This is an archive of past discussions about User:TonyTheTiger. 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.
According to this list, made by the Smithsonian Institution, there are 435 outdoor sculptures in Chicago. Since it is a federal gov't webpage, the images should be ok for us to use (although few of the entries have pics). Certainly their list could help us find more sculptures to make pages for. It can be sorted by date, artist or title of the work. Speciate23:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
For the time being the Smithsonian info should be used to find notable sculptures in Chicago that deserve an article. We are missing several notable statues at the present moment. Making a list should came later, to avoid numerous redlinks. Speciate00:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
A list where the members are not notable by themselves enough can very well exist. Look at our many "list of minor characters in X" or Iron Mike. So I say go for it, just remember that you might have to defend the non-notability of the isolated list elements if you nominate it for FL. Circeus05:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I took a look at the list you sent me, and I sent myself the list text via e-mail. I'll see if I can produce a Wiki-formatted table of the data sometime soon, though my time is really crunched this week. --Elkman(Elkspeak)21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
WPChi templates
If I had my druthers, I'd like to see more infoboxes than templates. Also, I find multiple templates on a page distracting. As to a transportation template, it seems too broad. Airports, 'L' stations, and gov't entities like the RTA will end up sporting the template over time. How would it be an improvement over a simple category? Speciate00:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
i had noticed the new templates, and i must pass on my significant appreciation for your efforts to create them and insert into articles! i am in agreement that a transportation template would be useful. additional ideas for templates include something along the lines of "economy/business", "government/public facilities", and maybe "politics". the economy and government topics would help to classify some of the uncolored entiries on the CL list LurkingInChicago00:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You asked me about some templates for lists of transportation landmarks in Chicago. I'm thinking that rather than having one list, you might want to have different sets of landmarks:
I don't think I'd group together landmarks for different modes of transportation in one template, unless only a few are historic out of each of them.
You could organize the bridges over the Chicago River like List of crossings of the Upper Mississippi River, which is organized from upstream to downstream, although that scheme sort of goes out the window since engineers reversed the flow of the river. I don't really know how railroad stations would be organized -- probably by railroad, though multiple railroads may have used each station. Finally, I'm not sure if you want to list all of the Chicago Transit Authority stations in a transportation landmark list or not. It depends on the standard of notability that the project chooses, I guess. --Elkman(Elkspeak)03:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Peer Review
I believe I have done all the semi automated peer reviews you requested now - please let me know if there are others that need the script run. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°°02:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The script can be added to your monobook.js file, see User:AndyZ/peerreviewer for how to do this. Normally User:AndyZ uses a semibot account (User:AZPR) to run the script on many requests. I do it by hand and can do maybe 10 an hour, AndyZ can do it much, much faster. I have not had much computer access lately, so I have not run them except for your requests. When the system works right, the semi-automated peer reviews are in their own archives (see here for an example), not with the other peer review contributions. Ruhrfisch><>°°02:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tony, there is a typo in your third line of the Peer Review script. You can look at mine in User:Ruhrfisch/monobook.js. I think that the error is that it is written as ...</s'+'cript>'); instead of ...</script>');. I can not edit your monobook.js file - only you can do that. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch><>°°04:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tony, I would try removing the last line, so that you just have the following text in your monobook.js file:
The other thing I thought of is that you only see the peer review tab show up when you are editing an article in article space (I think it explains this somewhere, but if you've never done it before it may not be clear). Hope this help, Ruhrfisch><>°°02:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Page deletion
Oh, I thought we had already had that debate, and a consensus was reached that the page was to be deleted when our list page had all the info from the deleted page. So I was just playing executioner to a decision that had already occurred. Has anyone objected? I say let it ride. Speciate20:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
On July 3, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arts Club of Chicago, 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.
It seems that this is becoming a barnstar-fest, but...
The Barnstar of Diligence
I award you this Barnstar of Diligence for all your fantastic work improving the quality of Wikipedia on the "front line". It's sad that sometimes people are not recognised for improving the encyclopedia directly at the same frequency of those who do more prominent jobs in other namespaces, and it is an imbalance of truly epic proportions if this perception is true. You and people like you deserve all you get and more, because you are the one who makes Wikipedia a better encyclopædia. Cheers, Daniel08:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
i strongly second the thoughts of daniel. your efforts and leadership specifically regarding WPChi, stub creation, article improvement, template creation, and article reviews support several of the core values of wikipedia....create an easily navigable, comprehensive, and well referenced encyclopedia. improving the actual encyclopedia is much more important to the overall effort than swinging the admin mop around and kicking over the policy bucket. since barnstars are passe, enlarge the city flag to suit your needs and hold it high. Municipal Flag of ChicagoLurkingInChicago01:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It's no problem. I've had a little experience with tables (just look at my userpage), so I kind of knew what to look for. I'm still at a loss why it decided to format itself that way, though. Congrats on all those stars, by the way! Happy editing! Hersfold(talk/work)17:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Generally, as long as the split makes sense (i.e. merging the table would cause loss of information—in this case the text for the sections, and the table would become confusing b/c of my next suggestion), there's no issue with it. I would recommend, however that the table format be switched to this: (colors taken from {{MLB}})
Is there a specific reason to place them side-by-side? The squeezing is not exactly great-looking IMO. As for the color question, the key is in remembering that there's nothing wrong with using color as long as the information is available via another medium. In this case, the "winners" table and the blurb text for each year do that, so I don't think there's anything wrong with adding a small splash of color (though with the colored headers of the leagues, it might be a wee bit too mch color...) to the winners. Circeus00:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I've got a couple things to say about this edit I made. First, I began making that edit at midnight my time. It took me over 2½ hours to make this edit, meaning I spent a great deal of time last night, a lot more than was necessary. Secondly, I went to sleep last night, knowing that you were obviously gonna come back to revert all my hard work for no reason. It is really frustrating to have somebody undo all the hard work I did, all 2½ hours of it. Although I suspected that you would revert me because you like to assume ownership of this article, it's still enormously frustrating that you actually did it. I was trying to improve the article greatly, which I did by removing every single tiny little detail, and spent a great portion of my time trying to fix it, which again, I did. You really don't know how badly it feels to work so hard on something, just to see it go up in smoke. Well, that's how I felt this morning, when I saw all my hard work go right by the board. By the way, did you even bother to read my version? Or did you just revert it because it wasn't yours? And I'll talk more about that in the last paragraph.
