User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dabomb87. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Question about dabs

I was skimming FAC and wondered if you could explain this comment for my future reference:

Dabs: please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox

Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Dabs" is short for "disambiguation links" that need to be directed to the correct article instead of left as a link to a disambiguation page. On each FAC page, there is a toolbox (only visible on the page itself, not when the FAC is transcluded somewhere else) that has several useful "tools", of which the dab checker is one of them. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I see where to look. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Do512 from external links on Austin Music

Just Curious why you pulled it. It's easily as relevant as the Chronicle listings. It actually has quite a lot more listings, and includes audio and video for every band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.68.138 (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We can't have links to every Austin-relevant site. See Wikipedia:External links. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie

Hi User:Dabomb87,
Thanks! I saw your recent edits to The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie article.
I wanted to know if you could help me with, e.g. erasing irrelevant things, clear out repeated context, sections, if anything belongs elsewhere in the article, and anything else you detect for FAC, as the nomination is currently closed, because their is stuff that still needs to be dealt with.
As I am not sure what is necessary and what is not; User:Matthewedwards was helping me, but he moved and does not have an internet connection, so I wanted to know if you could help in the mean time.
Thanx again!
ATC^{. Talk} 21:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

ATC, I probably won't have time to review the article in-depth, but will look over it for minor prose and formatting niggles. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanx! That should help. ATC^{. Talk} 23:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tom Swift

I just wanted to say thanks for all the little fixes you've made to the Tom Swift article - good eye for detail! Best, Ricardiana (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page

I noticed that you update this page periodically... may I ask how you do it? Is there a bot or anything that keeps track of this, or do you do it all manually? Anyway, I was asking because I just created Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page (it will take several days, at least, to finish populating itself) and I figured these pages could probably complement one another. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

All featured articles that have appeared on the main page are wrapped in the template {{FA/BeenOnMainPage}}, on WP:FA. At 0:00 UTC, a bot adds the template to the featured article for that day—example edit; notice that the bot puts the name of the article in the edit summary. I have WP:FA watchlisted, so I just look for the name of the Main Page article each day and update WP:FAMP accordingly. When new FAs are promoted, I add them to the list, and when FAs are demoted, those that never appeared on the Main Page have to be removed from this list. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The category may be redundant to what you do with WP:FAMP, but I figured it might be useful (at the very least, once it's populated then {{PAGESINCATEGORY}} could be used to provide a dynamic count that doesn't need to be updated, for example if someone wanted this on their userpage somewhere—of course, I'll have to wait a week or so to see if the count this generates is really accurate)...and even if it's not, then at least it's another way for people to find this information if they don't know about FAMP yet. What the category doesn't have is organization by topics, which FAMP has... I considered trying to do that with the |topic= parameter in ArticleHistory, but then realized that parameter is for GAs and not all FAs have it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

1993 Football League First Division play-off Final

Could you help me with this page please. Mr Hall of England (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't—the link you gave me is broken. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dabomb87. You have new messages at Jayson28's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayson28 (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Postman's Park image placement

I've (re) reverted this change you made to Postman's Park. It's been discussed at the FAC and so far nobody has raised any objection to breaching the MOS on this particular occasion. WP:ACCESS#Images is a vague guideline, not a set-in-stone rule, and in this particular case moving the image causes problems to the majority of readers using standard settings on a standard monitor, while not solving any problem other than compliance-for-the-sake-of-compliance; it's a tall thin image which doesn't actually cause the disconnect problem WP:ACCESS#Images was intended to address (even on large-text settings on a 2in screen, the image doesn't force the text to disconnect in this case; I checked). As mentioned at the FAC, I fail to see the point (in any circumstances) of that particular guideline, and don't understand why this is somehow a problem with level 3 headers, but level 2 and 4 headers are somehow immune. – iride scent 14:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

