. Now that I think of it, I won't add the images, but the notes section seems kind of POVish and messy to me now. Do you think it should be trimmed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I agree with you. After testing the images, I don't think they really look that good. The notes do need cleaning up though, so I'll get to work on that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: Robert Christopher Tytler

Did you know? was updated. On 5 December, 2007, a fact from the article Robert Christopher Tytler, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:move 2boxes to redce big white space

hey, you can't manage to keep on changing the format. sometimes the selected article might cover a bit more space. i don't have problem with that but it would be better if don't disturb the format frequently. thank you for participating in improving the portal, Sushant gupta (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anyway, blank space doesn't affect the portal. i have seen many featured portals with blank spaces. cheers, Sushant gupta (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i will be on a long wikibreak till april 2008. can you maintain this portal for this period. thankyou Sushant gupta (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: User:Baderimre

Sure. I'll consult with other Hungarian Wikipedians who knew him better, but I'll only do it tomorrow because it's 2 a.m. here. Regs, Hu:Totya (talk!) 00:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: Jean Pouliot

Did you know? was updated. On 7 December, 2007, a fact from the article Jean Pouliot, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of works by William Monahan

Jean-Sébastien, I'm sure you are busy studying or taking exams this week so I understand if you have little time, but if you do have a moment could you reply to some of the latest comments from me at WP:FLC? I went ahead and made an article for the novel Light House: A Trifle and it certainly makes sense to have one now. I am always hesitant to create yet another article though perhaps I am too strict on this.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: The Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne

Did you know? was updated. On 7 December, 2007, a fact from the article The Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

List of production battery electric vehicles/Table

Nothing links to that. The name is really formatted wrong for an article, since it denotes some sort of sub-page (though isn't really one, is it?). I'm just flabbergasted by it. Though, with a little formatting and an introduction, it could be a good list :) Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK:Stranski-Krastanov growth

On 8 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stranski-Krastanov growth, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: Charles Foster Batchelder

On December 9, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Foster Batchelder, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

DYK: Surface plasmon

Did you know? was updated. On 9 December, 2007, a fact from the article Surface plasmons, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant

		The 25 DYK Medal
		Congratulations! Here's a medal for you in appreciation of your hardwork in creating, expanding and nominating 25+ articles for DYK. Numbers are not important, but 25 is impressive - Some may regard as your first few as merely a "thin film" but as I have recently learnt they can grow. Keep up the good work, Circeus! --Victuallers (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allosaurus

Hey Circeus,

Allosaurus, an article you worked on, is currently up for Featured Article Candidacy here. I'm not asking for you to support the candidacy, but because you've already worked on the article, you may have more ideas on how to improve the article, or concerns that should be addressed (we're a tiny project, and so the number of ideas for improvement are limited to what a few people think of).

I'm also sending out requests to other users who have worked on the article a bit, and to the Tree of Life WikiProject, for more feedback. Feel free to ignore this request if you've better things to do, or if it annoys you to get a sort of impersonal message. I'm just trying to get more of the community involved in making input on the dinosaur FACs, and this is my (admittedly semi-lame) attempt. Anyone else who reads this message on your talk page would also be welcome to make suggestions or comments. :) Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Reversion of deceased wikipedians

Hi I just wanted to know why you reverted the deceased wikipedians page. Thanks. DavidJJJ (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably for the same reason another editor reverted it - it's not serious. That's not the place to add jokes. --David Shankbone 18:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I misread it. DavidJJJ (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A monster article at FAC....

Eeks, something a whole bunch of folks have worked on (bird) is at FAC - I've been through and copyedited it but Tony reckons more needed. BE nice to get a fresh set of eyes on it to see what else needs doing. Up for helping a Vital Article over the line? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your edits! Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Meiji Period: Use of Japanese era name in identifying disastrous events

Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:

As you know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the <<year>><<place> <<event>> format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).

In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.

The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject report

I'd be happy to publish your report for this week, but in the future, please note that Arknascar44 handles this feature on a weekly basis. If you'd like to help on other articles that are not currently written by other users, please feel free to do so, but where other users handle a feature every week, please do not write for them unless they ask you to. Ral315 (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISSN

Thanks for the templates. I was wondering about that when they didn't light up blue, the way that ISBN numbers do here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK nomination for Commelina benghalensis was successful

Did you know? was updated. On December 16, 2007, a fact from the article Commelina benghalensis, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of top United States business schools

That might be one way to fight. I am relenting and adding all the schools. It will take me a bit. I will try to finish up tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FLC

I was wondering if you would mind giving your opinion on this FLC. The page is basically an article that was forced into being a list, and I was just wondering what you thought about this. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Laureates

I am experimenting with a table at User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox. I have two problems with the table right now. 1. I think it may look a little busy at 1024x768. 2. Also, I am trying to understand the {{Birth date}}, which says it can produce the ISO 8601 format for sortability. Have you seen the template used to produce that format. Any thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circeus Wikimicroscope needed....