And I want to get back to you on the "every single tiny little detail" part. Firstly, this is an encyclopedia, not a complete biography, which means not every single little detail of Young's life needs to be mentioned. Additionally, not every single game, every single little statistic for every single game, especially all the games that you mentioned that had little or no signigicance. In my opinion, the only single games that are absolutely necessary are the Young/Lee brawl, his no-hitter he lost in the 9th inning, his first ML start, his first ML win, and first ML shutout. You mentioned far too many individual games, at my count, 23. I doubt that Young had a combined 23 near no-hitters, brawls, and firsts. So why does every other game need to be mentioned?
There is absolutely no way that you can say that my edit wasn't a good one. I trimmed the article down to a third its size, while still keeping all the vital information. I trimmed the amount of references from 119 to 22, by removing all the unnecessary references, such as box scores and recaps. Box scores aren't needed for links if you're only using them to reference a particular game stat. You can reference all the stats to his MLB.com or B-R player site, which gives all his stats for all individual games.
Some of the information you had is barely important. It doesn't even border the threshold between unimportant and minutely-important; it's so far down on that scale. For example, does it matter that Young led the daily voting at what times and what dates? Doesn't it only matter if he leads the final vote? Which I kept? Does it matter how he pitched in his last game before the All-Star break? Again, a single game that has little or no importance at all. For the brawl, does it matter that Giles, Peavy, and Gerald Perry got into the fight? Does it matter that Perry was also suspended or that Peavy and Giles were fined? And "Appealed suspensions are held in abeyance until the process is complete." This isn't the place to discuss MLB's rules. "[Young] avenged his streak ending loss to the Dodgers, improved his home game earned run average to 0.52 in his fifth home start." Again, a game with little or no importance." How can you honestly tell me that all of this information is necessary?
Finally, I have looked at the edit history and have seen that you have made a bulk of the edits to this article. That also is what led me to assume that you would revert my edit at first sight. I just want to direct you to a little rule, known as Ownership of articles. So you don't have to go look there, it says, "Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) that they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders... You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing 'your' stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia." But the most important rule is the one that you clearly have seemed to ignore, so here it is in bold print:
“
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
”
I'll assume you know what this quote means. If you don't want any of your contributions to be changed by anybody else, then don't submit those contributions. It doesn't matter if this going to be a WP:FAC. You can't use that as an excuse to prevent me from making an edit. You can't use anything as an excuse to prevent me from making an edit. In your response on my talk page, you say, "You can see in the edit history that I have been actively editing this article this weekend." Just because you were working on the article for some time recently doesn't mean that you are the only one who can edit it. Your recent revert, to me, clearly shows that you think that this article belongs to you and that you are the only one who can edit it. If anybody else thinks that some content doesn't belong, you revert it without giving it a second thought. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my edit that, as I might add again, spent me 2½ hours to do, and you reverted it in probably 2½ seconds.
In my opinion, you reverted my edit for two reasons. First, you say that I can't edit it because it's gonna be a FAC and that it should stay the way you had it until that time comes. Second, you don't want your edits to be, as my recent edit clearly exemplifies, mercilessly edited by anybody. If you don't want anybody to mercilessly change your contributions, then simply don't submit your contributions. You can't assume ownership of articles and revert anybody who tries to do a major edit to it, under no circumstances. And I am willing to bet that you didn't even give a small glimpse at my version. I bet that you didn't even bother to read it; that you just saw that I had made a greatly huge edit to it, and had it reverted because it wasn't your version. You can't prevent me from editing this article, or any article, because you don't want anything you give to Wikipedia to be altered. If that's the case, then don't submit your contributions unless you are willing to have them altered. ––Ksy92003(talk)17:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine, since it seems like there isn't any other way you're willing to fix this. But what is a Featured Article? Is it something that describes every minor detail of a person? Does it describe every single game he played in? Surely, you can understand that including information on every single little non-important game is stepping over boundaries. You don't understand that it isn't important to discuss a game that has no importance at all.