While most image issues are vague and ill-defined, the "no left-aligned under third-level headings" has been solid for a long time, AFAIK, and accessibility is important for readers who use screen readers. On the other hand, I'm unfamiliar with the argument Iri makes (regarding upright, etc) ... has this been asked at WT:ACCESS, where did the other discussions Iri references occur, and how do we know it's not causing an accessibility issue ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The place to be having this is probably either the FAC (if it's just in relation to this particular one), to keep the threads together, or at WT:FAC if there's an aim for a broad consensus. As I said at the FAC, there's no point slavishly complying with the MOS just for the sake of it; in this particular case, the tall thin image causes no "detachment" problem, at any reasonable resolution, right down to ipod size. Consequently, moving it is causing problems (text sandwiching, and detachment of the image from the paragraph it illustrates) for no benefit. As I said at the FAC, I can't see why "detachment" suddenly becomes a problem with level 3 headers; were I to just change the header to level 2 ~~or 4~~, how would that suddenly make the image placement acceptable? – iride scent 20:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The guideline applies to level-three headings and lower; "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower)" from WP:MOS#Images. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Struck "or 4", but the rest still stands. I really can't see what problem this solves in this case. – iride scent 20:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a screenreader, so I don't know, and really can't answer these questions. And Graham87 doesn't read FAC ... I've asked him to look in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The image placement problem, if there is one, doesn't affect screen readers. As it says there, it affects people using large fonts. Since I'm totally blind, I don't use fonts at all, and I don't know what the fuss is about. Ask at Wikipedia talk:Accessibility, and/or try to enlarge the fonts yourselves and see what happens. The problem in item 7 of Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images would affect screen magnifier users, not screen reader users. Image placement only affects screen reader users like me when the image is outside the heading to which it is related. Graham87 03:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice from the FAC that it's been tested on an iPod screen and works fine there. So I don't understand what the problem is; people who need to use 1,000% zoom often find it more comfortable to use screen readers than staring at the screen all day long. Graham87 03:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility #Moving images below leve-three titles?, that image placement advice is purely for aesthetics, for sighted readers; it has nothing to do with making articles more accessible. The objection to left-aligned images under minor headers is that it's jarring for the reader to see a section header on the far left, and then having the section's text start somewhere else horizontally, under the argument that the eye generally prefers to have these elements start from the same point on the horizontal axis. There is an enormous amount of confusion on this topic, unfortunately (no doubt including my own). I don't see a problem with violating this image-placement guideline in this this particular instance. (But then again, perhaps I don't understand why it's so important that it be a guideline.) Eubulides (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

United States

I note you are currently working on the above article, which has been nominated for Peer review by User:occono who does not appear to be an active contributor. The article seems to be the subject of considerable editing activity, and in my view peer review is premature. It would be advisable to wait for the current revisions to be completed; perhaps you would consult other active editors, with a view to withdrawing from the PR process until a later date. Brianboulton (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brian. I am not an active contributor to the article; I was just passing through and noticed a few things to be fixed. I agree that the PR should probably be withdrawn. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hyphens in article names

I know you did a lot of these, so before I start doing them manually, I was wondering if there is an automated way available to move hyphenated titles to ndashes ones. Because I found these during some reading I was doing today and I'm sure I could find hundreds more that need moving. Hope all is well, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't, unfortunately. I have several lists of hyphen-to-en-dash moves to be made, but haven't found the time or motiviation to work on them. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

More or less goodbye

As of 20090905 I will no longer be actively editing wikipedia. Due to a real life situation my heart just isn't in it anymore. Perhaps I will come back later or make some occasional edits though so I will leave my userpage and talk pages intact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumioko (talk • contribs) 03:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear this. I hope that all goes well in RL and that you return after a good rest. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to mention that the WWI Medal of Honor recipient list is at FLC so you might want to close it or see if someone else wants to finish it up. --Kumioko (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Hawk War

I'm now ready for you to give this a good work over at FAC level. Please run your dash bot too. Any help is appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Do dates need non-break spaces? Rafablu88 07:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Are they required by MOS? No. Some editors do think that it is good practice, though, to put a non-breaking space between the month and the day (e.g. August 15). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do the latter. RB88 (T) 14:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Another question: I've used the new fancy italic title method. What's the official party line on that? It's not that big a deal either way, right? RB88 (T) 14:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope; as far as I know, there's no mandate for or against it. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

To my handy shadow

Heads up: [1] Thanks as always for all you do ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Major League Baseball All-Star Game MVP Award

Thanks for the comment, I fixed up your one issue per the style of an already featured list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia/archive1

