User talk:Andonic/Tzatziki Squad/Archive 1

Selected article suggestion

I'd like to suggest Cannon as this weeks selected article. It's not in a great condition, and I recently acquired an interest in that subject. Also, mightn't it be better to have a fortnightly collaboration, rather than a weekly one, as it can take a while to improve an article satisfactorily. Oh yeah, and we might let each member have is/her turn choosing the article we're going to work on. That means AndonicO might choose it this time rather than me if we're going to do that and we can work our way down the member list :-)--Phoenix-wiki 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, okay. :P I choose... Cannon. :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 22:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If I might make a suggestion for the next one, History of timekeeping devices. It's a personal project of mine, and if we don't use it, some help in focusing it towards actual timekeeping would be appreciated. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 21:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's your choice next, so I guess that's okay. :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 00:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

H2O

Hello!!! He started the Auzzie Cabal!!! Has he defected? Justin^Contribs_{User page} 16:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. He's already helping in the war against the BRC as well (see User talk:LaraLove/Bathrobe Cabal). · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My cabal got deleted months ago :( Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It still exists... it went underground. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 09:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(-_-) Who are the Auzzie Cabal, what's there page and what do they do, i've only seen the Bathrobe cable page because of the link and so far i'm not impressed about the Bathrobe Cable. Terra ^{Who are you?} 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Australian cabal was disruptive (putting templates on other's userpages, iirc), so it was deleted. And the BRC is a joke (I tried to MFD it, but failed... miserably). · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus it was run by teh giggy. Anything run by old Gigs' is disruptive. I hear Corey Delaney was invited to the Brisbane Meetup. Never good. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 16:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well i can say one thing my pc isn't happy about the BRC page, it's blocking some of the images of those user's, and i don't like the idea of uploading images of yourself just for the sake of joining them and not to mention it's viewed publicly by anyone. Terra ^{Who are you?} 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's why I'm here. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 19:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems they're going to have a newcomer on the BRC. Terra ^{Who are you?} 19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(indent) If you mean GP75, his request was denied. Place your bets! I say within the week he'll be asking to join. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we bribe him to come over...? · AndonicO ^Hail! 21:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

From what i know they invited so many user's to join them we should do the same to see who's interest in the TS Squad, and GP75 may be interested in the TS Squad. Terra ^{What do you want?} 07:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be spamming... and since they (for some weird, unknown reason) are considered "cooler" by the "masses", they can get away with spam. · AndonicO ^Hail! 09:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't class the BRC as being cool it's just nonsense what they do, and if it's class as spamming people or forcing them to join wouldn't this mean that they could get into serious trouble, and they must be desperate to get new member's. Terra ^{What do you want?} 09:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally class them as MFD-able, but apparently most users disagree with me (so I'm probably overdoing it). · AndonicO ^Hail! 12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Article box

I made a box informing others of what article is the target this week:

This weeks candidate for Tzatzikification is Cannon.

Should we use it? Justin^Contribs_{User page} 20:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The current collaboration by the Tzatziki Squad is {{{1}}}. If you are a Squad member, it would be optimal if you helped tzatzikify the article. Thank you, and please keep enjoying Greek food.

Something along those lines seems better to me (yours looks too much like a userbox at a carnival, no offense intended ;) ). · AndonicO ^Hail! 21:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

None taken, I actually made it from a userbox. Oh by the way, I'm emailing you. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 00:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Cannon.

First impressions:

1. lead stinks: we should improve it in accordance with WP:LEAD.
2. too many pictures: we'll have to choose the best/most relevant.
3. most parts are unsourced: we need loads of refs.

(I've just gone through the lead section, so I might add more later... feel free to add to the list as well.) · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I went through it too. That entire history section can be nuked in favour of a small taster of History of cannon. We might want to go way more into the types and classifications of cannon too.--Phoenix-wiki 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We can use User:Phoenix-wiki/Workshop/1 for pasting in things we like, as the article is so bad that we'd have to rip it apart and that's not an option. After we've gotten User:Phoenix-wiki/Workshop/1 to FA (;-)) we can move it over cannon, merging the histories.--Phoenix-wiki 20:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we'll work on it there. · AndonicO ^Hail! 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus... There's a ton of articles flying around regarding the cannon. We should try to merge-back/split some of them to create a rational WP:SS styled article. For example, we need to choose how we separate "history" and "operation". Operation changes throughout history, so both articles contain large parts of repeated information. That's not the only problem, of course. I suggest we read all the relevant articles and decide on the most rational breakdown of information, based on the availability of existing data. We should also check what's out there, of course, and not re-invent the wheel... Now, who is willing to do that? NikoSilver 14:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it was your idea so... hehe, just kidding. ;) I think everyone who plans to participate in the article improvement should do it, because anyone who doesn't will necessarily get lost. I'm actually surprised such an important article (and related articles) is (are) so bad... · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

See my comment here. · AndonicO ^Hail! 15:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, just thought, perhaps we should add some information about Round shot and type of cannon ball? Cannon_balls is a disambiguation page... The Helpful One 11:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. · AndonicO ^Hail! 12:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just another note, the original article Cannon has changed considerably.. perhaps an update is in requirement? --The Helpful One 12:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just read the above conversation, perhaps you meant for it to be that way? --The Helpful One 12:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Greece

Well, we're thinking about going on holiday to Greece this summer. We normally go to England and we've been to France a few times, so this will be something new! I'll make sure to try some Tzatziki!--Phoenix-wiki 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy, you lucky... · AndonicO ^Hail! 15:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Internet Explorer ?

Just an idea for an article get to a featured standard, I was looking and Mozilla Firefox is already featured... so I thought why not get Internet Explorer featured too!

Any comments, ideas etc would be appreciated, although this would be future, not a present to do... we already have one of those!

--The Helpful One 11:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't think very highly of IE, but I can help you with the project if you'd like. · AndonicO ^Hail! 12:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I, in fact I love Mozilla Firefox so perhaps it should be left alone, it was just a thought, for any of the Squad members that use IE... --The Helpful One 12:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, maybe that should be a requirement as well... "Use Firefox or you're out!" :P · AndonicO ^Hail! 15:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, we should format the page so it looks crappy in IE but good in Mozilla. Just an initiation test. bibliomaniac15 23:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol, that's brilliant. You do the honors. :P · AndonicO ^Hail! 00:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If I could format, my userpage would be looking a lot more pimped out. bibliomaniac15 00:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I must protest, I do a significant amount of editing from IE, popping in sometimes and maybe making a few deletions. It would certainly make my job (SOW, wouldn't it be so awesome if editing were our job? I could get paid for wasting countless hours bent over a laptop performing actions whose productivity is hanging in the balance) easier. By the way, once I get an iPhone, I'm starting a cabal for that. Anyone else edit from an iPhone? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 03:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