And if you know about WP:OWN, then why do you insist on ignoring it? You can't deny somebody the right to edit an article because you want to try to work on it becoming a featured article. And I'm not trying to go in a different direction than you are. The only differences between your version and my version is that in yours, you include a large amount of information that is either irrelevant or too descriptive. I can't emphasize this enough: why do you have to mention every single game he ever played?
And did you ever once think that my edit could possibly improve it's FAC opportunity? A Featured Article shouldn't include information about every little detail of his life. Do you think that you are writing Chris Young's biography? This is an encyclopedia, and although it is an article about a living player, it's far too much like a biography. I'm not gonna go to a baseball player's page and expect to see "oh, how did he do on June 17, 2006? How many strikeouts did he throw? How many innings did he pitch? Precise details are only necessary for games such as those where Young throws a complete-game shutout, throws a near no-hitter, or reaches career-highs in strikeouts or stuff like that. In your version, you go into detail every mediocre start he had.
But you know what? I don't want to discuss this any further, since you have completely ignored me time and time again. You never listen to any of my suggestions, and you can't see that I'm trying to help the article. But when this article fails to become a featured article, then see my version at User:Ksy92003/Chris Young (pitcher). Also, as you say, make sure that you show that link to whoever does the FAC thing. Ask him/her which version he/she thinks is better. ––Ksy92003(talk)21:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
My version
You know, aside from the fact that you say we want to go in two different directions with this article (which I don't think we are, because I'm keeping all your information in, just trimming it down and removing all the excess references, like boxscores. Box scores take up so many links in your version, which can all be replaced if you link as a reference just one website that lists game-by-game stats for the player, like ESPN.com.), what don't you really like about my version? I mean I know it's a lot shorter than yours in size, but that's because I only majorly trimmed down the references.
I edited the article again, but in an effort to try to help you out, I placed hidden comments in the article next to where I made my edits. I wanted let you know why I changed every little thing I changed in the last edit. I didn't finish it, but I think that what I did to that article, leaving the hidden comments in the article to give a reason for every single change I recently made to that article, would be a great help to you.
If you look at my revision I changed it from two seasons to none seeing that he hasn't completed this one as of yet. However, I do appreciate your new criteria, but I prefer not to be reverted like a common vandal. Thanks, Yanksox23:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Chris Young
I'll look at the pics now. But, it looks like another editor has already gone through the article and removed all of the details. I saw you readded the ERA thing....I'm not sure about that...because we don't need a day by day anyalsis of it. Thanks and Happy editing! Hornberry14:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I happen to like the pictures at Chris Young, adds more good detail and it shows him really pitching - don't forget to look at the comment above. Happy editing! Hornberry14:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought that some pictures could be removed (so that we could expand the size of some of the other images), but removing all images is a bad idea. Some of the images illustrate Young's pitching mechanics and his stance on the pitcher's mound, which definitely add value to the article. Nishkid64 (talk)16:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
See [2] and [3]. The section heading says "2007 season", so it is not necessary to include the link to 2007 for every date. Individual month-day links are acceptable. People do make a big issue of repetitive linking of the same years at WP:FAC. Nishkid64 (talk)20:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Response to your Chris Young Questions...
- At least 3 or 4 Users now have pointed out that the additional pictures do not add anything to the article.
- You have added many redundant references in the article. For instance, you reference his profile where it says he had so many points & so many rebounds in a basketball tournament in college. That reference is enough. To additionally link to the boxscores for each of those games is redundant, and cluttering the article. For a player with only 4 major league seasons, you had 115+ links. Doesn't that seem excessive? If we apply this same formula to an athlete who has played for 10 years? 15 years? what is it going to look like? The article is going to be overrun with references.
There probably should be some sort of open discussion on this. Since Young is a baseball player, and this discussion would likely effect the standards used to refrence/cite other plaeyrs, I suggest a discussion be started here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball. Bjewiki15:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I know this sounds dumb, but where do I signup on the WP Chicago page to 'officially' become a member?
I was also looking for some guidance to this question:
I have begun cleaning up/ merging some of the 'orphaned' neighborhoods with the community areas that they are a part of; How would we go about doing this w/ the Villa District, which is a part of the Irving Park, Chicago community area since villa is a Landmark district? Precedent indicates that neighborhoods are a part of the community area article, but how do we arrange it when its a chicago landmark and avoid confusion since only this part of Irving Park enjoy this status?--Orestek 17:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
--Orestek17:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Most of them...I'm not going to be specfic because we can choose. The image doesn't look as good without the images because it really shows Youngn warming up or pitching. Hornberry21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
And... why exactly can I not crop out the clock or the scoreboard? Any particular reason for that? The reason why I cropped it in the first place is because I think the photo should focus more on Chris Young, rather than the lovely scoreboard and clock at Wrigley Field. I don't see the reason why it needs to be in the picture when the photo is of Chris Young. ––Ksy92003(talk)22:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
First, how would Starting pitcher be affected at all? How does cropping it to focus more on the pitcher hurt Starting pitcher at all? And for bullpen, also? How does me cropping the picture hurt it at all?