If there was ever an article I needed a critical second opinion on it is this one. We're haeding soon to FAC and I promise I'll never make one as big again! It's big enough that FAC could go really pear-shaped so all input much appreciated. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: While editing you should sign all entries with vampire teeth :[ cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User "kimpson" is back

User:Ckimpson (sock puppets: User:Cgkimpson User:CamKimpson User:67.166.58.4) is back and up to old tricks again. Evolauxia (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On rating articles

On November 25th you changed the rating on Triticeae from GA to B. I created this article and have done numbers of edits, although I did not add the plant articles tag or the rating or the secondary rating. I was pleased that it reached GA status although I was unclear as to why, and, also, who is qualified to rate such articles, later, with no real changes it was re-rated to a B article. Is there some sort of wiki-standard for article ratings or does anyone have the right. Isn't customary when giving a rating to critique or is this just a sort of hit and run thing? I see other articles that have gotten peer review with gobs of comments, isn't that supposed to be part of the process of rating? [I really don't care about the ratings, unless it is a featured article its just a wiki, but for the sake of etiquette I would like to know how this is supposed to go]Pdeitiker (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

FLC Criteria Queries

I was wondering, if there is a requirement (in length) that featured lists must be - however it does not say so, in the featured list criteria. And if reviewers are able to oppose it because, they "have a taste in long lists?" I believe, a statement clarifying that the length does not matter for featured lists, should be included into the criteria, as this has happened before, see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nation of Ulysses discography/archive1.

Also, it was raised by User:Colin: "This band simply hasn't done enough or been written-about enough to generate enough encyclopedic content for featured status." However, I believe, "It is not due to a band success or number of releases, which makes their discography a featured list, but the referenced well-written, well-formatted article itself." Can you please clarify whether or not length is a opposable reason, for FLCs?

Alternatively you may wish to see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Harry and the Potters discography for the current discussion. I would greatly appreciate you to clarify this mess up. Hpfan9374 (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I recently discovered that an FLC nominator asked all three of his support votes to go and vote there, so I was wonderinf if that ought to be an automatic restart of the nom. I started a discussion here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journal names

Re the recent change to Asperger syndrome that spelled out journal names: that article uses a common medical style, namely Pubmed abbreviations, for journal titles. Am J Psychiatry and Can J Psychiatry are standard abbreviations there. Eubulides (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I followed up on Talk:Asperger syndrome #Journal abbreviations in citations, etc. Eubulides (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your move of List of mammals in Connecticut

After I created the page and decided on a title, you moved the page to a new name without discussing it. Please move the page back now, and we can discuss it if you'd like to make a case for the new name. I'm open to discussion and consensus after the article has been restored. Noroton (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the lists use "in": Category:Regional mammals lists. The page of featured lists you pointed me to also showed variations. On what basis do you think there's a consensus for this? Has it been discussed and decided on anywhere? Noroton (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think featured lists should be the standard. Looking over different types of "List of X in Foo" lists, "in" seems to be the most used, particularly when the list is of something that is geography-specific ("List of flags of" is appropriate because the flags can go anywhere; "List of people from" is also standard). Look at Category:United Kingdom-related lists and most of the geography-specific lists use "in". Same at Category:United States-related lists, and at Category:Canada-related lists, although some specific types do use "of" ("List of rivers of..." and the lists of postal codes of Canada). The whole point of the regional mammals lists is to emphasize the geographic location, and in the vast majority of geography-specific lists, when that's done with a Wikipedia list we use "in". We want article titles to be as intuitive as possible so that readers can spend less time and effort on figuring out how to get something and free them to keep their minds on the subject they want to look up. I haven't seen anything that tells me any group of Wikipedians prefers that we use "List of mammals of Foo", and when editors make initial decisions on footnote style or UK/US/Canada spelling decisions on subjects not specific to particular nations, we keep to the original style, absent a consensus to change it.Noroton (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

happy Mango season

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Hello Circeus, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...Keep on rocking!....Enjoy the snow! ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]