User talk:Yomangani/Archive 2

Dominickers (ethnic group)

Yomangani, thanks for your comments and suggestions, which I just stumbled upon. There seem to be way too many places for people to leave comments for me and vice versa! LOL I'm still feeling my way through all these pages.

I've made some more revisions today and added links, fine-tuning it a bit; also nominated it for DYK (hope I did that right). I agree, inline citations would be good; I simply haven't found the right little bit of code to do that with yet. Another editor fixed the image and changed the PD tag; I wasn't sure how to classify the photo, as none of the choices on the license page quite fit. All I'm really sure of, knowing the identities and birthdates of the children in the photograph, and judging by their apparent ages therein, it had to be taken around 1910, certainly not any later than 1915; by whom is anybody's guess at this late date.

Also, just so you know: "family historian," in genealogical circles, is indeed the preferred term for an amateur like me with no particular credentials in the field, just an interest in tracing his ancestry. "Genealogist" is reserved for professional researchers.

Finally, I suppose I could quote a little more about the Indian ancestry; however, that brings it down to the level of one specific individual; an interesting (though unverified) story, given in the documents displayed in the family tree link under Sources, but I am concerned such obscure individual details might be inappropriate for Wikipedia, in this particular kind of article. I'm just trying to give a clear, concise summary of what is known about the group as a whole, not individual members.

But I appreciate your interest very much. Thanks again for your help! Textorus 01:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay, I've added a paragraph detailing one of the Indian-descent stories, which is recorded in both published and unpublished source materials; I figure it is the story most likely to be largely true. I've also changed or added a number of other points throughout the article, fleshing it out and making it more substantial, giving a fuller picture of what has been said about the group.

I also created, based on published sources, another new article on Chief Sam Story, who is an ancestor for at least some of the Dominicker lines. That article needs much more work and better formatting, I'm sure, but it's just the best I can do here tonight. I've put off doing some "real-life" necessary & important work in order to get the Dominicker article up to speed.

Thanks for the link to the inline citation page; however, I can't get it to work right, and it's way too late at night here to fool with this article any further; maybe over the weekend I can get back to that. Appreciate your help, though. Textorus 05:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Wow, thanks so much for making the demo for me, Yomangani! I really appreciate that, it's a big help. I'll see what I can do with those citations over the next few days. Textorus 19:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I've finished with the sandbox page you set up for me, Yomangani, so you can delete it now. Whew, what a job this article has turned out to be; it's been fun, but I'm going to step back now and let it sit for a while. It's as good as anyone could make it, given the very limited sources for this tiny, obscure, nearly vanished group. Thanks much for all your help! Peace. Textorus 19:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Yomangani, this article has mushroomed from 400 words to 3000; now I've gotten hit with the "article too long" tag. I honestly didn't realize I had so much to say about this group until I started writing it all down. And I have to agree: it has gotten beyond what an encyclopedia article should be; good stuff, but too long and overly detailed for Wikipedia. I'm thinking it might even be worthy of print publication somewhere now. (And I'm still thinking of things I could add to it.) :-)

My question is, is there any way to "desubmit" an article from Wikipedia? I'd like to revert back to my original plan of a short, sweet article with just 1 or 2 photos, and links to external sources for folks who want more info. And some of the Indian stuff can go over on the Chief Sam Story page I wrote. But I want to keep working on this longer article my own way, elaborating as I think best, and use it somewhere else, possibly. So can I "take it back"? Or not?

And if you don't know the answer, can you put me in touch with a Wikiguru who does? Thanks! Peace. Textorus 22:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the quick response, Yomangani. To answer your last point first, yes I'd seen and thought about the ethnic group sidebox; but as this group was so small to begin with--just a handful of families, as far as I can tell--and their descendants have for 150 years intermarried with and assimilated into the surrounding rural population, there's no way to get a genuine population count at this late date; and as for the other sidebox items, well, to say they speak English is just stating the obvious, etc., etc.  :-) Would be good, perhaps, for some other groups that somebody ought to Wiki up, like the Louisiana Redbones or Cane River Mulattos, both of which number several thousand today, unlike my diminutive, nearly indefineable group.