The caption that you've placed on every article you added that picture into says that he's throwing a 4-seam fastball in the bullpen. Well, shouldn't that picture then be focused more on the pitcher and the grip he has on the pitch?
And second, if anybody has any problem with the way that I edited the numbers, then they will tell me themselves.
From now on, just say out of my way and leave me alone. You have caused me so much tension just because you don't like me editing an article because you want it to be exactly the way you want it. You don't let anybody edit the article, and when they try to fix something to revert it because you don't like it that way. Well, you can't go your whole life reverting me because you want to be the only one to work on an article. I've seen one of your comments on another page in which you assume ownership on the article. I'll give you that quote once I find it, which I'll start looking after I send you this comment. But you can't take over an article because you want it to be the way you want it. If that's the case, then why don't you take over all of Wikipedia and prevent everybody else from trying to help? Just leave me alone, thank you very much. ––Ksy92003(talk)22:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I get it. I shouldn't have removed the clock because for some reason, the start time of the game has utmost importance. So... you reverted me making an edit to the picture to focus more on the pitcher, whom the picture is (as indicated by the title of the picture and the picture summary on the image page) focusing on because you didn't want to simply re-word the caption on one page. Yeah, I guess that makes perfect sense.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that it mattered at all that the game started at 12:05. I apologize for not thinking that the starting time of a game had any significance.
I want to create a category to put all the various charities, clubs, groups, associations, non-profits etc that are based in Chicago into. But when I looked at NYC and LA, I can't figure out which is the most broad; Organizations based in Chicago or Associations in Chicago. What is the standard? Speciate04:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
All-Star Final Vote
Howdy! If you're after getting the fact onto today's template in particular, feel free to add your preferred blurb to the Next update template. Barring any unforeseen content disputes, it'll get in when the template is next updated. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 14:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is the winner isn't mentioned in the hook, so it just looks like a picture of baseball. If you used one of the hooks that mentioned him it would be different, but I like this hook best. Note that the pictured hook is always has an explanation like (pictured) , and this one would need something cumbersome like (2007 winner pictured). It is a good picture, but I just don't think it illustrates a voting process well. Rigadoun (talk)16:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
On 10 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article All-Star Final Vote, 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.
Re Okajima's rookie status on the All-Star Final Vote page: there were two tables that listed him, the past winners and the 2007 candidates. When I saw the page a bit ago, the winners list was correct; I corrected the 2007 candidates list. Ashill18:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Chris Young
A question: In your signature, what does "tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM" mean?
By the way, I'd like to point out one thing. It seems that when it comes to this article, everybody else and I share the opinion that you have given too much detail on very minor events. So based on consensus, you are in quite the minority. ––Ksy92003(talk)18:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Initial spacing
As I've stated before, I guess you missed this, there was a mass-page move that caused a lot of controversy amuck Wikipedia and I am unbiased against whichever revision it is supposed to be at. As there is a guideline for this, and not a policy, there are exceptions to some situations and I do not know enough about every subject to know if that exception applys. If this is about a single article, take it to the talk page of the article, and request clarification about whether or not it should have the spacing or not. — Moeε18:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, judging the edit summary you left a few days ago on the template, I just reverted that back so it looks like the template is fine. I'm not mass-page moving anymore, or any of those listed to the editorial team. As I said, you can visit the talk page of any article and discuss it to gather consensus rather than go ahead and assume it one way. — Moeε19:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ive attempted to update the boxes at the top. The reason I didnt update them was that Im not sure about this user and date id stuff? Take a look and inform me what else I need to do (and where to get this i.d. stuff from? Talk:Paul Cornell (lawyer) Thanks. LordHarris20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed some sort of edit expansion and a bit of some delete and reverting going on with Harrisburg, Illinois. I have made comments on the Talk:Harrisburg, Illinois, but figured I would get some other input on the issue. I know you don't deal with a lot outside of Chicago, but would like your comments on that Talk page if you feel up to it. Also noticed the nomination went through. Awesome! We just had White Pines Forest State Park pass GA, so this will help the list.--Kranar drogin01:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
BoxScore & Recap Links...
Your statement on the Chris Young edit was incorrect. Both User:Ksy92003 and myself (User:Bjewiki) have disputed your "Boxscore & Recap for game" reference style. Ksy92003 did it on your very own Talk page, and I did it at the Baseball project dicsussion. Bjewiki15:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
GA on hold
Did you notice someone placed Rookery Building on hold? I went ahead and addressed the comments. The picture comments shouldn't keep it from GA, as photos aren't strictly required by GA. I had a book so I expanded the light court stuff a bit, couldn't resist a Wright remodel. : ) Hope that helps. IvoShandor16:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to call a truce...
I come to you to apologize for all of my behavior towards you. Last night I had a change of heart and realized that everybody would benefit if I back off from editing the Chris Young article. It's just one article, and I've seen by your qualifications that you do know how to develop a featured article, and I respect that. I still believe that it can be majorly trimmed, but I don't doubt that you will be able to do what is necessary to improve the article. I trust you and will back off from that article. Again, it's only one article, so I don't feel I need to give as much attention to it as possible. Because it's the All-Star Break, I'm spending this time by working on another project, which you would see by my edits last night, by fixing re-directed links.