Hi, I was awaiting the response on the adressed comments by Giants2008, but it doesn't look like he will respond anytime soon. I've also been quite busy in real life the last couple of days, but I will start adressing the remaining comments now. =) lil2mas (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

All comments adressed... =) lil2mas (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Rob Pelinka

How is Rob Pelinka looking in your queue?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I apologize profusely for dithering over that article. I don't have time these days, but will try to squeeze him in over the weekend. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Émile Bouchard feature nomination

Thanks for the tip to use publishers on citations. Can I ask you a question, as this is the first time I've nominated an article? Can I make the changes that are suggested as they come in, or am I supposed to wait until the end of the nomination process? Thanks, BashBrannigan (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You're supposed to change the article as the suggestions are made. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

FAs that have not been on the main page

Hey Dabomb, I left you a message a few days ago about Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page. Just for your information, now (after about a week) the templates have all recached themselves and the category is more or less populated; its count is almost the same as WP:FAMP, but not quite (1180 on FAMP today after your updates, 1177 in the category). I imagine this is probably because of a couple errors on FAMP, such as duplicate entries or articles that didn't get removed after appearing on the main page (I found a few like that over the past few days, and I still haven't checked the large sections like Warfare and Media so there might be a few more hiding in there.) Anyway, it's not a big deal and it's nothing you need to worry about, I just wanted to update you in case you were wondering. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm not sure why you removed Final Fantasy IV here... it's an FA, has not been on the main page, and isn't duplicated anywhere else on WP:FAMP. Am I missing something? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[2]. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I haven't yet gotten used to the GimmeBot delay. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tragic Kingdom

I have an article, Tragic Kingdom, currently at FAC. You offered your support in its second nomination but it wasn't promoted. This is the article's third nomination, WP:Featured article candidates/Tragic Kingdom/archive3, and I wondered if you'd offer you support again or offer some comments? -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 23:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Hawk War

I just listed this at FAC. Input appreciated. The nom is here. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ponting

Thankyou very much. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Desperate Housewives (season 1)/archive1

Hi there. I've fixed the alt text with the help of Eubulides (talk · contribs). Tell me how it looks and also tell me if there's anything else you'd like to address there. Thanks! (SUDUSER)₈₅ 06:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Election

Thank you for helping clean the page up, Daclerk87. ;) iMatthew ^talk at 20:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? iMatthew ^talk at 20:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Because we want as many members of the FL community to participate as possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm, that makes sense. I'll ask TRM to do that part. :) iMatthew ^talk at 20:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering the question. Also, not sure why you're adding/removing things from User:iMatthew/Send. I used it for Jake to deliver the message, but I probably won't need it again. iMatthew ^talk at 21:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't know what it was being used for. Sorry. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, not a problem. Also, your answer to #2, you say I've closed many non-controversial FLCs. Do you mean FLRCs, because it's not the exact same steps. iMatthew ^talk at 21:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain

I notice that you have done some copyediting at Crown Fountain. Do you think with the changes from words to numbers   should be added following the numbers that you added?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want. Non-breaking spaces aren't vital except for between numbers and units of measurement and "in other places where breaking across lines might be disruptive to the reader, such as £11 billion, 5° 24′ 21.12″ N, Boeing 747, and the first two items in 7 World Trade Center" (taken from WP:MOSNUM). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Are there any significant changes we can make to get your support?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If I can find time to fully read the article, sure. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes

I disagree with the use of the image as meeting NFCC. Others disagree. Not really sure what else I'm supposed to say. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you think

Thanks. I'll learn one day! Knowing that you've seen the page, what did you think of its size. It is very large which concerns me, but nearly all of the size will be from those 200 refs and that long table. I think the prose is pretty good and the list is well referenced and complete (barring a few {{cn}} I plan on checking out soon), so in my eyes the only thing preventing it from FLC is size. Do you share that view? Also, well done because it's about time you put yourself up for one of these things! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Personally, I think the song list should be split off into a list and submitted to FLC, and the music article submitted to GAN. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought about that, but the AfD lot didn't like when someone else had just created a list of songs, so I didn't really want to recreate that. Hence my dilemma. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, what did the list look like before it was deleted? Consensus can change, especially since the list would be complete and well-referenced to reliable third-party sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Before it was just an (incomplete) bulleted list of songs and artists with a sentence or two as the lead. I'll have a think and might go ask some of the involved AfD parties. Thanks for your input, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: List of WarCry band members

