| content |
 Article contributions (76) –  Good article reviews (127) —  Barnstars (21) |
 Archives |
|
Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec |
 |
This talk page is automatically archived. Any sections older than 1 days are automatically archived. |
Contents |
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/9.0: Live
Hey Gary - did you plan to deal with the rest of Black Kite's concerns (the ones I didn't fix up)? Might get you the support you desperately need on this FAC... —Giggy 07:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Re:Fair use rationale
I'm going to ditch the images. I'd like to have all the box art displayed in one image, so I'm going to take a photo of the covers of SC, BW, Insurrection and Retribution, so we can have it all up in one image, in a similar style to Image:Halo 1 2 and 3 covers.jpg. Just need to dig out my camera. I'll remove the screenshots in the meantime. -- Sabre (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
too bad that sarcasm does not transpose very well into writing
Thanks for the tip with the 4-limit on PRs, but you could have waited at least several hours after posting notice before w/d-ing it. Also, since this stopped being a constructive discussion a long time ago, I think it is better if we both focus on doing something else than pissing on each-other's work. Also, forbidding graphics in FACs/FLCs is not listed as a requirement anymore (or at least I could not find it). As for capping cap other people's comments, I agree with your point; but as long as the commentor is refusing to reply in a timely manner, they only make to other reviewers stay away from adding thier comments too. Nergaal (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Also, could you actually reactivate the British monarchs PR? Nergaal (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Rushed? Not really. When I've submitted the GANs I thought that they actually look good enough for GA-level, and I submitted them ONLY because I stumped onto them while looking for topics (and not as you seem to think that I am hasting to get topics). On the other hand,there seems to be a huge problem with the strictness of the GA reviews since it varies ridiculously (which I think is a problem for the GAN process that should be dealt with fast). Nergaal (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- The actual problem is that I have not really worked with every-day-type topics, and I am not used for example to having to reference information that when searched on google, is spammed by blogs. Also, while I agree with the need for c/e, I despise MOS issues (see my comments at FARC:Helium). Nergaal (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Rushed? Not really. When I've submitted the GANs I thought that they actually look good enough for GA-level, and I submitted them ONLY because I stumped onto them while looking for topics (and not as you seem to think that I am hasting to get topics). On the other hand,there seems to be a huge problem with the strictness of the GA reviews since it varies ridiculously (which I think is a problem for the GAN process that should be dealt with fast). Nergaal (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
As for pitching in for topics, I've already told you before that I have no problems with co-noms (although the promotion log might have a problem with it - which is still manually solvable if you actually care about it) especially since I absolutely hate doing the MOS part. Nergaal (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- ps: in my opinion edit summaries are a waste of time since they can be misinformative and can be verified only by doing the same thing as when you whish to check an unsummarized edit. the only time I think is worth doing it is when I move around sections, to allow "verifiers" to ignore that edit. Nergaal (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
bump on the Brithsh monarchs PR request. Nergaal (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
FA
Do you know what is the procedure for a featured article to be displayed in the main page? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: Slip demo
Did you notify Rezter? I've discussed this with him previously and he felt it was notable enough to warrant its own article, perhaps he could go into more detail for the discussion. I'll leave a comment, but it's late and I have class early, so I'll be able to say more tomorrow. Blackngold29 04:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Personally at this point, I would say merge Demo into Slipknt (band) and put WTON through a peer review so it'll qualify for the Featured topic. I don't see what anyone on a peer review could improve, but I guess we gotta do it as a formality. Blackngold29 15:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll e-mail him and see what he thinks. Blackngold29 16:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Rezter thinks we should get both peer reviewed. I guess that's fine with me too. It would be kind of odd to merge it into the band article and we would have this long paragraph about it that might make the history section awkward. Is that alright with you? It should not effect the amount of FAs we'll need for the FT. Blackngold29 19:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- We could get a second opinion? Either way is fine with me, obviously there's some people it should qualify as GA. Blackngold29 19:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good. If somebody comes up with something, then we can check back in with Malleus Fatuorum and see what he thinks. If it's still a no, then we can finish up 9.0's FAC and get to work on AHIG. I think it would be good to get AHIG to FA before the FT, but we'll see. Blackngold29 20:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really care either way, so I figured if Rezter wanted to keep it than we might as well. I'm gonna go for a few hours, but should be back later. I guess we just wait for the PRs now.
- Oh, do you know of any other good demo articles? Maybe if we found one to use as a precedent we might be able to convince a reviewer about approving a short GA. Blackngold29 20:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good. If somebody comes up with something, then we can check back in with Malleus Fatuorum and see what he thinks. If it's still a no, then we can finish up 9.0's FAC and get to work on AHIG. I think it would be good to get AHIG to FA before the FT, but we'll see. Blackngold29 20:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- We could get a second opinion? Either way is fine with me, obviously there's some people it should qualify as GA. Blackngold29 19:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Rezter thinks we should get both peer reviewed. I guess that's fine with me too. It would be kind of odd to merge it into the band article and we would have this long paragraph about it that might make the history section awkward. Is that alright with you? It should not effect the amount of FAs we'll need for the FT. Blackngold29 19:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll e-mail him and see what he thinks. Blackngold29 16:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
FLC
I actually went through the article several times. Do you think it is still missing something? To me the only potential remaining problems might be some of the ref not being quite reliable, but as far as I looked they do not try to ref any potentially 'delicate' information. Nergaal (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Peer review limits
The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, I just point it out to everyone (and the limits will only work longterm if everyone is treated the same). I do appreciate your finding reviewers for your PR requests. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Charlotte invite
"Beautiful Liar"
I think Im done. Please check. Thank you. By the way, "Déjà Vu" has been on the FAC room for over two weeks and the process has been so slow. Maybe you have comments for it to pass. Thanks again. --Efe (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