Thanks for the clarification on submissions. I've gone and read a little further on all that, and under Wikipedia:Copyrights I find this statement: "[Y]ou retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the versions you placed here: that material will remain under GFDL forever."

Now I understand, I think, the "never retract" part; but suppose I keep elaborating and refining the long version of this article and one day--it's just an idea at this point--submit it to, say, a genealogy magazine or a Florida history journal. Would I have to include a note, such as "paragraphs 1-3, 7-12, and the first 3 sentences of #24 (or whatever) were originally in Wikipedia and are under GFDL" or something like that? In which case, I'm thinking, no print publisher is going to touch my article, because that would interfere with their copyright--maybe.

Or suppose I one day make my own website and put a revised but not wholly different version of the long article there, parts of which are in the current version here on Wikipedia: can I say "no copying this article" or "you can only copy paragraphs # . . ." because they were on the big Wiki first? Would I have to include a GFDL license on my website with that later version of the article?

(Gee, ever notice there's never a cop or a lawyer around when you need one? LOL)

Well, don't know if you can answer these questions, but as always I appreciate your interest and feedback. It's been a real learning experience for me here; not only discovering what all I could say about the group; but also realizing that my impulsive leap into Wikipedia might not have been the best idea for this particular article. "No ownership of articles" sounds like a nice idea in abstract terms; but I've put a lot of thought and sweat into this particular piece, which represents years of reading and research, not just one week's writing. The other minor articles I've written, I don't mind if they are "mercilessly edited"; but this one's my baby.  :-) Oh well, we live and learn. Peace. Textorus 02:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks much for the clarification; I think I have the picture now. I've decided I do need my own website; there's a lot of material and I need more room to present all the different documents and exposition in my own way; and I haven't even touched the whole matter of the census records, which I have plenty of. I've tried to avoid the "original research" of my work in Wikipedia, but that doesn't tell the whole story; and it's a story worth telling.

Thanks for all your help. Peace. Textorus 05:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Gliding peer review

Many thanks. This is just what I needed. JMcC 07:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to amend the article on gliding in answer to your comments. The one area that is difficult to deal with is the preponderance of US pilots. I created this list a while ago and people have been randomly adding to it since without bias I think. I cannot think of many non-US candidates. I think the number of US pilots is partly due to the fame of the astronauts and the fact that the USA has a large population. Before I nominate it for featured article status, would you have another look? I do not want to apply too early because it might be harder to get people to review it twice. JMcC 18:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again. I will make the improvements that you suggest. JMcC 10:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have self-nominated gliding as a featured article candidate. Your support would be welcome. JMcC 11:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Seabird

Since you offered some helpful comments on the peer review I thought I'd let you know that seabird is up for FA status. Hopefully you can either support or offer some more comments. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Hello Yomangani,

Your peer review of Estonia appears very helpful. Would you be willing to review Japan? It's been on PR for six days without a comment. Points of view from outside East Asia would be especially welcome. Along with the other editors who have put a tremendous amount of work into improving this article, I'd be very grateful for your help.

Best regards,

Fg2 05:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the peer review. The editors (including me) will find it very useful. Best regards, Fg2 07:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sharks

Hey, slow down, you're catching up with me!! :-)) GrahamBould 11:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Shark categories

I realised that as i was going through, so what i was going to do then is have them listed in both Shark and the Order name. I think that would be best?--chris_huh 23:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Jan Smuts's youth

Hello there. You might recall that the above article, which came up for Peer Review during August, and of which you made a number of helpful criticisms. The article has now gone up for Featured Article nomination. Any contribution, whether a vote for/against or a suggestion for improvement, would be very much appreciated.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 02:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sharks Portal

I have made a template for the sharks portal at Template:Sharksportal with an image of a grey reef shark, i might tweak the image a bit so it is easier to see, but otherwise, what do you think. I was going to add it to the project page as one of the templates. --chris_huh 10:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"act first, think later"

I kind of created it about 10 mins before AfD without really tinking first. I must not do this in future (the "act first, think later"). I feel bad. Simply south 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do i tag it? On the article (redirect) page? Or on the discussion page? Simply south 13:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Try... is it meant to have both notices? Simply south 13:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ruth Cameron

Thanks very much for doing my citations on Ruth Cameron. I promise to learn from your examples and do my own in future!