I've gotten in a lot of disputes with other users in the past, and I believe that the best thing I can do is back off from all the projects that I have been working on that caused my disputes. I know we've had disputes, but all have been about this one particular article. I don't want to have a huge dispute because of one article, so I'm gonna back off from that article and trust that your qualifications prove that you can get this article to be a FAC. I wish you the best of luck editing in the future and hope you can continue to improve articles to FA status, and I'm regretfully sorry for the tension I've caused you and the disputes we've gotten into in the past over this article. ––Ksy92003(talk)17:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I just really apologize for my actions, and you can count on me if you need assistance with anything. And seriously, what does "tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM" mean? I mean what is the signifance of all those letters? ––Ksy92003(talk)17:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow... that is so... well, interesting, nonetheless, but confusing. Have you the ability to recall that acronym word-for-word if you are asked? ––Ksy92003(talk)17:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
That'd be even more initials to add to that acronym.
Boy Tony, I really don't know that one. I don't even know who created those maps or anything. I suppose you could put that template in there, and then just create your own map by removing the red and adding in the red for a new village, etc. I personally would just go with the Geobox, which puts a dot on the map automatically for you, but I can understand using the Template:Chicagoland municipality for all Cook County cities/villages.--Kranar drogin20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Feature List Article
When you created that Feature List, do you have to have any of the articles that are on the list as a "B" or a "GA", or can they all be stubs with the list having the most info to attain FL? Just wanted to know as I am working on a couple lists here for the county I live in.--Kranar drogin20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be a glitch, looks like I just missed closing out one of the three tables. I had only edited three including the Bonds article, no typos on the other two. --Holderca121:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
New York Yankees GA/R
The article may not be perfect Tony, but it's very comprehensive and well written in most parts. I think it should stay a good article. Sportskido821:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Tony, you currently have listed three articles for review at WP:FAR; I just wanted to remind you to review the instructions at the top of the FAR page, specifically:
Please post only one FAR request at a time.
Please improve an article that you nominate for review to the best of your ability.
Some editors do run more than one FAR at a time, but these editors are usually actively involved in improving the articles nominated at FAR. It doesn't seem that you've edited any of the articles you've nominated, so I just wanted to remind you to take care that FAR, or any given WikiProject (like Baseball) isn't overwhelmed with a lot of articles to improve at once. It's good to put articles lacking citations through at a pace that allows for improvement by the involved Projects, and two baseball articles at once might strain resources. Perhaps you could pitch in and help improve a few of the articles you've nominated, or some other articles at FAR. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it should be necessary to take one down (time can be extended if someone works on the articles), but I just wanted to make sure you didn't keep going with even more FARs at once. Several of the past baseball articles have been improved during FAR, with the articles featured status being Kept, so I'd hate to see the Project overloaded to the point that the articles didn't get attention. When nominating articles that are lacking citations under the old criterion, it can be helpful to keep an eye that any given area isn't hit all at once, to maximize the chances that someone can work on improving them. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
RE: Ronald Reagan GA Nomination withdrawal
Actually I wasn't the one who nominated it, I believe it was User:Happyme22 who nominated and then he withdrew the nomination himself in his edit summary when he removed it from the list WP:GAC (which I have on my watchlist and I merely removed the tag from the article talk).--Konstable02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: National Historic Landmarks in Chicago
I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to get back to you about comparing List of Chicago Landmarks versus the official list of National Historic Landmarks in Illinois. I've been rather busy these past few days. Anyway, as far as I can tell, the Socony-Vacuum Building at 59-67 E. Van Buren St. (aka the Buckingham Building or the New Athenaeum) is listed on the National Register, but isn't a National Historic Landmark. According to the Chicago Landmarks list, it isn't even a Chicago Landmark either.
If I find out anything more, I'll let you know. In the meantime, you can check the Chicago Landmarks page against the National Historic Landmarks link that I gave you above, to see if the list is correct. I'll try to get around to checking it, but I can't make any immediate promises. I'm still not fully recovered from CONvergence (convention) last weekend. --Elkman(Elkspeak)04:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Reagan GAC
Well at the time I withdrew it, User:Info999 added a lot to the Reaganomics section, but there there was a debate to whether it should belong, whether it was factual, etc. I didn't want to chance that screwing up the GAC, so I removed it for the time being. I've been away for a while, so I'm going in to fix up the article now. Best, Happyme2216:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Stub vs start class ratings
I noticed you classified Christkindlmarket, Chicago as a stub class article, but the reviewer from WikiProject Germany classified it as start. WP:STUB states that stubs contain "only a few sentences of text" and WP:ASSESS states that "it is usually very short".
I'm usually not to much of a stickler and usually don't really care if something is classified start vs. stub, but I thought since two reviewers have assessed it two different ways, it might be confusing. In addition it seems like it might fit better as a "start" class, considering it contains just a little bit more information then a standard definition and includes 12 sentences. What are your thoughts?