@Biblio: I'm sure a "pimped out" article isn't a good idea. :P @J-stan: Microsoft > Apple. · AndonicO ^Hail! 03:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Oh you know what? Apple has a much more stable OS, and for the things that they do (less than Microsoft, though. score one for Bill Gates), they're better and easier to use than a PC. However, if I had to use a computer for gaming, I'd choose a PC any day. And there's no way Microsoft could ever match the iPhone. Or the iPod. And Mac will never match the XBox. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you that it's a more stable OS, but what's stability worth when all you can do is listen to/edit music? MS could probably match the iPhone, not the iPod; Mac can't match Xbox, nor Windows. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, most people (meaning students) only really need it for stuff like that. And no; Microsoft has proven with Vista that they are scrapped for ideas. The Zune Phone will never make it into production. If they can't match the iPod, they can't dream of competing in the superphone market. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Transformers (film)

I am not sure if users are trying to get this to FA standard, but this might also be a good one to do, seem to have a fair amount of information with references.... any comments again! :)

--The Helpful One 12:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As a joke...

As a joke, we should get Advance Australia Fair to FA status. It would be quite amusing, to say the least. In all seriousness, though, there's a whole bunch of references out there, as it was only made the national anthem in the last 25 years. Thoughts? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Harry_Potter

Can't be too sure.. but should we get this to FA standard? I think it might be already! --The Helpful One ^(Review) 13:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Harry Potter (quite the opposite: if I was any rouger, I'd delete the article ;) ), but maybe someone else wouldn't mind helping. By the way, I clarified here. · AndonicO ^Hail! 15:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Gmail group

I would like to point out, my fellow Tzatzikians, that I have started the Gmail group. If you use Gmail and Google talk, please add yourself to the list. I created it to basically just be an alternative to IRC. I believe GTalk also has group chat now, so we could also use that to our advantage. This is not another cabal, just a contact list. Justin^(c)_(u) 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

New Notice

Hi there,

I have thought that we should leave a message on an article's talk page saying that we are improving it. I have come up with this though you can't blame me if it is not good! I am not a 'formatter' so feel free to improve it!

Adding {{User:AndonicO/Tzatziki Squad/Notice}} to a talk page should create:

Feel free to improve it!

The Helpful One ^(Review) 15:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyedited it. Good template, it seems a bit excessive, but I guess it may be useful. :P We should probably have a category of articles that are being worked on by members, so that others can help out in what they're interested. · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Organization of Collaboration?

We should have a dedicated place to organize collaborations. If this is it, I'll start by saying that anyone who wants to work on cannon should probably pick a section to work on, I think that if everyone has something specific to work on, it'll make things go much easier. (For what it's worth, I'm working on the Types of Cannons section...) Discuss/fling mud/throw stones here. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on formatting the refs so they're uniform. Thankfully automated template filling makes this a lot easier. I'm also looking into the {{fact}} statements. bibliomaniac15 18:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep reading this, later in the week; then I'll probably work on the History section. · AndonicO ^Hail! 22:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You can also look at History of cannon and include some of that. It shouldn't be that long, maybe 3 paragraphs and we can put a {{main}} at the top. I'd like to work on the types of cannon and posibly projectiles if no one takes it.

I'll take a look at that, thanks. So, Phoenix, I'm guessing that since you're offering to work on projectiles, you haven't left wikipedia completely? ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, my paragraph got deleted. I'll focus on music if no one else minds... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ach nooo!

Another interesting sounding cabal that I do not qualify for! Cannot be in the Bathrobe Cabal, cannot plot against it! *sniff* I'll go look for another cabal that's plotting against all the others. Mwahauhah! • Anakin ^(talk) 01:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's called ArbCom, and you probably don't qualify for that either :P Justin^(c)_(u) 02:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how you don't meet the criteria for this one... could you please specify, for us noobs? Oh, and please don't call this a cabal, or I'll make up a rule that prevents you from joining. :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 03:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If it looks like a cabal, walks like a cabal, and quacks like a cabal... It's a duck, therefore made of wood, so we should set fire to eachother to make sure we're not witches. Justin^(c)_(u) 03:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's obviously a highly-trained hunting dog. · AndonicO ^Hail! 10:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My mainspace edits are mostly vandalism reversion – I'm not good at the constructive stuff is all. No matter, no matter. Truth is the main attraction of this cabal is the goal on the front page: "The ideal member should be able to frequently break all of the above rules, without ever being caught." That's exactly what Wikipedia needs, more WP:IAR. Interesting actually, how lots of cabals like their members to have mild rouge tendencies and ignore the rules...... :P • Anakin ^(talk) 14:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're not good, it doesn't matter; just write and someone will patch up your content, but every pair of hands is appreciated. I can find several faults with your third sentence: 1. This isn't a cabal; 2. the text you quoted is not in the "Goals" section, but the "Joining" section (and is last on the list, therefore least important... not that order has anything to do with it, it just is the least important). This un-cabal (aka squad, collaboration of peers) does not like rougeness, if you were an admin, I'd show you the protection log for this page... Keilana gave me a headache. :/ · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see the protection log. What fun — rouge wheel warring! An epic battle of wits and sysop privileges! That's the sign of a good cabal squad, that is. • Anakin ^(talk) 15:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah right... forgot the actual log could be viewed by anyone (I always check the protection history through the "Protect this page" screen, which you can't see... at least not yet). ^{Annoyed at the fact that Anakin--who undoubtedly prefers Star Trek over Star Wars--actually got the cabal/squad thing right, AO muttered pedantically about the redundancy in the fourth sentence.} · AndonicO ^Hail! 16:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, I don't care much for star trek. I'm currently hanging on the balance of "Hey, you know, Justin's kind of cool" to "Hey, you know, Justin's a stupid emo nerd. Let's go beat him up", so I'm kind of avoiding star trek until the new movie comes out. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 17:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek is for cool nerds. :) Besides, I don't think the new one will be better than the TNG movies... they're hard to beat (1, 2, 3, and 4). · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay, I gave someone a headache. *dances* Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

/me says something in Klingon. · AndonicO ^Hail! 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think now would be a bad time for me to bust out my Aurebesh. bibliomaniac15 00:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

bIHnuch. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, Keilana. :) Star Wars is for taHqeqs, though. · AndonicO ^Hail! 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SoHvaD pagh vIjatlh, Human! bibliomaniac15 00:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're all schmucks gone meshuggeh. Okay, that's yiddish, but you know, you get the idea. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 02:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does fit. Unfortunately, you need the capital letters in there too, for example: tlhIngan Hol DIvI' Hol (Not good) translation. · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, your mother. Oh, snap! Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 02:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, falling back onto lame, childish insults already, eh? · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Lame? No. Childish? Perhaps. Already? Plz, AO, you really expected better of me? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 02:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, yes. In fact, I had calculated the odds of you coming back from my previous comment to be around 70%... · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I know u r, but what am I? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No comprendo, s'il te plait, konnen wir diese conversation end? · AndonicO ^Hail! 03:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Når jeg sier slik. Haha! Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 03:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a guess, without using a dictionary (of course), does that mean: "Only if you want."? · AndonicO ^Hail! 10:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If by "you", you mean me. It means "when I say so". Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Joining

Is there any room for me to join the TS Squad, i don't have to follow the tasks do i. Terra ^{Who are you?} 08:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Room, there is, but I'm not quite sure why you would join if you don't plan to follow the tasks? · AndonicO ^Hail! 10:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I will do the tasks, may i still join the TS Squad, i only wanted to know just out of interest. Terra ^{Who are you?} 17:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to join, and will help out. Terra ^{Who are you?} 17:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good to have you, then. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Terra ^{Who are you?} 18:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cannon.