MichaelMcNab 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

RC Watchlist

regarding the watch list I can create list with all all pages that wikiproject Sharks is involved with and save them as /watchlist this can contain all pages in category sharks and all of its subcategories along with any page marked with your project banner and I can update this has often as you would like. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks/Watchlist and Recent Changes Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Colen

I have edited and given main sources for the article. Tyrenius 04:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Maps

Great maps. However, on Crocodile shark, I'm unsure what the two blue colours actually mean. Is the dark the breeding area, & the light where it can be found (like bird books)? Would a legend be handy? Keep up the good work. Cheers GrahamBould 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Shark maps

The book is just the Collins Field Guide to Sharks (Leonard Compagno), these field guides are good, but i am not too sure about the reliability of the maps in them. --chris_huh 09:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

On a similar note - in the book a lot of the maps have two ranges (like on the crocodile shark map you found) - i can't find out what they mean, it is probably that the dark one is where they are found a lot and then the light is where they are sometimes found, or where they could live. I will try to find out but if you find out what the crocodile shark one means it is probably the same as that as the maps for that species are the same. chris_huh 09:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Good to see the colour issue has been sorted out GrahamBould 10:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Advice - repeating of species

Hi. Hoping you can let me have your opinion on something. Have noticed, especially on fish pages, that species seem to be repeated at different levels ie at Class, Family, & Genus level, sometimes even more. I think that species should be at the lowest level, except if there are only a small number at whatever level. I think the higher levels should only list the next level down. There is a IT principle involved, & that is that data should only be stored once, so that if something changes it only needs to be changed in one place. I have been making changes to that end & nobody has complained yet, but would like someone else's opinion. If you agree with me, then I wonder why the articles were set up with so much redundancy. Cheers GrahamBould 18:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Good that you agree, however I wonder whether you could give me an example of 'transcluding'. My idea was to do what I've done for the levels under Carcharhiniformes. Should I continue? GrahamBould 17:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Articles for Deletion/Cartesis

I made the changes you recommended. Is it all set now? Martin.duke 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Jaws

Thanks for the congratulations and your comments during peer review; they really helped Jaws get to where it is now.--Dark Kubrick 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baryonx

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The official policy is at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wobbegong

Sorry for being so hasty, I was using Fishbase only. Will revert later on today unless I hear to the contrary from you. Cheers GrahamBould 08:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Pink Floyd: The Movie

Thanks, I think I got it nominated for deletion correctly now. Kevin143 14:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Dont matter what page you were on, it still helped me! The boxes seem to surround the text now so it should be ok. Again thanks. Lenny 16:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Icons

Thanks, but I'm FOR using icons, since they actualy don't slow down page download like people say they do. And they don't hurt. And I voted Keep in the TfD for the icons. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 00:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for being observant :) ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 00:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Gilberto Silva

Hi Yomangani! I apolgoise as I honestly can't remember if I've already thanked you for your review of Gilberto Silva at WP:RFF. If I haven't, then thank you. If I have, then... thank you again. Anyway, I really appreciate your comments, and I'm half way working through your suggestions in my sandbox.

There's one point I'd love you to elaborate on though, Both the "Praise and Criticism" and "Trivia" sections would be better worked into the text - it will give it some life and remove these sections as point of view targets and places for dumping information without thought. Would you recommend deleting the Trivia section all together? The information which it contains can't really be worked into the text in a subtle manner, plus the information isn't really that vital. It's things like favourite food, favourite players, favourite book etc. Do those facts belong on Wikipedia?