Sorry if I had made any problems. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani discography

I have addressed the issue you raised at the FLC: WP:Featured list candidates/Gwen Stefani discography/archive2. Would you please strike your comment and, if deserved, add your support? -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 23:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. While not necessary, isn't it acceptable as a limited use? I believe that it aids skimablity significantly, and have seen that usage in all form of U.S. business communication in lieu of headings (check most shareholder communications, proxies, etc. where names w/paras. are listed).--VMAsNYC (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There really is no reason to highlight band members (they are already easily visible through the bulleted format), and if you look at most other articles, they don't use extra markup to highlight the band members. See Nirvana (band)#Band members, a featured article. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I defer to you. The difference I had in mind is that these are names w/paragraphs following them (as in the business communications I'm talking about, see p. 16 at [3]). When, as in your example and the other FAs I checked, it is a list of names each atop the other, its not a problem picking out the name (especially when the name is bluelined). It's tougher in the paragraphs, so I thought italics were helpful (just as we bold the name in the lead para). But you seem to feel differently and strongly, so I defer to you. Tx.--VMAsNYC (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in your views on my wikistalker's edits to the same article just now at [4]. I don't care if he wants to spell out all the months. But question his second inlining of "press release" (not sure if even one is needed, but two inlines?), question his deletions from the two block quotes (this is the point I feel most strongly aboutl; and he is also running around deleting sourced references to the band in other articles--I assume he is coming from a good place, but the circumstances do trouble me....), question his inclusion of Hearst Corporation, question his de-inlining of 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, have no idea why he put in an ugly "^{[citation needed]} template on material that he very well knows is supported by the below citation (rather than add a citation), question his inlining where he has no reason to believe that the inlines are notable (he did the same with the band members, so I tried making articles of them, and they were deleted as non-notable), question his inlining of band members in the band members section, question whether my initial treatment of the video was appropriate as it was, question whether my formatting of the external links was fine as it was (it is more informative than the template) ... and I can't tell without more study what other changes he made in the band members section .... Sorry to bother you, but I can tell that you know this stuff, and rather than revert him I thought I would as a first step ask you. Many thanks.--VMAsNYC (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have more time to look into this dispute further; however, this is something best discussed by a a relevant WikiProject. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Desperate Housewives (season 1)

Hi could you help me out with some copyediting of the summaries? You can give me a list of suggestions at the FLC. Much appreciated and thanks! (SUDUSER)₈₅ 02:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Because of a lack of time, I really haven't time to copy-edit articles. The article definitely shouldn't have its promotion withheld because of the prose quality, which is quite good (hence my support). You might want to check out WP:PRV for possible copy-editors, and ask users who have written featured articles about media subjects to take a look. Good luck! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I'll do that then. Regards (SUDUSER)₈₅ 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi ... tried my hand at helping with the lead ... minor stuff.--VMAsNYC (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled...

Indopug has just pointed out that Bloc Party discography has a star and the official talk page stuff, but the only FLC archive listed says "not promoted". Go figure that this sort of thing has to happen to me. I'd be grateful for any clarity on this. RB88 (T) 17:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Panic over, sorry. Gimmebot had had a crisis apparently. RB88 (T) 19:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC urgent

What goes on User:Deckiller/FAC urgents? Is it possible to add Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Per Karanacs (talk · contribs), I have added it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The removal of images from WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria

Why did you do that?

We had long disscusions about to put images on the WikiProject (just like Greater Manchester's) and you have just deleted them. PLEASE NEXT TIME YOU DO SOMTHING LIKE THAT AGAIN, FIRSTLY CONSULT THE EDITORS ON THE TALK PAGE.--93gregsonl2 (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply at WT:ACCESS. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ode on Indolence FAC

If there are any places that you have grammar concerns or the such, please point them out and I will address them. I will be avoiding Fowler from then on since there is a history between us which is not pleasant. I haven't had a chance to talk to Mrathel lately (our schedules are conflicting), but I think I can cover most of it (since the page was half written by him). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Virginia numbers

