User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions about 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 15

←

Archive 20

Break

Have a good one. I'll see what I can do in the meantime to make sure our "backlog" (heh) doesn't become too backloggish. I think, right now, with just about 25 noms, most of it's under control. Enjoy your time off. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Before you go, could you look at Hugo Award for Best Novella? Ready to roll I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'll get to that one. I'm waiting on one or two other FLCs so that I can tackle everything at once. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I knew you knew! Anyway, have a good break. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Crane vs. "The Open Boat"

Hey, Dabomb87. I can't say I'm bothered either way, but I specifically requested the short story (rather than Crane's bio) to be TFA for this date because Margaret Fuller, another 19th-century American author, was featured less than a month ago. In the spirit of diversity, the story would suit the mainpage better. María (habla conmigo) 14:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was unaware of your request. No problem then. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article removal on List of F1 fatal accidents

I recently saw that the List of Formula One fatal accidents has been removed as an featured article by you, why? I'm asking because I never knew that FAs can be removed, explain to me? Talladega87 (talk) Talladega87 (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If FLs are determined by community consensus to no longer meet the FL criteria in a FL removal candidacy, then yes, they can be delisted, as this one was (see Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Formula One fatal accidents/archive1). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

James G. Howes

Please run your dash bot on this. I just wrote it and nom'd for DYK. Edit and reorg if you like too. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Yawata

Hi, and thanks for taking the time to comment on this article. I think that I have now addressed your comment and have responded at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bombing of Yawata (June 1944)/archive1. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Nintendo 64 games, Featured list removal

Unless something else comes up, I think everyone has agreed on a Keep. I've posted my newest comment on the Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Nintendo 64 games/archive1 discussion page. I'm not sure if you or the others need to create a summery or not after it, but I think it'd be helpful for readers if they had a {Reviewers:} type template, just like the {Notified:}, so people knew who they could ask questions to or who would actually be returning to the discussion. Most people come and leave one message and won't be returning, to see if their suggestion was taken, I eventually found Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates which told me a bit about the process, but I wasn't the one who nominated it for the original "Featured list" so I didn't know what was happening, the kind of processes it would go through, or if I should strike through comments of a people who might not be coming back, stuff like that. A template like that would help both the reviewee and the other readers if they haven't heard back from someone for a while, or if they have a question. Even a link back to Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates at the top of the page might help, but I'm not sure how many people would know to look there to answer some of their questions. Thanks again for your help in making the page better. (Floppydog66 (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC))

Hi Floppydog. First of all, thanks for your hard work on the N64 games list; it's great to see it improved to current FL standards. As one of the Featured list directors, I'm used to having to remind reviewers to revisit nominations and such. Most of the FAQs about the FLRC process are at the top, and this is mentioned in the standard notification message that is sent out after FLRCs are initiated (see {{FLRCMessage}}). Of course, most editors probably don't notice much in that message other than the link to the FLRC page. The "Reviewers" template sounds interesting, but I don't quite follow what you said about its contents; can you explain further? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The first I heard of concerns about there not being any proper sources on the list was when 'New Age Retro Hippie' showed up and mentioned it a day or so before the 'Featured list removal' discussion. By the time I got some of those sources ready for an update the 'removal' discussion had began. I think until that point most people figured that the info boxes on the game's main article pages and such were enough of a source and that's why the list had so few references. Then the following message was posted on the N64 list's talk page:

{featured list removal candidates|List of Nintendo 64 games/archive1}
"This article is a current featured list removal candidate because it may no longer meet the standards of style, usefulness, and completeness to be a featured list. Please add a comment to support or contest its removal, or improve the article by being bold."

And that is all I knew of it until the discussion began, and the {Notified: SeizureDog, WikiProject Video games, Nintendo Task force}. When we go to "/List of Nintendo 64 games/archive1‎" the (Notified:) is the only message at the top of the page with no instructions. After the first day or two the discussion seemed to have stopped which left only me and 'New Age Retro Hippie', and all he seemed to want to discuss was another discussion we already had. I noticed you said you'd be back so that's when, I think I started searching and tried to find out the procedures, and eventually found your talk page and Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates. After finding the FLRC page it was much easier to figure out what to do and who was around that I could ask questions to and knew that someone was actually coming back, and someone was reviewing, rather then as most articles 10 people arrive give their views, a total is taken 7 to 4, the seven group wins and the article gets written that way. I think the template you showed above is much better then the one I followed to get to the discussion, but like on the Project pages someone might be given only the removal link, Removal Discussions:'List of Nintendo 64 Games' and still not know those things. I'd like to see that type of template on the articles page as well as above the discussion also, possibly with {Reviewers:}. That way the readers know they can ask a question and it the discussion isn't a formal type of thing, "Keep, Remove, Comment" that's all. With the Reviewers: name separated and a talk link directly at the beginning they can ask about on policies and things like "Are there Wikipedia standards to do something this way." which wouldn't necessarily be apart of the discussion. Even if the reviewers don't wish to be contacted directly, I think it'd help, when someone gives a list of things they want changed or don't like. If it's from one of the reviewer they know it's probably to make the articles better, and not just someone who wants the article changed and written in their way and not your way type thing. I hope my suggestions helps out, and will make it a little easier on you and the articles which you and others will be reviewing. Thanks again. (Floppydog66 (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC))

raccoon

This is scheduled to be on the Main Page on the 22nd. I have added an audio file to the article and to the Main Page featurette (Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/June_22,_2010). If this is undesirable for the Main Page version, please revert. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but Raul likes to keep the blurb as simple as possible (e.g., no pronunciations or alternate names), so I have reverted. The pronunciation in the article itself is fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your presence (and script) is requested...

Hi, I've been directed to ask you to run your script that removes unused parameters from citation templates at St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao. Thank you! ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 13:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing Archiving

I have pulled the large swath of information you archived back out of archives. None of it was marked resolved, some of it was still ongoing. Let the Miszabot do its job, please. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I won't revert you, but a lot of those discussions were clearly stale. Waiting for them to be "marked as resolved" seems like needless bureaucracy. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you one better, since I don't feel comfortable changing the archiving date set (right now at 120 days), let me find an admin and see if we can't move it up to 30 days, which most boards, with the exception of AN, AIV and a couple others are set to. That should get things archived quicker. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I just did it myself (being bold won't hurt anyone in this case). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Supports

Hey dude. Hope your break is suiting you nicely. Just a quick note to let you know that I am busy but I am trying to get through the backlog of recently heavily-supported FLCs. I know I'm just another user, but I'd appreciate it if you'd allow me the chance to check over some of these before they get promoted. One or two examples include List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement (which gained 3 supports in about 3 minutes!) and Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton which was up to three supports in five days, but, in my opinion, nowhere near ready. Anyway, as I say, in the reviewer capacity, I am just that, a reviewer, and my opinion counts for no more than anyone else, but if you see one of these, could you prod me, like you do on the odd FLRC and baseball FLC? Cheers. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. I just got back from my very relaxing break and am now working through my watchlist and trying to get back into the swing of things. I should be able to take a look at FLC soon. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back. Things are ticking over okay, I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto that. As an aside, do I notice you may have found a quicker way of moving pages? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I've just become very quick with copying and pasting words :) Dabomb87 (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If you know of a faster way to move pages, though, there are several more music charts lists at Category:Lists of number one albums that need to be moved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)