I think I can transfer the 'praise and criticism' section fine, it's just the trivia section I'd like your advice on.

Thanks again, and all the best. -GilbertoSilvaFan 16:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Article

yeah, my error. I was using my AfD script, and hadn't checked the page log before placing the nom. When the subpage loaded, I saw that the article was already deleted, and deleted it as a CSD G4. Sorry about that, and thanks for the revert. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

heh, not quite. My monobook has some cool features (such as Rollback all contribs, block all of AOL, etc.), but that's it. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Heading for AFD pages

Thanks Buddy. Didn't notice that. --Marwatt 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Diamond Packaging flap

Boy, am I embarassed. I thought the rewrite was an NPOV original and I thanked the guy for creating it! Thanks for the update. - Lucky 6.9 18:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for closing that AfD I mistakenly opened. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tintin

Kudos on the last big push to get that to standard yesterday, particularly tracking down the last cite requests. I think there was good collaboration there. Marskell 05:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Move of WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/Requests

Yeah, I meant Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/Requests. Whoops. Tried to move it yesterday but the database was locked. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for telling me the differences between the PROD and Afd things. :) -Correctus 13:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

School review

Contents

1 St. George's School, Ascot

1.1 School History

1.2 Location

1.3 Students

1.4 Boarding

1.5 Staff

1.6 Sue Cormack Hall

1.7 Exams

1.8 The Arts

1.9 Sport & Activities

1.10 Easter Early Music

1.11 Camp Barracudas

1.12 Young Leadership Camp

2 External links

This is how I originally had my Contents page set up until another user said the following remarks. The use of headings is overkill when the information under it is only a couple of lines. You could combine most of the information under two headings ("History" and "School Life" for example). Coupled with that you currently have information that has no connection to the headings placed below them. (e.g. "Exams ...Lady Davina Lewis and Lady Rose Windsor also attended the school" - what does that have to do with exams?) Cowarth 19:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

England Expects

Excellent work so far Yomangani in tidying up and re-working the article England expects . . . The article is now coherent and apposite (the irrelevancies have gone).

I don't know if you have seen this site,

[1]

It may be useful if your inclined to continue adding to the article, although its very good as it is now. Raymond Palmer 22:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Derrick Lonsdale

Thanks for your help. I wasn't sure how to properly renominate an article. Rklawton 01:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Constitution of Thailand

Hi there! This is a quick followup about your earlier feedback concerning the Constitution of Thailand article. I've basically done as you suggested and beefed up the article a bit more and have put it up for Peer Review. If you have any further suggestions, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Patiwat 09:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Leopard shark

Hi Yomangani, I wonder whether you could 'Move' Triakis semifasciata to Leopard shark. Us mere mortals can't :=) GrahamBould 12:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

User:ais523/UnclosedAfDs

I've changed the post-processing on the raw output to make it look better and be more useful. At the moment I'm adding the per-day subheadings by hand; eventually I hope to get the list fully automated and editable by the bot, but it's no trouble at the moment. --ais523 13:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too (there are several correctly parsed 2nd-noms in there), but it's hard for a bot to distinguish between KTVI Tower 2 and Camille Anderson 2. Maybe I should fix those up by hand as well? --ais523 13:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't comply with your suggestion due to server load. The output is parsed more-or-less directly from the category database (some of the MediaWiki databases can be queried by users), and to see the content of an AfD would require loading it up and checking; at present the list is generated without the need to view any AfDs at all. (The bot does open up each AfD on the list to see if it has been closed and decat it if it does; however, I can generate the list without running the bot, and I don't think this is worth modifying the bot itself for, for a very minor change in the listing format.) I think I'll stick to inspecting and changing redlinks by hand, if necessary; I'll sort the Camille Anderson one now. --ais523 13:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Porterhouse Brewing Company