Dabomb87, when I saw the numbers changed from being spelled out, I really felt the urge to undo it. The MOS is intentionally contradictory about this saying both that numbers over nine should be rendered as numbers, but that two word numbers are actually fine, which is what we had over at Virginia. But if there was a script that might let us change back or forth later, I think I'll let this stand. Is there?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 14:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have left them alone if the article was consistent, but it was not (I saw some integers over 10 spelled out and others in numeral form), so I changed it for consistency; if you would like to undo my edit, be my guest but make sure the article is consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think numbers over ten are more readable in numeral form is more readable, but if the article was using another format, then I don't mind being reverted. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Popstars

Almost everything on the list could be referenced to the respective artists' entries in the Official Books of British Hit Singles/Albums (I think the latest singles book goes up to 2007 and albums to 2008, I don't have the latest editions myself although I do have earlier ones). Only Girls Aloud's post-2007 hits could not be ref'ed from the books. There's bound to be a BBC or similar ref for "The Promise" getting to number 1 (they tend to do a news story about all new number one hits) so that would just leave three entries...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

New old FAC

Hey, I've nominated Intimacy again and would appreciate that pending prose review of yours. Cheers. RB88 (T) 15:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I won't promise anything huge, but will try to take a look later this week. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering if you have any more edits or pointers left? I think I've pretty much fixed and tightened as much as is humanly possible. RB88 (T) 19:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking a look now; I was waiting for Stifle's round of comments to be addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed a couple of minor issues. I always forget to use "in which", it's annoying. Also, just curious about numbers in nth format, i.e. 23rd. MOS allows them, right? RB88 (T) 20:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, except in dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans

I notice the above page is a redlink at Wikipedia:Featured lists/Candidate list, should it be moved from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of living Band of Brothers veterans/archive2 to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans/archive2, the article was moved to 'List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans' following it's first FLC. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the heads-up. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Before deleting that page, do you also know a way to make Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of living Band of Brothers veterans/archive1 appear in the previous candidacies, because the move to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans/archive1 means it gets lost. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, I probably should have been able to work that out from the syntax. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Dabomb87. You have new messages at Rambo's Revenge's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AWB request

I'm not familiar with the way the template works in detail, but looking at the context of the measurements in the article, I think you could use a regex in the find and replace along the lines of

(</span>|, )(.*?) ?cm\.?

converting to

$1{{convert|$2|cm|in}}

That would fix the cm measurements - it picks up anything of the form (</span> or 'comma,space', followed by a string (the value), followed by an optional space then 'cm' and an optional full stop. Other measurements such as grams should be convertible by a similar method. I've run a quick test using the AWB regex tester, but I haven't thoroughly checked whether it would have any unexpected side effects. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I know a little about regexes, but am still learning. I'll look into it more when I have time. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

You're now deservedly the new co-FLRC delegate, best of luck with the position. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy

Look if you have any time can you do me a favor and check Family Guy and tell me on how i can improve it. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pedro. I don't have much time these days to review articles thoroughly, and TV shows really aren't my expertise. You would be better off seeking the opinions of editors such as Music2611 (talk · contribs), Theleftorium (talk · contribs), Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs), and Cirt (talk · contribs). Also check out WP:PRV for editors who edit articles in similar topics. Some general advice, from an FA perspective:

Generally, the hardest FA criteria to fulfill are those of professional-standard ("brilliant") prose and ensuring that the article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic":

The first thing to do is to make sure you have all the information necessary for a comprehensive overview of the subject. The research you've done is a good start, but I'm sure there are more scholarly sources (peer-reviewed articles and books) that could be used. Perhaps the most glaring omission in the article is the lack of a "Styles and themes" section; for such a well-known sitcom, I'd expect there to be plenty of information on that aspect.
Once you've completed your research and integrated the material into the article, examine the prose. On a brief glance, the article's writing seems to be decent, but even when you think the writing is good, it can always be improved; for example, the weird verb tense used in the sentence "[i]n a majority of the episodes of Family Guy, the plot will be interrupted by a cutaway segment" and two consecutive sentences in "Characters" ending with "also make[s] frequent appearances". Read User:Tony1/How to improve your writing, a great guide on how to find copy-editors and improve your own writing. Tony1's guide on User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing is always a good read as well; an example of redundancy in the article can be found here: "Living with the family is Brian, the family dog".