Automated peer review brings up this:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^{[?]The image is under the GNU Free Documentation License.}
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)^{Not applicable.}
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?] Done
• There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: armour (B) (American: armor), meter (A) (British: metre), defence (B) (American: defense), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), any more (B) (American: anymore), mold (A) (British: mould), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur). Done
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • “In the year [of] 1216”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That may help. :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sunderland A.F.C.

I want this article to become GA for the moment, and possibly FA after, the main problems with this article is the references or rather the lack of them, the article could also do with a clean up, i have worked on this article for a while, i think this article needs more editors to have a try. It would be good to base this article on the Norwich City F.C. and Arsenal F.C. FA articles. Thanks you and good day.  Sunderland06  16:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Hey, I proposed that a page, History of watches, be merged with my project page, History of timekeeping devices over a week ago. I'd appreciate some input so that a real discussion can take place. Thanks! Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A link to the discussion can be found here. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Article writing suggestion

How I think we could organize our collaboration is for the 16 of us to give the articles we want collaboration for and then have others sign up to volunteer. For example, Andonic and I have worked extensively on the present collaboration, Cannon. Not all of us have contributed to the article, and that's fine. We all have different interests, after all. In this way, we could be more supportive of other people's interests and make sure we know who's working on what. bibliomaniac15 21:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Of course, I'm likely to contribute to whatever I have time for, so... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea Biblio. Maybe we could all list what articles we're currently working on? For example, I'm working on Cannon and Age of Empires III for FA, and Ender's Game for GA (with Keilana--^{sorry Keilana, haven't had time to read the book yet :(} ); J-stan is working on History of timekeeping devices, for FA, I believe; and Sunderland is working on Sunderland F.C. for GA. I'm sure no one would mind a hand. :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering I have oodles of projects going, I definitely wouldn't mind a hand on Ender...it's a veritable mess :(. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How about we make a table to organize this? bibliomaniac15 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made an sample table on the page. Add or make changes as necessary. bibliomaniac15 02:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. *goes back to GA review* Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Expanded/added. · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Idea

Hm, perhaps we should do some spamming whenever a new article becomes the main collaboration? It may improve turnout. Thoughts? Ideas? Rotten tomatoes? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, on TSQUAD user talk pages only though. Anyhow, don't think we'll have to do that for a while, cannon being pretty far away from FA still. · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant. :) Yes, cannon is quite far away, and I'm trying to learn how to do GA reviews. Let's see how this goes... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeez... who added so many references to that article? Hard to convert them all to Template:Cite book (more informative). · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I only did some of the music references...no book ones though. I appreciate it when academics and such add references in the proper format, typed and everything, but it would be nicer if everyone both referenced their articles and used the templates. Oh well. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hello all, I've put in for a peer review of the current main collaboration, cannon, located here. Hopefully this'll give us some outside opinions and good suggestions, helping us on the (long, arduous) road to FAC. In Tzatziki, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Watchlisted. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 23:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've re-done the automated peer review there, as that's where it belongs. · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Afd top

See this post I started. It would make things easier, but I don't think it's receiving enough attention for such a big change. So just alerting the TSQUAD admins, and any others who'd like to participate. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 23:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've put my $0.01 in. (I say 1 cent because it's not that valuable a comment :P) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I seconded Keilana's opinion, so now it's at $0.02. bibliomaniac15 00:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Old friend

I don't have anywhere else to announce this, but our old friend Tree Biting Conspiracy just came back from a year-long wikibreak. Since I know there are a few of us who were acquaintanced with him, if you have the time, stop by to greet him. bibliomaniac15 05:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've given him rollback :P Consider it a welcome back present. Though I never knew him. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 05:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds familiar, but I can't remember if I knew him. :( My memory stinks. · AndonicO ^Hail! 09:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Peaceful" applications.

"Cannon have also found applications outside of warfare, such as water cannon, snow cannon, hail cannon, and cannon netting. These applications use neither traditional gunpowder or explosive-based propellants as a source of energy, however." I'm not sure that this sentence belongs in the article... those articles list them as "devices" rather than "cannon", and I don't think they're considered cannon (i.e. don't match the standard definition). Any thoughts? · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Second. Doesn't fit in the article. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it, but if anyone has anything to support the claim that they are proper cannon, feel free to re-add. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Standard Article?

Hi there!

I was wondering if Windows Live Messenger would be classed as GA. If it is, please let me know so that I can nominate it - it would be my first nomination!

--The Helpful One ^(Review) 21:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree. It's doing okay so far, but there are things that need to be cleared up. The lead doesn't seem comprehensive enough as WP:LEAD would have you. Also, there are too many listified items that preferably be converted to prose. External links should be placed as refs, not just placed in among the text. There are also many sections and paragraphs that are too short, and should be merged. Image:Windows live messenger colour picker.png does not have a fair use rationale. Those are main problems I see after a cursory check, but there might be more. bibliomaniac15 21:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK! --The Helpful One ^(Review) 22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Kenwyne Jones

Sunderland A.F.C. is big and i dont think i can do it by myself, so im going on a smaller project, Kenwyne Jones which i might be able to get to GA.  Sunderland06  15:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

When Cannon is FA, can we please have Kenwyne Jones as our main collaboration, it will not take much if we have the support of the entire squad. Thanks.  Sunderland06  20:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Next choice goes to J-stan, maybe he wants to (but he'll probably pick History of timekeeping devices). Maybe post on a few TS member's pages (or Football wikiproject, maybe?). · AndonicO ^Hail! 22:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

When will it be my choice. I'm guessing 8th. Sunderland06  00:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Seventh, because Phoenix-wiki left for a while... · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait my turn, then we can all improve it. :)  Sunderland06  01:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's ok its nearly GA anyway.  Sunderland06  08:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cannon

I've had a few opinions from people, and they all think this would pass FA, so i'm going to do the honours :).  Sunderland06  14:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't ready; it would fail as is. · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We're all working diligently, we've got some time. There is no deadline... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, please wait while we sort out the rest. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there are still some sections that need to be cited and worked upon. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 21:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I will agree too! --The Helpful One ^(Review) 21:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you guys are just agreeing for the fun of it. :p  Sunderland06  18:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a requests

I've already put History of timekeeping devices through a relatively recent peer review, and I was wondering if other TSQUADers could check up on it, to see what needs to be done. Maybe organize a little collaboration inbetween Cannon improvements. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 20:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Auto review:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)

• I haven't found an infobox, I don't know if one would apply. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 39 inches, use 39 inches, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 39 inches.^[?]