I'm also bringing this up to better classify future ratings of other articles that you and I might assess. Thanks, Chupper17:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the quick response. The 1,500 character "standard" sounds like a plan. I know I prefer character counts over sentence or paragraph counts anyday. The stub to start ratings have always been sort of vague to me and I think that would be a great determination for future articles. Thanks again, Chupper17:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
PeopIe nation
Those are street gangs. I assume somebody is claiming those guys are/were members. I didn't add any individuals to the categories. Speciate19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Michael Pfleger
Thanks. There are several things I'd like to add before taking it to peer review, but I'll keep you updated. Zagalejo19:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey there. I just wanted to let you know that I have made a couple minor changes to this template, which I think improved it. I also stated in my edit summary that I don't particularly think this template is necessary because I still hold the opinion that the players going to Ivy League schools have little significance and have no impact on their playing ability. I also did say that despite this opinion, I still have to make edits to improve Wikipedia. In other words, although I dislike the idea for this template, I still have the responsibility to make edits that will only contribute positively, regardless of whatever opinion I may hold. So please review the edits that I have made, and hopefully you will see that they improve the template.
My reason for linking both NY Yankees and all Dartmouth Colleges was because I feel that, in templates, each one should be linked; it helps flow better and it doesn't make much sense to not link all of them, especially because, as small as the template may be, I know some people don't want to have to search for the link to an article because they see a black link. For example, if somebody is interested in Mike Remlinger, and wants to see Dartmouth College, they might not want to search for where the link to tht is, which in this case would be under Red Rolfe, three players over. ––Ksy92003(talk)21:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the small because I was having a little bit of difficulty reading the small text. And I have 20/20 vision, so I made the assumption that if someone with 20/20 vision had slight difficulty reading it, most likely some other people would, as well. ––Ksy92003(talk)21:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't say I know who won in 2005 because it hasn't been a statistic I've followed. It's also not a statistic that I've been aware of it actually being tracked year-by-year as to who had the lowest. Additionally, for OPP AVG, I wouldn't be able to guess what the minumum requirement would be as far as if they would qualify to win this "title." Because of this, that's why I wouldn't guess Clemens because he came in midseason I believe, and I don't think he would have enough appearances to qualify, or whatever category would determine that. Not denying that opponent batting average is an important statistic, but I've never known it to be officially recognized as a statistic in the same sense as Wins, Losses, ERA, and more recently Holds and WHIP.
I wouldn't suggest a succession box for this case because it's not really something where if a pitcher had the lowest opponent batting average, they wouldn't become notable because of that. But if I were doing one, the only thing I can think of right now would be to go to Baseball-reference.com and look at each team's 2005 season pages. At the bottom of each page is a long list of the team leaders in virtually every important category. Most likely, opponent batting average would be one of those categories. This would be time consuming, but it would all but guarantee an answer: just look at each team's page and see which leader has the lowest total. Again, I wouldn't suggest a succession box for this statistic, but that would be how I would go about it if I were. ––Ksy92003(talk)07:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, if Clemens would qualify for the H/9IP title, I assume he would qualify for the Opponent batting average, as well. But what is the prerequisite for the H/9IP title? I'll assume it's the same requirement as the ERA title, which is 162 innings pitched (1 IP/team game), but I didn't think Clemens qualified for that. Maybe I have my years mixed up, but I thought that 2005 was also one of the years where Clemens joined the team midseason. But then again, I don't know what the requirements are. But I'll also make the assumption that if you qualify for one, then you'd qualify for the other. ––Ksy92003(talk)18:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
RFA?
I always see you do good work in both article writing especially your Chicago and baseball related articles and in wikipedia namespace, and I wonder if you want to be nomintated for adminship status. You been in the project for over a year and you are one of the most experienced non-admins we have. Thanks Jarandawat's sup21:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, that planned building project has been scrapped. I deleted the article yesterday because it was an expired PROD, and according to the latest edits to the article, and discussion on the talk page, Trump pulled out of the venture and construction stopped. If you think this is not the case, I'd be happy to undelete the article (and restore the navigation template link).--ragesoss21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
With "Proposed deletion" (PROD), a user puts a template onto an article explaining why they think it should be deleted. Anyone may remove this template if they object to the article being deleted, but if no one has done so after five days, it may be deleted. The current AfD was started by the user who originally proposed the article for deletion, after I restored it and removed the PROD template. PROD is intended for uncontroversial deletions (and articles deleted by that method are typically restored upon request), but if someone objects to the deletion and someone else feels strongly that the article should be deleted, it often ends up at AfD. You can view the deletion history (my deletion and restoration) by clicking "view logs for this page" on the article history page.--ragesoss23:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be the short ton. Could you tell me what abbreviation I should use for it? So far three different sources I found used "sh tn", "S/T", and simply "T". I am not sure which one is the most common. It would help if you told me where the template is going to be used. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Includeonly tags
Actually,the removal was correct, to a point, since I had made a mistake when adding them back in.