I hope these pointers help. Good luck! Dabomb87 (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry to send you in circles looking for people to help out with your project. It's just a busy time for many people right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago

Absolutely, thank for letting me know. iMatthew ^talk at 00:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup. iMatthew ^talk at 10:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A question

Just a matter of interest, when you change punctuation, how do you know that a comma (or whatever) is not part of the original quote. Here, for example, that first comma you moved was part of the original. I'm wondering how someone applying logical punctuation to a text can do it correctly without looking up each quote. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

But even if the comma were in the original quotation, it doesn't have to be included, and it's hard to see how it would make the meaning clearer. The comma is more important in its role in the primary WP sentence in that case. Tony (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just not clear how copy editing for logical punctuation works. We're told at the MoS that the point of logical punctuation is to make minimal change to quotations. But if it involves removing the original punctuation from quotations, then that's obviously not being done. I therefore genuinely don't see what the principle or point behind it is. (I'm posting this here, by the way, because I don't want to drive people crazy on the MoS talk page; it seems it has been discussed there a lot.) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, not removing it, but stopping short of it, just as stopping short of the remainder of the sentence. It appears not to be useful to include a comma right at the end of the quoted portion, in that respect. Tony (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: List of Project Runway contestants

So, the previous list was closed before all issues could be addressed, but I believe the highlighting concern has been corrected. I have re-nominated the list for FL status, and would appreciate it if you could take a look one more time. You supported the list before, and all of your previous concerns have still been addressed. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks for your participation in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Desperate Housewives (season 1)/archive1. The resulted was Promoted. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 03:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Archives at fluff page

Dabomb, I've been informed that the page move screwed the link to the talk-page archives here. Do you know how to fix it?

Also, how does one install the big red flashing sign "sleeping" at the top of this page? Tony (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Article histories

I've noticed that, in many instances, you are updating article histories to rank GA. I don't know if you use a script, a bot, or just do it manually. However, it is a very important task and I wanted to thank you for doing it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I do it manually. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Noted this...

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Revenge (Seinfeld)/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Ex-Girlfriend/archive1 Ealdgyth - Talk 01:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads-up. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

colwidth

The colwidth parameter in {{reflist}} works now? I was under the impression that it had gotten broken a while back. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of it being broken. In any cases, three-column reflists should not be used because they break on some monitors. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know there was a problem with them; I'll keep an eye out for them in the future. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 23:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

International Space Station

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Peer Review as to whether you feel your original comments have been dealt with, if you see any new issues with the article, and whether or not you believe the article will meet the criteria for Featured Article status. Any new comments you have would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Your Moves

I'm somewhat confused here. The problem is, Translink doesn't use any spaces in between the station's names. There is no space between any of the station's dashed names. Can you explain what you mean a bit clearer? єmarsee • Speak up! 01:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Take "Main Street" and "Science World Station" for example: because they have internal spaces, the dash between them is spaced. Many websites and organizations do not follow standard dash rules; that does not mean we shouldn't. Feel free to ask more. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes it clearer. Thanks. :) єmarsee • Speak up! 01:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

My user talk page worse than my bedroom

Dabomb, it's a total mess at the top because I'm clueless about arranging boxes and the like. Any ideas on how to organise it? I'd love to get rid of the verbose Werdnabot box, but not its function (although if you can suggest a better auto-archiver, I'm all ears). Tony (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

SkyTrain Stations

Listen, I don't want you to get alarmed and to get upset, I don't like those main titles that has the medium dashes. I was feeling upset and mad cause of you moving those meduim dashes and other stations with medium dashes between the spaces. I already check the station titles from the article links and the smaller dashes on every station has the most links, Listen I apologize and I was feelin upset and mistakes happen but I am here to confront with you. Just write to me back when I will revert it back to some stations with medium dashes. Steam5 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Emarsee, already revert it back to those correct dashes, I was already taking wiki break for the summer to calm down and ride the Skytrain lines, but once again I apologized and I will never revert to those incorrect dashes again, but it will never happen again, so mistakes happen. So write me back on my talk page so we could finish the talk and hoping to be quickly settled. Steam5 (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Thanks for the tip. I have one question though: can I convince someone who has made a significant contribution promote it? Secret Saturdays (talk to me)