• Would this also apply to measurements of time (i.e. 10 seconds; using a non breaking space instead of dashes between things like "365-days")? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • correctly
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), realize (A) (British: realise), ization (A) (British: isation), caesium (B) (American: cesium).
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the auto review, I've made a few comments. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did the calendars go? bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 00:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a suggestion to get them out, the information can mostly be found in the second paragraph. Since I've been trying to get it more focused on the actual timekeeping, maybe they should be re-added. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 01:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say so. A single paragraph in the lead seems insufficient to cover the calendar. It doesn't need to be too expansive, but it should cover the bases. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 02:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just quickly, I want to put this article up for GAN, is there any last minute stuff I need to take care of? Also, would someone mind helping me set up the nomination? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to expand the lead per WP:LEAD before GAN. That is an absolute must. bibliomaniac15 02:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the lead a lot, now my problem is that I found a new reference which is full of information. I'll work on incorporating more info into the actual article, as now the lead has info that the body doesn't. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 02:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to the geocities source, be aware that those aren't always accurate. · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Why aren't they always accurate? Do they at least comply with WP:RS? Because it seems to confirm some information that I've found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's similar to wikipedia: anyone can write for geocities. A page I found on cannon from them wasn't accurate... · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also caution you against using Britannica to cite stuff, they aren't much more reliable, being a third party source. bibliomaniac15 20:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't third party sources good? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 20:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant tertiary sources. I would recommend primary or secondary sources instead. bibliomaniac15 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(Returning from Wiktionary with the definition of "Tertiary") What would the difference be? Basically what sources would I be looking for, and why wouldn't I be looking in Britannica? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 20:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Komodo dragon

One of my longstanding projects, Komodo dragon, is undergoing peer review right now here. Please stop by and help me improve the article! bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 21:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you like an auto review? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have it the auto-reviewer, but sure, just put it on. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 21:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll read it soon and stop by the PR. · AndonicO ^Hail! 12:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Early thermal weapons

We're working on cannon right now, but on a related topic, I think Early thermal weapons is a pretty nice read and nominated it for GA. If you can, stop by and read or even review, if possible. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 05:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Auto Format

Hi guys,

Just to let you know, I am going through the list of articles that are currently going to be done, and auto formatting them per WP:MoS - if you don't like - feel free to revert!

--The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cannon FAC

I've done a nomination, hope it's alright, located here. Putting it on your watchlists would help, so we can take care of concerns in a timely manner. Cheers! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 12:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cannon isn't exactly ready yet, but I think we can have it by today... I'll try to get some work in now. · AndonicO ^Hail! 12:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, that's got to be the cheesiest nomination I've seen... :P · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Yeah seriously Keilana, couldn't you make it less like an auction or a show or something? bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you know it's bad when it's worse than mine! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about adding some information about star forts in the Cannon article, but should I hold off until the FAC is done? I ask because star forts are a very relevant subject as a means to defend against cannon, but there are very few references I can find on the subject. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 17:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already in there. Early Modern Period, I believe. · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Most notable in this period, however, is the effect of cannon on conventional fortifications. Machiavelli wrote, "There is no wall, whatever its thickness that artillery will not destroy in only a few days."[42] Although castles were not immediately made obsolete by cannon, their use and importance on the battlefield rapidly declined.[43] Instead of majestic towers and merlons, the walls of new fortresses were thicker, angulated, and sloped, while towers became lower and stouter; these new defenses became known as "star forts," after their characteristic shape.[43]

Forts featuring cannon batteries were built during the Renaissance, such as the trace italienne of Italy and the Tudors' Device Forts in England.[43] To guard against artillery and gunfire, increasing use was made of earthen, brick and stone breastworks and redoubts, such as the geometric star forts of the 17th century French Marquis de Vauban. These soon replaced castles in Europe, and, eventually, castles in the Americas were also superseded by bastions and forts.[44]" · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we need more noms - I will nom for the article if required. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh? We only need one nominator, and one nomination... we have both already. Did I ready this incorrectly (likely...)? · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, but if you look at the FAC -- you will see a list of nominators, I understand what they mean now! --The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Komodo dragon FAC

Komodo dragon, which I've been a major contributor to, is now up for FAC! Come over and participate if you're not too busy with the Cannon nom! bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Things seem to have slowed down with cannon, so I'll definitely stop by. Actually, stab me with a pike if I haven't done it by Wednesday (I tend to forget; gee, I've spent too much time reading about archaic weapons :P ). · AndonicO ^Hail! 21:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have my arquebus ready. :) bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are terribly inaccurate,^{[citation needed]} and had a rate of fire of only x.^{[citation needed]} You need a longbow: they could fire further, more accurately, and at far faster rates,^{[citation needed} though they required nearly a life-time of training,^{[citation needed]} and were not effective against newly invented armor, such as cuirasses.^{[citation needed]} · AndonicO ^Hail! 22:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You're just asking for a blast of grapeshot.^{[citation needed]} bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 22:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Really Biblio! The obvious choice to counter my statement was the crossbow. I'm disappointed, I thought you were knowledgeable in archaic military history. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 22:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I lost my atlatl. What do you expect?! bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 22:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Use your macuahuitl, they're quite effective, especially if you sneak up on your enemy and use native Aztec armor.^{{{cite game|title=Age of Empires III}}}}

No, I find that a zergling rush does the trick faster.^{{{cite game|title=Starcraft}}} bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, noob tactic... One nanosuited warrior can reportedly annihilate millions of them with a single strafe.^{{{cite game|Crysis}}} · AndonicO ^Hail! 22:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

But the question is...can you support the nanosuited warrior with your graphics card? bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 23:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you check to see who uploaded those screenshots in the article? ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 23:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Come on guys, we all know the Guitar is the most powerful weapon!. And Biblio, are you on ESO for Age Of Empires 3? We gotta play sometime. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 16:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have Age of Empires 3. I'm not a big RTS player. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 21:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh. You referenced AoE3 (TWC expansion, if we're getting specific) in a descriptive manner. My mistake. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 02:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh...that was AndonicO. He just forgot to sign. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 02:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that explains it. Damnit, sinebot's never around when you need it most. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 02:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

History of timekeeping GAN

Ok, it's up at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Engineering. Please feel free to comment. Thanks! Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cannon FAC successful