Circeus01:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry guy, I have been busy as of late. Went to the races this weekend. I'll try and assist you tomorrow, I think we have until Tuesday, correct?--Kranar drogin03:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I found a few images of the place on Flickr, don't know if you would like any of these [4]. You would also want to check out these [5] and see if you can use some of these building images to upload to Commons if he allows it. I will work on the article a bit tonight I hope.--Kranar drogin22:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You have to upload them to Commons, so that is where you will have to get the info. I think that as long as they release the rights on Flickr, it should be good to go to upload to Commons.--Kranar drogin00:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
All-Star Vote
Quoting from the Manual of Style you linked me: "These guidelines also apply to tables, considered by themselves." In other words, if a link appears twice in a table, fine, don't link it, but just because it appeared in previous prose or a table, doesn't mean you shouldn't link it. Consider each table by itself, and link it appropriately. --Golbez20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I like the side by side one. I also like condensing the teams and positions to letters, but I'm not sure if I like it enough to do it. =p That is to say, I don't mind it, but others who are less familiar with the topic might be unhappy with it. I don't know. Lemme check something real quick... I was checking Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres to see if it does that, and it uses the full names plus abbreviations, then drops to only the abbreviations. That doesn't answer my question, though, so. I dunno. I suggest you ask the FLC about dropping to only the acronyms. But I like moving the table to side-by-side. --Golbez15:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: Ronald Reagan
I did give the article a full review. You can see the results of my review on the talk page of that article. Considering the lead section is a summary, I'm usually not too much of a stickler about referencing the lead, as long as the summarized content is referenced elsewhere in the article. If this was a nomination to FA, the circumstances would be different.
Way cool, thanks! I will wear the star with honor.
Slambo has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I asked a friend to look over the article and give his opinion. His issues and suggestions are on my talk page. Please take a look. He brought up some interesting points. Even though the article has been promoted to GA, there is always room for improvement and I hope you continue to address concerns. Regards, LaraLove18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the plan was to upgrade all existing templates to support ranges and dimensions, but I am rather short on time just now to tackle that. However, your inquiry helped me realize that {{in to cm}} would basically be a copypaste of {{ft to m}} where only the unit names and the conversion factor need to be replaced. So, enjoy :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Shooting location
As Salaskan said on my talk page, deletion debates are not decided by vote count, but by weighing the arguments and the policies/guidelines backing said arguments (if any). There were two "keep" arguments, one is the assertion that it is a defining characteristic, without explaining why this is so (note that one can watch a movie several times without noticing where it was shot, and that a movie can easily be shot in 5-10 different locations). The other is that the categories are small, but that is pretty much irrelevant because we delete small categories as often (or more) as we delete large ones. Hence the delete-side has better arguments. HTH! >Radiant<08:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
CBOTB sculptures
apologies for the delay in responding to your requests. i have been on a short wikibreak for a variety of reasons, including having to replace my personal laptop. a new one is ordered and will be here this week! anyway, regarding the statues, check out this reference:
i'll start following the FAC discussion more closely and will contribute where i can, especially regarding referencing. seems as if nobody has issues with the content...yet:) LurkingInChicago18:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Assessing Articles
Just to let you know, I am going to rate all Chicago projects from now on as I am going through all the Illinois tags. I see a lot of the Chicago ones, and that should help drop down the 7000 articles you guys have unassessed a little bit. I just got done doing 1300 for Illinois, and now that Satyr is running the bot for us we are going to have a lot more (almost 700) last I checked. So, I am going to get busy on that soon here I hope.--Kranar drogin03:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I have rated several hundred Chicago articles this weekend as I found them with Illinois. I will continue at this as I find them tagged together.--Kranar drogin03:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That is very true. I am going to have to see what Categories to move back to NA from Category. I think it is too late up to Cubs.--Kranar drogin22:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I have gone through our categories and moved a few to Category:Non-article WikiProject Illinois pages. Some the bot hadn't gotten too, some it had. I am not going to worry about what has been tagged already right now, but if someone is going to throw a fit then I will. The reason being, I think it will be more work than it is worth. We would have to make sure so-and-so still has their tag for living here and so on. So for now, I won't do anything, but if someone else wants to go through all the work, that is their choice.--Kranar drogin23:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Centering columns
I'm afraid the best way is to center each cell individually. A quick search and replace took care of it (Yay, WikEd!). Circeus15:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Art category
Before you get going, would you consider "Artworks of the Art Institute of Chicago"? That would be more inclusive. Speciate21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hyde Park Township
Alright... I moved it back because all the other articles in that category have "Cook County" in the name. But if you ask me, is it necessary? We haven't ever included the county names when talking about cities. For example, I don't live in Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California. It isn't Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada or Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona. I will move all of those articles in that category unless somebody can provide a good reason why "Cook County" should be included in the title of the article. Ksy92003(talk)22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here is the reason. That is the way the census has them all listed. Township, County, State, not Township, State. This also stops confusions since there are several townships with the same name. Also, this is the way other Wikiprojects such as Ohio have set up all their townships. Since I am the one who started the entire stubbing of all townships, they are the ones I modeled them after. Now, if you want to go around, and change 1,400 articles in Illinois, and then another 1,000 or so in Ohio and many other states, it is going to be a daunting task. But, as I have said, township names are named exactly after the United States Census Bureau lists them. If you have more questions, let me know, but I think Hyde Park Township, Cook County, Illinois is exactly the way it should be since it is exactly how the other 1,444 townships are in the state. See List of townships in Illinois by county.--Kranar drogin22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I mean no disrespect to the state of Illinois, but I don't really care, to be honest. I don't want to really worry about something that is a large-scale project. So don't worry, I won't change it... I don't know if I would've really wanted to change it, anyway. Don't worry about it. Ksy92003(talk)23:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I can understand since you have Califorinia to work with. Trust me, this is an arguement I have been into A LOT, so it takes a lot for me to get disgruntled about this subject now. Also, City-data lists all townships Township, County, State which takes all their info from both the census and from USGS.