The significant contributors to the article are here; you can ask one of them. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

my talk page

Thanks heaps for the clean-up! The only thing I'd wish for is that the four horizontally arranged user boxes be in twos: 1 and 2 on one line, then below 3 and 4. But this is minor. There should be a "how to" page on arranging user and user talk pages. Tony (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

List of US Open Men's Singles champions

Hello, Dabomb87, I am bluedogtn, formally known as TW-RF, and I will be taking over the nomination of this article, but I am going to be editing a little or alot less I don't know right now!_BLuE ^DOg^Tn 04:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Minnesota North Stars head coaches/archive1

You vote for me again :)—Chris!_c/t 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, what script are you using here?—Chris!_c/t 21:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

See [5]. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It works, thanks—Chris!_c/t 21:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this has a chance for FAC? If not, do you have any suggestions?—Chris!_c/t 21:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

He certainly has promise. However, FAC is very demanding on comprehensiveness, and we need to make sure that the article has used all possible sources. I'll have a closer look later this week. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I know how bad FAC is, that's why I ask you first. :) Thanks anyway.—Chris!_c/t 21:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

JANET!

Thanks for the notice. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

List of recessions

Yes, Dabomb, I'm still chipping away. I unavoidably had to be away for a few days (in real life, my name is Nicolas Sarkozy and I had to go to Pittsburgh). But I'm back now and going to do a lengthy round of work most nights this week. I've been digging through my sources for some more data to compare the severity of recessions in the Civil War to WWII era, and am going to clean up references and explanations more, as well as work on a new lead. Much to do, but now that I am back in Paris I am confident I will have the time. --JayHenry (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a tip

I noticed in one of your edits to an article on my watch list (Imette St. Guillen, you removed the bold text in the article lead. My reading of the manual of style suggests that bold would be appropriate here, so I reverted (only that edit). Natalie (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, bold should used only when the title of the article is repeated verbatim. The article is about the murder of Imette St. Guillen, not the actual person. For another example, see List of New Jersey Nets head coaches, where the subject is the New Jersey Nets coaching staff, not the Nets themselves, so no bold. See WP:BOLDTITLE. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading. The MOS does not say that bold should only be used if the title appears verbatim. It says is descriptive titles do not need to appear verbatim and should not be bolded. This is not a descriptive title just because it contains the word "of". In this case, the article is about an event, not further description of another article. Natalie (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the article is primarily about the event, not Imette St. Guillen herself, although she was the victim and obviously information is given about her general life, probably because she is not notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? That doesn't actually address what I said. My point is that it doesn't say anywhere in the MOS that a title should only be bolded if it appears verbatim in the lead text. The section you are referring to doesn't apply because this isn't a descriptive title. Natalie (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted myself. Personally, I still think that it should not be bolded, but I see your point of view, and it seems MOSBOLD and BOLDTITLE have changed a bit since I last took a look. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you. I don't have any strong opinion on the use of bold, but I'm a stickler for consistency. Probably to a fault :) Natalie (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dabomb87. You have new messages at Warrior4321's talk page.
Message added 03:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

warrior 4321 03:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

FAR

There's an anon request for submission on talk as well YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks again

... this sort of thing is so so helpful !! You're the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of US Open Men's Singles champions/archive1

I agree we are far from having this in FL status, but I don't think Wimbledon is either because the original creator thinks you can compare eras in tennis. Most tennis historians and scholars would disagree with this miscatagorization completely. I think it needs to be like I separated it on the pages if they are in fact to be kept together, and not be entirely new pages. I took the all-time records and put them into the eras, which is legitamate in this area._BLuE ^DOg^Tn 22:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, I didn't say anything about that at all. Perhaps you meant to comment at User talk:Rambo's Revenge? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see...but I do agree with your points about the phrasing of things._BLuE ^DOg^Tn 22:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I fixed your concerns with the article if they are correct, which the icons are justified in being spaced to not encroach on the names. I did not see haves in the paragraph but Rambo could have corrected this before I got to it? The rest, I got done to be in line with FL status. Good Day._BLuE ^DOg^Tn 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)