Woohoo! 1 down, 19 to go! bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 03:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yaaaaaay! Sorry I was on vacation for most of the FAC, hopefully I'll be around for the next one. J-stan's choice, I assume? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done all. :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 08:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is really great, guys. By the way, I'm holding off on officially choosing the next collab, I'm waiting for the GAN to finish, but it's looking good. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 17:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're picking history of timekeeping devices? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh! :) Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I guess I'll get started then! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll join in ASAP, but I've got to catch up on a bit of reading first (i.e. eight books...). · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, TSQUAD! Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 20:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Time to hit the library again. Any bets on how long 19 more FAs will take us? bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. This one took us a bit more than 2 months, so 20 FAs should be about 40 months (38 to go), or about 3 1/6 years. Ouch. (BTW - what do we do when we've done 20 FAs?) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats for the FA. Keilana: we go to 50, then 100 :D. The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Originally I was going to make it 100... I changed my mind, thinking "whoa, I'll be pushing up daisies by then." :P · AndonicO ^Hail! 21:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

O_O that's a lot of FAs...we'll all be dead by then... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How about we shorten the FAs to about 5 or 10, and make the rest be GAs. As a broad definition for a TSQUAD GA, if at least one T-operative gets it there without significant help from outside editors, it can be counted. AO could look over their contribs to the article, and decide if it could be counted. This will still create a collaborative effort, without being overkill. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, to get them to FA they'll be GAs first... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a good idea, but FAs are a whole lot better than GAs, but they're also much harder, so we'll need a collab for them. We can count GAs, but we'll get so many it'll be funny. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 23:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How many do we have so far from our members? I know I have two, and AO has three. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Pass :) Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 02:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Pass? @Biblio: I've got four now. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Well, I'm back, great to see you guys again, wow cannon's an FA! Anyway I've archived the talk page cos it waas a little long and I'm gonna start work on the next article now.--Phoenix-wiki 19:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. Hope you get to join in on the fun. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 22:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you missed cannon, don't miss the clocks. :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

History of timekeeping devices.

One thing I spotted straight off the bat (don't have time to read it, just took a peek): the article goes from ancient timekeeping devices to GPS (i.e. modern ones, skipping everything in between) in "Timekeeping history". Actually, that section isn't really needed, as the whole article could fit into it (as it should, considering it's the title), making it redundant. Also, a lot of unsourced parts (try gbook'ing, for example, "military watches" to source the "wristwatches" section). I'll probably not be able to help much these days, as I'm quite busy in real life... I'll try to hurry. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now I'm trying to fix the citations to convert them to cite templates, like in Cannon. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I actually am busy myself. I'll be able to help out a bit, but not a ton. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 02:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, well last night I completely rewrote the sundail section and saved, unfortunatly my internet went down without me knowing and I lost an hours work :-( Will do it now. On another note SteveCrossin has joined us.--Phoenix-wiki 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The new guy with the cheesy grin that pwns vandals as well as those of veteran editors? Good to have him. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 21:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just found out about this "squad" when editing Medieval cathedral clocks on History of timekeeping devices & I'm intrigued about what the squad is about & how you select the articles for attention? How is this different to joining a wikiproject which also aims to ehance the quality of articles in a particular domain? Is it just a thing for admins? If I was to join, bringing 8 featured articles & various lists & GAs etc, would that damage the challenge of reaching 20 FAs?— Rod ^talk 16:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for checking us out. Also, thanks for helping out History of timekeeping devices (my choice :) ) The articles are selected by the member list, so since we're on our second, it was my pick. The last one was AO's. The difference between this and a Wikiproject is that this is mainly a FA drive, whereas Wikiprojects focus on one topic. As you can see by our article list, we cover a broad range of topics. I believe it's open to Admins and Rollbackers who meet the criteria. You seem to! And your Featured content and GAs prior to this don't count towards the 20 (19 now). But we'd certainly like to have you with us! Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 16:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm neither an admin or a rollbacker so I think I'm excluded (and spend tooo much time here anyway) but good luck with your efforts.— Rod ^talk 16:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait, "Should be either an administrator or a rollbacker; if neither condition is met, user must have at least 1000 edits, and be in good standing." If you want, you could join. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 16:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK OK I've joined as Ive got a few more than the 1000 edits.— Rod ^talk 18:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a few. ;) Good to have you. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Main Page date

Last time I checked, there was no article set for 18 June. Did someone ask Raul directly, or what? And what does the Battle of Waterloo have to do with anything? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 16:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've e-mailed him. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Prior to this, or was that the reason why it was added? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I e-mailed right after I saw you post about it here. He's not replied yet. · AndonicO ^Hail! 19:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Collab GA passed

History of timekeeping devices is now a GA. Good job, all. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Back to work....it's a long road to FAC. ;) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we start up another collab... one that might more easily make it to FA, while working on HoTD? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 02:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, IMO, we'll get this one there faster if we focus on it. We've got 9 currently working on it, I think that it may go faster than cannon, actually. Thoughts? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it will take around the same time, maybe a little faster. History of timekeeping is much more expansive than cannon, in my opinion. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 02:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but we do have about twice the people working on it, so it should all work out. :) I like the idea of doing more core articles instead of out of the way things, any ideas? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree. I would, however, like a little change from all this history. Maybe a biology article? bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 03:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something not as technical, though (not DNA replication...). I agree, history can be tiring, any suggestions? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 12:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It got to GA already?! I only managed to do some general tidy up and template fixing! (Does that still count?) To any: Is the ISBN finding part still open? I know it takes a long time, could anybody provide any links to good websites regarding finding the ISBN of a book? Thanks, The Helpful One ^(Review) 07:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Google books. Nearly all books are there. · AndonicO ^Hail! 08:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I did quite a few of the ISBNs but some pre 1970ish will not have them. I use Amazon to search for the books & then ISBN is displayed on the left. There is some discussion about the use of 10 digit v 13 digit isbns at present.— Rod ^talk 09:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, Google Books and Amazon it is :D The Helpful One ^(Review) 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember trying to find some ISBN for some ref, but I couldn't for the life of me do it. I could find the book, its prequels, its sequels, but no number. Infuriating! Is there a reverse search feature anywhere? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:ISBN & m:Help:ISBN links for some useful tools & depending on what you mean by reverse lookup try Special:Booksources.— Rod ^talk 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check that out. BTW, is HoTD a DYK thing? I've been working on it since december, so it's not really a candidate. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 00:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's too old now, and it's been past the stub mark for some time. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 01:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