Thanks for your message. I tidyed this article up and although I am still doubtful of its suitability for Wiki, I am happy for the article to remain.Downunda 21:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Indonesia portal news

Ah, thanks. I didn't check that. The image has been replaced. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 10:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Transcluding templates for taxonomic sake

I thought i would have ago at making the taxonomy section all made up from templates. I actually tried it out with some fo the cetaceans articles. But i haven;t really been able to make it work too well. The page i have done the work on is Balaenidae which is a family containing two templates for the genera taxonomy (Eubalaena and Balaena). The problem i have had is that i can't find a way to use the bullet points well. You should be able to understand if you look at it. What basically is the problem is that it wont list the bullet point under the other higher level bullet point, as you can't add another * to every line within the template.

I know this is for cetaceans but at sometime it might be used on sharks. Do you have any ideas about this? chris_huh 13:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Tha seems to work ok actually. So only the species on the genus page are actually put as sub-bullet points; all the other pages just have one bullet point which is shifted in a bit. Works ok, but i think when it gets up to having a lot of families such as on the Baleen whale page i will ahve to make all of the family templates before i add them as it screws them up a bit i think. Thanks chris_huh 14:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

For fixing that afd nom. Appreciate it. Stubbleboy 01:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

FAR - WOW

That's not something you see everyday: great job! There's a lot more where that come from: Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems. Sandy 03:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Amazing work. Well, make sure other reviewers are aware: it troubles me when people vote to Remove the same day an article is FARC'd, without waiting a bit to see if anyone will work on them. Here's a good list: [2] Apparently he wrote many very good FAs, but is no longer active on Wiki. His work is worth salvaging, since the writing is good, and his FAs will come up on FARC eventually, one by one. Cheers, Sandy 12:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if they are discounted, but I try to ease the workload on Marskell and Joelito, who have to make those decisions when closing the FARCs: I've left notes for those reviewers. Sandy 13:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

request for AfD help

Hi Yomangani - I nominated a page for deletion Photo_Genesis last week and didnt correctly list it. You kindly fixed it for me, I'm afraid I've run into trouble with Maria Wong (YAF) also and I'm not sure why. Would appreciate your advice on what I've done wrong during my nomination of this page? Thanks in advance for your help! MidgleyDJ 10:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the assistance and the information you provided on my talk page. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 10:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

2000 AD AfD

Thanks for the idea - I suspect the solution isn't deletion per se but a "refocusing". As I've said if it doesn't work as a 2000 AD Universe then it might not work as a Judge Dredd Universe entry but it could work as some kind of 2000 AD Crossovers one. I suspect the problem is that I haven't yet hit on the right term to describe what I'm getting at (that a lot of the core 2000 AD stries overlap on a consistent timeline while others interact with it as part of a broader multiverse. There has even been what amounts to retconning to make Strontium Dog and, possibly also Rogue Trooper, fit in with this core - not very successfully with the latter) - 2000 AD Crossovers may be the required fix. (Emperor 11:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

Richard75 has done some extensive editting to eliminate some of the problems I may have inadvertently introduced so have a look at that and see what you think. Its a definite improvement and if you have any other suggestions then fire away. I do think it is fixable. (Emperor 01:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

Want It

Thanks! Springnuts 20:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

arthur rubbin

i mixt up,lost some of my edit.is not going to change your vote but i think is fair to note the change.--Pixel ;-) 23:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

England expects

Please take another look at England expects that every man will do his duty (FAR). I have rewritten and cited the article. Thanks, Yomangani^talk 15:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Great job! I can only find one problem with the sourcing now; page numbers aren't given for the books. As soon as these are added, I'll withdraw my objection. --Zantastik talk 04:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Page numbers now added (for some reason I always forget to write them down, and then have to go and recheck the sources). Cheers, Yomangani^talk 16:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll no longer advocate the article being a FARC. Keep up the good work! --Zantastik talk 04:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Category