To answer your question Tony, I think that it could be done, since basically all of Williamson County, Illinois's townships were discontinued on November 1, 1932. I think though that they fall under the term precinct now, so I honestly couldn't say. I think all five of those in Chicago are defunct now, right? A category only needs to have 2-3 or so to justify having a category. I don't think you have this site up, but it only shows that the place is on the map [6]. It shows which ones are true townships for Cook, and which ones are defunct. You may want to look at this link too NACo. Got more questions let me know.--Kranar drogin23:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Busch family articles
These aren't actually my articles. I've been cleaning up the headings and links, and replacing the use of nicknames by proper names. I have not added any references or info boxes. I don't know who is creating them. I use the ref tags myself when creating footnotes. I am surprised, though, that an article could be nominated for AfD because of bad formatting. That seems very unWikipedia-like. I don't know much about these people, but they seem deserving of Wikipedia articles as far as I can tell. I don't much care, though. Ground Zero | t02:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
List_of_songs_about_masturbation is in it's 5th AfD
Hi, Tony. I responded rudely and tersely to your suggestion about summary boxes on Raul's talk page. I'm sincerely sorry for my abrupt rudeness; I've also posted an apology at Raul's talk page. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I only meant that I was looking for something like buttons to press or something - but now that you told me I understand. Thanks for making that clearer in the article. I'm going to pass it as soon as I finish typing this message. Cheers, Corvus coronoidestalk16:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Chicago Marathon
I understand what you're trying to do, but I'm not in agreement that this template belongs in the article itself. However, rather than going back and forth in the article itself, I've posted a comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject. I won't revert further on this template until comments have been gathered from a broader audience. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 20:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You're an outstanding editor, and words of gratitude just don't do you justice for your contributions to Wikipedia.
I'll just let you off the stubby paragraphs; all my objections have been fixed now. I recommend approaching members of the League of Copyeditors for further copyedits, as Tony1 is very strict about FACs being well written. Epbr12323:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
RE:FL decision
I noticed that there was still a conversation going on. I just tried to archive those nominations where there was no discussion for at least a couple of days.Crzycheetah18:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested in the discussion I have started there. This template shows up in main space over and over again and seems to violate the spirit if not the letter of WP:SELF (while a guideline-it is an important part of the MOS). It also seems to be an attempt to replace {{underconstruction}}. I am interested in your answer to my question on the template talk page. IvoShandor13:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you changed the Harrison Ford importance rating. I believe he should be a Category:Mid-importance_Chicago_articles based on the WP:CHICAGO Official importance scale that you can see on this category page. Do you not feel that he falls into the category of individuals that had (B) a prominent national and/or international role that had a large impact on non-Chicagoans and but had a limited role as a Chicagoans. I feel it is fairly clear that this accurately describes Harrison and his role to the Chicago project. I will revert you change and await comment if you disagree. Please respond to my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how the state or city projects reason when they tag biographies of people born and/or raised in particular geographical entities, but my reaction to rating a person who isn't in the least famous for being from a certain area (in this case Chicago) at mid-level importance was a very skeptical one. If Ford had been some semi-obscure mayor or social figure related to Chicago, a mid-level rating would be motivated, but he isn't. He's a Hollywood actor and I can't recall ever hearing him being refered to as being famous because he's from Chicago nor that Chicago is even remotely famous because of him.
All in all, I think it is often rather dubious to "assign" biographies to geographically limited projects merely because the people they portray were born and raised in that place. To most people, Ford is Indiana Jones, Han Solo and Hollywood, not Chicago (or Illinois for that matter).
I added the reference for the Will Rogers text and remove the comment brackets. The source is Houghton Mifflin, so we shouldn't get much push back. Regarding the article and my absence.....I have been in the middle of a massive job search effort and haven't been putting much time toward Wiki in general and when I have I seem to have been pursuing adding infoboxes for NRHP articles. I'll try to drop into the FAC page and work on the various objects and suggestions. And as always, I GREATLY APPRECIATE your efforts to drive this article toward FAC. LurkingInChicago21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
DYK
On 31 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chicago Marathon, 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.
I know that any comments about this should be placed on the AfD page, but I've got to ask you something about this... first of all, I replied to your comment on the AfD page, but I've got to ask you this... do you know that Barry Bonds will hit home runs numbers 755 and 756? If so, then you should be able to tell me when, who the opposing pitcher is, what the count is, who is on base, what inning, what the score was... in other words, you would have to be clairvoyant, a psychic... which brings me back to the crystal-balling. Ksy92003(talk)06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think the article should be appropriate either way. I don't think it would be appropriate before because you don't know it's gonna happen; that's the clincher. But either way, it isn't a notable enough event for its own article, anyway.
, see Talk:Paul Cornell (lawyer) for eventual comments about the article. Well done!
LordHarris 00:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