History of timekeeping devices in Egypt was DYK today...yay us! Our first main page mention, with another one coming (hopefully) in June! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've put the page numbers on all the books for the Further Reading, and updated some ISBN tags as well. Is there anything else that I can do? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 15:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, I missed the "in Egypt" part. Well, good work. Now as for our next step, I think we need some basic expansion, especially in the actual timekeeping. Then we need to discuss a possible move or fork, before we really push for FA. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi everyone! I've just started the 2nd peer review of the collab, and we're already getting comments. I'd like some input on History of timekeeping vs. history of timekeeping devices, as we should remove the Sumer section if it's the latter -- the material is irrelevant and little remains of their devices. IMO we should have both articles, as the history of timekeeping discusses devices but also discusses calendars; another option would be history of calendars and history of timekeeping devices, limiting the former to physical calendars and stuff like the sexagesimal system, and limiting the latter to actual clocks/watches/etc. Thoughts? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that works, I'm going to start a sandbox for a possible History of timekeeping. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 16:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I've started a very stripped down version of HoTD to turn in to History of timekeeping here. From here, we might have to build from the ground up. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 16:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No the current article is fine IMO, no need to start again. Just it needs a spitting, as Keilana said, or a more general scope. It'll be fine the way it is, starting again is just a waste of time and effort considering how much everyone has put in.--Phoenix-wiki 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, damn, it doesn't have to be the collab, just a side project for any interested. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The topics are too similar, they might as well be one article. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I'm not trying to make an FA, it's just a fork. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but it shouldn't be forked, as they cover basically the same topic, with only a minor difference (actually, the "fork" should be longer than the FA hopeful, as it covers a wider topic, albeit by a little). · AndonicO ^Hail! 21:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. It's no big deal. If we don't make it into an article, it's at least a place to expand on the idea of timekeeping. We could use it as a sandbox or test place while the article undergoes major changes to FA. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter GA Nomination

Hi there!

Just to let you know that I have nominated Harry Potter for GA, and it is currently being reviewed. For more information on the review, please see Talk:Harry_Potter#GA_Review.

Thanks,

The Helpful One ^(Review) 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The GA has passed! Harry Potter is now a GA article. The Helpful One ^(Review) 09:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. :) · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Some loose ends

While the Squad improved Cannon to become its first FA, the other articles in the series on cannon were barely touched. Since we made so many improvements to the series' core article, it would probably be a good idea for someone to go over the other articles in the series and reconcile them with the work we did. This is mainly copyediting to make the text between the various articles agree; the reference sections, for example, can be improved immensely based on the work we did with sourcing in Cannon. I feel this would have to be done before Cannon goes onto the main page: it would be embarrassing if readers clicked onto a section's "main article" and found it wasn't quite up to the same standard. The two articles that overlap the most are Cannon in the Middle Ages and History of cannon. Naval artillery in the Age of Sail and English cannon could also do with some copyediting from Cannon. There's not much that could be moved to Cannon operation, but I feel it is the weakest article in the series relative to its importance.

Admittedly it is an unglamorous and thankless task, and I don't want to slow down the editing process for other articles. However, for whomsoever takes up this job ("in a wiki-mercenary-like manner"), barnstars may be in order. (Or maybe just a nice "thank you", if the Squad's goals are to be followed). --Grimhelm (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll do Middle Ages and History; I may have time early tomorrow or Sunday. · AndonicO ^Engage. 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll take List of cannon projectiles. bibliomaniac15 00:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In light of Awadewit's really awesome peer review, and my business lately, I'm going to stick with HotkD, sorry. :( Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll send a few copyedits that way, as well. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for showing some interest, but since it seems none of us have managed to make more than an edit or two, shall we leave this until History of timekeeping devices gets to FA status? --Grimhelm (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Eep, I had forgotten about that. :/ I'll copyedit History of cannon, but leave the rest until afterwards as you say. · AndonicO ^Engage. 19:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

...And I forgot again. Well, cannon will be on the main page the 19th of this month, so I'll definitely get to work. I'm writing this down somewhere this time... · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Cannon in the Middle Ages nominated for Tzatzikification

I have nominated Cannon in the Middle Ages for Tzatzikification, to bring it up to a standard similar to our featured article on Cannon. I think we have to admit that it would never get done unless we included it in the list. ;-) We should aim for A-class, to keep it as an interesting side-project.

Over the past two days, I think I have done pretty much all that I can do myself with this article. I have brought in the relevant material from the sections on Middle East and Medieval Europe in cannon and standardised the list of references. Uncited statements have been tagged, and the lede rewritten to summarise the article. Of course, I also added some new sources and material: technological limitations, culverins, bombards, Russian cannon, etc. The areas that need to be worked on are in verifying tagged statements, finding page numbers for some of the references, and some general expansion of the article. The section on Early use in China and East Asia could also be improved from the section on Early history in cannon.

I look forward to seeing this article improved once we finish the collaboration on History of timekeeping devices.  :-) --Grimhelm (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Timekeeping collaboration

Way to go! I think that the timekeeping collab has yielded the most associated DYKs, including History of timekeeping devices in Egypt and Merkhet. I've also created the article for Liang Lingzan, so that's another redlink taken down. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 23:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Cannon.

Now on the main page... for only 24 hours. Don't get too caught up. ;) · AndonicO ^Engage. 03:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might have wanted to see this

	Time Times
Issue Three • May 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier
News Recent Project News Article count at 1074! At least 911 are unassessed though, plenty of work for us to do. Award offered—Since 2008-01-05, Sharkface217 has offered a Barnstar to the editor who can expand the article Timeline. It certainly needs it, now that it has been disambiguated from Chronology: Go to the Timeline listing on the Awards page to find out Sharkface's minimum requirements! From the Time Portal History of timekeeping devices reaches Good Article Status —On April 7 the history of time keeping article became a GA. This is our only top importance article to reach this prestigious status. This was only possible with the dedication of the Tzatziki Squad. They are continuing to work on the article to reach Feature Article status. History of timekeeping devices in Egypt was a DYK —The article appeared on the Main Page on April 8. With this text: "...that despite Herodotus's claim that the sundial was invented in Babylon, the oldest known example is from Egypt?" This also was only possible thanks to the Tzatziki Squad. Recent Time News None that I know of.
Archives • Newsroom
If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}.

Giving us credit eh? Thanks. :) I'll be back full time soon, to help with Hotd (haven't been able to do much :( ). *gets back to work* · AndonicO ^Engage. 12:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A-status for HoTD is also underway. It looks like we're almost there. bibliomaniac15 19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

History of timekeeping devices.

I'm working on some organizational changes here; it's a mess right now though, needs transitions... if this turns out alright, I'll leave another note here, and maybe we can implement the changes into the main article. · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Up for FAC now. bibliomaniac15 18:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Right; let's hope this turns out well. · AndonicO ^Engage. 18:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll poke the people who worked on it to let them know that it would be awesome if they kept an eye on the FAC. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hah, it has two supports already. I wonder who those were from. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Radically unrealistic?