Thank you for pointing that out to me. I actually think they're not the same (that category seems to list invididual animals, not species) but would agree they should be somehow merged. Do you have any suggestions as to the best approach?--Caliga10 16:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete AfD - KAXM

I'd never done an AfD before - what did I miss? dhett 00:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was a little confused - the article had been deleted before, but someone re-created it, which is why I put a 2nd request on it. Ah, live and learn. Thanks for your help! dhett 01:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Peer review is for the review of articles, so I'm not quite sure what you are trying to do. I've removed the broken link for the moment, but if you let me know what you wanted to do, I'll try and help. Yomangani^talk 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi ya I know I just didn't know where else to put it. I am marking up the visible and UV light emission spectrum of a deuterium lamp discharge with notations such as "fuclcher band" "continuum emission" etc. and I want to know from others more familliar with molecular band emission if I have done an ok job on it.....--Deglr6328 00:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Hi Yomangani, I'm unclear about what categories shark/fish articles should be in. Is it Family or Order? Seems to be some inconsistency Cheers GrahamBould 07:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yomangani & Stefan. Read & reread your messages, now realise why I was confused! I think I will continue to use categories at all 3 levels ie 'Shark', 'Order', 'Family', as I don't think that will upset anyone & some day in the future a batch job can always remove what is unwanted. On another connected topic, the article List of shark articles I think is a waste of time & effort. It's just another unnecessary layer of maintenance. Couldn't it be replaced with a link to the 'Shark' category? Also, the article List of sharks is good as it is in scientific name order - BUT it is wildly incomplete. I tried the odd fix but then realised it bore little resemblance to the actual articles, so gave up. Is there a plan to get it fixed? Most people (including me) wouldn't even know the article is there, to be updated with new articles.

All the best to you two, I'll just keep plodding along :-) GrahamBould 07:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yomangani & Stefan again, I've finished sorting out the shark Categories in the way that I mentioned above (all 3 levels). I used the 'Shark' category as my 'master list', so if there are shark articles NOT in the 'Shark' Category then I've missed them. Is there any way to check?

The way the 'List of Sharks' works now is excellent, especially when the auto updating is up & running. Please let me know when that happens. Might take a breather & check out the ray categories... :-) GrahamBould 14:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yomangani, Sharks have the very high level category 'Sharks'. Is there an equivalent for rays? If there isn't, should one be created, eg Batoidea? GrahamBould 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, various bots are progressively removing the Family categories from shark articles - see Sharpnose seven-gill shark & False catshark eg. Are they right? If they are then I suppose the Family cats should be deleted, I can't do that, as a mere mortal. Any thoughts? GrahamBould 07:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Category:Rays is just what is needed, thanks. However, I am confused about the placement of the Pristiformes. Compagno's book has it firmly under Selachimorpha (sharks), but Wiki articles have it under Batoidea (rays & skates). Can you throw any light on this? GrahamBould 13:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was confusing sawfishes/sharks. Embarrassing. I have Compagno's 2006 Collins gem Sharks, ISBN 100007219865, but I will have to learn to read properly first! :-) GrahamBould 13:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Due to upcoming exams, I won't be active on WP:RFF.

Due to upcoming examinations, which will end on 12 October, I will be editing sporadically, and will have insufficient time to respond to requests for feedback. I noticed you have not responded to any requests for the past 6 days. Are you busy too? If so, we will need to find other experienced editors to respond to requests, or there will be a huge backlog. Imoeng, Tangotango and Saxifrage used to respond regularly to requests; what happened to them? I think two other users - Commander Keane and Richardshusr - would also be interested. We need experienced users who are familiar with Wikipedia policy and friendly to newcomers. OK - I have to go and study now. Bye! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Astrology/astronomy

Oh my gosh, thanks for catching that. I was up to my eyeballs copying and pasting in a spreadsheet -- have to go back and see what I did wrong. Thanks ! Sandy 20:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Saryn Hooks