75 FLs and DYKs? We'll have to be passing this on to our children at this rate. bibliomaniac15 22:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that's the point. With 75 FL's I was looking at grandchildren. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hah, I know. Then again, it'll probably be quicker than 20 FAs... Maybe it should be like the article creation criteria, instead (related to one of the collabs, not necessarily by more than one person)? · AndonicO ^Engage. 22:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We should try to get David Fuchs over, as well as some other CVG...those guys sure can write. bibliomaniac15 22:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say that 75 FLs is realistic. I am sure MFC and I could work on some of those sports-related lists that we already bring to WP:FL if anyone else is interested with those. Also, if any of you guys put anything up at WP:FLC, let me know. I will review it, no matter what type of list it is! :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We've got one up with Oreo at the moment. He has around 60k more that he wants to improve to FL, too... heh. · AndonicO ^Engage. 22:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And I was scared I would be the only person nominating sports-related articles ;) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the list, now go get to work :P Nice work guys! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

20 FAs shouldn't be too hard... after all, we're twenty-two people! We'd each only have to write 10/11ths of an FA! :P Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, because at least two people need to help for it to count as a "Tzatzikified" FA. That introduces a few more variables, which I'm sure you can work out (though I'm too lazy to :P). · AndonicO ^Engage. 00:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he means all 22 people working on a given article. 22 times 10/11 is 20, but of course different people contribute different amounts. bibliomaniac15 01:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right, didn't read it correctly. Just goes to show that I think better at 4:30 am than at 8:40 pm (or, more accurately, that I'm stupid and need things to be pointed out for me, regardless of the time). ;) · AndonicO ^Engage. 08:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(off topic) So anyhow, FLs are all well and nice, but since I'm lazy and didn't really read through the main page, what exactly is the protocol for adding a page we want this fine organization to take up? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Just put it on the nifty chart. bibliomaniac15 16:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Nifty indeed. Okay then. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, to join a collaboration, you just add your name to the list, correct? Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would suppose so. That's what most people do... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 16:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quip, if User:Scorpion0422 and myself can manage sixty-five FLs between the two of us, you guys can probably pull this off :p Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's 88 FLs if you include User:Raime, who has recently gone on a mass "List of tallest buildings in X" spree. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point, Sephiroth (welcome, by the way); one question, though: have you ever read Catch-22? ;) When the total Tzatziki FLs gets to 75, we increase the goal to 100; simple and effective. · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that FLs aren't a big deal, as I've got about a dozen myself, but if this group plans to mobilize several editors, then FAs could probably use more of that help. FLs don't usually need more than a single editor or two, unless you guys are planning to flesh out List of countries so that it's better than an atlas or something :) Gary King (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That actually wouldn't be a bad idea. However, you're right that FAs > FLs; I don't plan to work on any FLs in the near future, but on the other hand, I'm meddling in too many prospective FAs. I never could find balance in anything. :P I added the FL goal because a lot of people seem to get those done. ;) · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Some worthy lists that could stand to be worked on (citations mainly) are List of persons considered father or mother of a field, List of persons considered a founder in a Humanities field, Fathers of scientific fields and the other related lists. --Grimhelm (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to work on prospective FLC's with anyone. Even if they are about American football.... :) Sunderland06 (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Review

Hey guys, I have finished up List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame‎. I am going to bring it to WP:FLC with MFC soon, so if anyone wants to read-through it and make sure everything sounds alright, that would be helpful. Thanks!! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Only two commas I found wrong, one extra and one missing. Other than that everything is clearly explained, and little jargon, if any. The table is fairly clear, as well. · AndonicO ^Engage. 09:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks AO! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 14:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. · AndonicO ^Engage. 14:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

GAs promoted to FAs

Hi, I was just wondering about this, "To write 50 good articles (49 remaining). To qualify as a Tzatziki GA, the article must have been improved to GA status by at least two squad members.", in the goals section. If a collaborated GA were to be promoted to FA would it mean that a number would be added back on, or would it simply count as both? Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes to what? Number taken off, or counts as both? Sunderland06 (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Counts as both. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be 48 remaining then? Cannon and History of timekeeping devices both passed GAN. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

But they were already GAs when we started working on them (Grimhelm had GA'd cannon, and J-stan Hotd). · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Did two members collaborate on them? Otherwise I don't think they count. History of poison should count though, because AD and I worked on it. bibliomaniac15 00:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't count; I had already taken into account the history of poison, by the way ([1]). · AndonicO ^Engage. 09:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ah. Darn that two-person rule! Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, do these new goals still mean that all collaborations are aiming to FA, or just GA if FA is deemed unlikely? --Grimhelm (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

History of timekeeping devices FA Success

Hooray!!!! The FAC for History of timekeeping devices passed! 2 FA's down and only 18 more to go :). --Mifter (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And I do hope the next nom will be copyedited before it comes to FAC :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That was my fault, sorry. I couldn't take clocks in more than 15-minute doses... · AndonicO ^Engage. 08:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Next time we should actually discuss on this page when to go for FAC. So what's our next collab? bibliomaniac15 16:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps examine whether you want to list nine collaborators as co-noms, even though some of those haven't contributed in months, and didn't participate in the FAC? And please remember to disclose group projects in future noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Many congratulations, it has been fun and informative to see the article grow blossom into what it is. Also means for work I plunder it relentlessly! Well Done all. Tzatziki Squad aims high and gets there. Edmund Patrick – confer 20:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

1340s

This year, there was a discussion on the WikiProject Years about rewriting all the year articles, so that they were actually good summary articles rather than unconnected lists of events. The original experiment was tested on the 1345 article, with the intention of moving it toward Featured status. A second article, 1346, was rewritten taking into account some of the further discussion. This project will probably take quite a long time to complete, as a high standard is necessary and will progress one decade at a time.

It is an interesting and innovative concept, and one which I think would be worthy of Tzatziki collaboration. For this reason, I have chosen to nominate the 1340s as a future collaboration. It made sense because the only two years rewritten thus far are 1345 and 1346. As a decade article, it also has a more general scope than a single year, with the potential for "new" articles and DYKs in the other years of the 1340s.