Hi, thanks but the nomination discussion has now been archived and I don't know how to proceed. Any advice please? Springnuts 22:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Erast Fandorin

It has been a month after you replied to my request for feedback on Erast Fandorin. The article was again significantly expanded, and I think all the issues have been addressed. I would appreciate it if you could take another look at it, and possibly suggest some more enhancements. Thanks in advance! Errabee 12:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Transcluding taxonomic templates

I had made a start but got busy and sidetracked with other stuff. Have a look at [[User:Chris huh/Sandbox]. At the top of that the Mysticeti (some of it anyway) taxonomy has been made up from templates, and below the line is the old taxonomy copied from the Mysticeti page. Looks pretty good so far. Each genus has a template, then each family or subfamily and each suborder will. The fact that it looks exactly like the old style is good, the only problem i see is that it will make editing it not quite so easy for indivdidual pages but since it will allow it to be edited just the once it should be worth it. Maybe just a comment before the taxonomy whenever it is used will clear up any problems so just say:

<!-- This taxonomy is created from several templates allowing it to be edited just once but provide global change. To edit a specific part please edit the relevent template.-->

Sharks will be a bigger project (as will the entire animal kingdom, although will be fun), but starting with cetaceans can allow us to check it all works. The divs with a padding of 20 seems to work fine chris_huh 13:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have finished doing all of the cetaceans one, although i havent actually replaced all of the text in the articles to templates yet (i have only done that on a few such as Baleen whale and toothed whale). They seem to work fine although whenever you list the template (as in on a family article page) you will only be able to list one taxon higher than is in the template, but since that would rarely need to be done (if ever) it should be fine. chris_huh 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned the new template system on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Cetaceans page but despite this system obviously being thought about by others for a while, there has been a reply about it taking up too much bandwidth. I still think that the small amount of bandwidth that it might take up as extra would still be worth it, by a long shot. What do you think? chris_huh 20:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Waspard

Hi, thanks for your advice, it will be my first AFD, so in summary is there a page to help me out. - Jrgnet Talk 18:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox" doesn't read like a reason to me. Use of the term "soapbox" would imply some POV violation, some political rant, which has nothing to do with the article mentioned in the AfD. So it's nonsense, vandalism, or a newcomer who doesn't know what they're doing. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 22:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'll admit not knowing about that policy being used in that context, thanks for pointing that out. So, I was wrong in my language about that. However, I am still highly suspicious of this and several other new accounts writing AfDs their first day as editors (sometimes, as their first edit). PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Letting off steam

Against the author or the unnamed other editors? For the record, probably a bit of both - brought on by a stunning attempt at lawyering to prove notability in a totally unrelated article. That said, I'm never a fan of people who try to argue notability of someone who clearly isn't. Methinks it's about time to turn in for the night. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing AfD

Thanks - I can be such a screw up!! thanks again for advice. --Sharonlees 19:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

List of High School Dropouts

Thanks for helping finish the AFD on that article. Although I've been around wikipedia for a little bit, I'm still trying to figure things out. Stuff like that takes a little more computer savvy than I currently possess. Beatdown 19:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Skank

I was trying to figure out what I had done wrong, when I found that you have fixed it. Thanks! Robert A.West (Talk) 19:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fourth International

Thanks for your comments in the peer review for this article. It is now a featured article candidate; as you have previously looked through it, I wondered if you'd like to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fourth International. Thanks, Warofdreams talk 03:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Laika

Are there any chores I can do to help you save this one? What have you decided to do about the pop culture stuff? Sandy 12:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at it today, after I get through my other work. I just glanced at it, and I'll argue that the length is fine. Sandy 12:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There's another picture of her at Animals in space that's about to go per copyright :-(( Sandy 12:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked Peta to have a look. I'm close to keep. Sandy 15:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries, the current Laika article is the result of contributions from a lot of people, I'm just another contributor. Zerbey 12:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops - someone added another image, which doesn't seem to be clear on copyright, and messes up the layout. Sandy 21:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)