The current draft is on a subpage of this project. I finished some preliminary research on the trends of the decade. We can work on this draft until it is of reasonable standard, and then move to mainspace and nominate for DYK. Long term, I think the article has a better chance of reaching FA than either of the two year articles. --Grimhelm (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a question... wouldn't it be more logical to divide the category by sciences, arts, etc. instead of by geographical region? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For the decade 1340-1349 we have gone by continent, and then by a mix of region and theme. In Europe, it is divided under: War and decline in Western Europe; Eastern and Central Europe; The Iberian Peninsula and the Reconquista; Cathedral and University construction; The Black Plague. In my opinion, it is appropriate for this particular decade, but each decade can be dealt with individually. --Grimhelm (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just not sure if that's the best way to do it. While that accentuates the history and "big stuff" aspect, it sort of leaves behind any science or technology info. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that we could easily add a section on science and philosophy. It was the decade when William of Ockham died, after all. Would you care to work on the section? --Grimhelm (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to, but I've bitten off so much other stuff I don't think I'd have time to properly research it in any timely manner :( Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can do when I finish on some of the other sections. --Grimhelm (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look in my library and see if I have any books which might be used to expand non-military sections... I'm not sure what my library has on such an early decade. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

At present, the two sections, "War and decline in Western Europe" and "The Black Plague", are largely finished. "Architecture" just needs some sources; the "Reconquista" needs a small bit of expansion as well as sources. "Philosophy" has a solid basis. "Literature" and "Technology" need expansion. "Asia", "Eastern and Central Europe", "Africa" and "Americas" also need to be expanded. --Grimhelm (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting project. Unfortunately, I won't have time to participate; good luck. · AndonicO ^Engage. 12:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Maybe I might help a little, but not a lot. I think I might have a few medieval sources, but as of the present, the only one that pops up in my head is After the Black Death. bibliomaniac15 20:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting. I'm sure we can find sources relevant to the period on Google books, or else a trip to the library may be in order. --Grimhelm (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Next collaboration

Hello all. As the last collaboration has been successfully finished up, the time has come to pick a new collaboration. I've asked User:Animum because he's next on the list, but should he choose not to participate, it would be User:NikoSilver's turn. Unfortunately, according to his userpage, he is quite busy, and if he decides not to pick, I would assume that we would simply continue down the list. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I pick ... *drum roll* Fatal hilarity. —Animum (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This could be difficult. :P Thanks for picking, is there any chance it could be an April Fools' FA? (I hope we'll be done by then. ;) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, very difficult. It might be the April Fool's FA (though Dancing mania would be better, IMO). · AndonicO ^Engage. 21:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent choice. It's definitely an article that could greatly benefit from a large number of collaborators as, yes, it is indeed a difficult article to write about. Gary King (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, the first thing in order would be to cut the list crap. Way too much pop culture stuff. bibliomaniac15 22:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's 'funny' that this article was picked — I was reading it only yesterday. I don't think there's much I can contribute, but it should be interesting to see what can be done with it. --Grimhelm (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about it more, I think that the T Squad should focus more on topics that are viewed often but in poor shape. I'm talking about articles such as Geography, History, and Science, to name a few. With great power comes great responsibility, and I think that it should be used to improve articles that are the most vital. Gary King (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If that's what we're shooting for, then if someone could copy-edit WP:ANIME's first prospective FL character list, that would fall into the "viewed often, poor shape" area, especially since the Naruto articles were textbook examples a few months ago of the cesspool that fiction is in most of the time on Wikipedia (and conversely were among the most viewed articles on Wikipedia). Anyhow on the subject of the article, that popular culture section needs to be de-listified and some of the more trivial mentions should be cut out. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not exactly what I was talking about :) I'm talking about, say, any article in WP:VITAL. The whole world, not just Wikipedia, would be indebted to the T Squad. It's truly something that is worth doing. Personally, for example, I'm by no means a chemist, but I wanted to work on Noble gas after working on a string of video game articles. This was a significant milestone in my Wikipedia career. It was truly refreshing, and I have continued down this path where I work on things that I know little about. At the end, I and the collaborators I work with learn something, and others learn from reading the article. It's a very rewarding experience. Gary King (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a wonderful idea, perhaps we could put a hold on fatal hilarity and do a WP:VITAL article, then come back and do fatal hilarity. Thoughts? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We got our work cut out for this one. Rudget (logs) 18:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

← I have not been involved in previous efforts by this group, but I am very willing to help out with any projects related to vital articles. Gary King (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Keilana: Why not two at once? We have more than enough members to focus on more than one collaboration, though I'm not sure how many actively participate in the project. I personally like fatal hilarity better (or perhaps I'm just lazy). Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, having only one main thing to focus on at a time is a better idea because things may get more disorganized and people may be spread too thin. Perhaps a straw poll would settle it? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd like a straw poll. Irregardless of the results, I will continue working on WP:VITAL articles as my personal campaign until every one of those articles are Featured articles. Gary King (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Membership

I always feel horrible just sticking my name under a membership list, so I'd just like to get a, I guess "clearance" of sorts, before I join. I first learned about this project when I saw it during my tenure a few months ago as an admin coachee of User:Bibliomaniac15, and I recently saw it just browsing through some talk pages. It lines up quite nicely that I happened upon this again actually, as I have been kind of offhandedly searching for a collaboration that differs from Wikipedia:WikiProject The Office (US), where almost all of my major contributions as of late have come from. I guess I fulfill all of the qualification, except I prefer Mac OS X over Windows, although my poor MacBook is currently in the shop after its hard drive crashed, so I'm forced to use a Windows machine for a while. So, as I stated, I'd just like some sort of "clearance" before I join. Happy editing, Mastrchf (^t/_c) 23:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

C'mon Mastrchf, no need to be bashful! You are more than qualified to join us. We need all the help we can get on fatal hilarity. If I may reveal a secret, I actually like Star Wars better than Star Trek. Shh, don't tell Andonic about that. bibliomaniac15 23:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but it's so fun to be bashful! As I said, I feel utterly terrible just joining! One more thing.....Trek forever! :D Mastrchf (^t/_c) 00:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! It's great to have you on board, anything and everything you can do will really be appreciated. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but biblio, you forget the last rule! I myself break three rules - but no one will ever find out! Unless, of course, I do something foolish such as announce it on the Tzatziki talk page. Er, I mean, I second Keilana; welcome. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Articles under Tzatzikification" is getting long

"Articles under Tzatzikification" is starting to get long. I thought the goal was to be focused on a small group of articles? However, the list has become long and some articles even only have one collaborator; those should be the first to go, otherwise things will eventually get out of hand. Gary King (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is your friend. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If only it were so. Backlash is imminent, though. Gary King (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I agree with you, personally. Perhaps we should have a separate queue page, suggestions for people who might be choosing next? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The result of the vote !vote debate drama discussion was keep doing fatal hilarity. Which is essentially moot, since below everyone decided to give up on fatal hilarity. Interesting... Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Alright, so there's been a bit of discussion on doing some work on the WP:VITAL articles and holding off on fatal hilarity for awhile. I personally think that a straw poll would help sort out who thinks what and may help us make a decision. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: Would fatal hilarity simply be reduced to a "normal" Tzatziki collaboration, with the vital article being *the* collaboration, or vice versa, in options 1 and 2 respectively, or would I have to create a new option? Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, shouldn't this be archived or something now? Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Option 1

Hold off on fatal hilarity and work on a WP:VITAL article, then return to fatal hilarity.

1. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Option 2

Go ahead with fatal hilarity and then do a WP:VITAL article.

Option 3

Continue along as we have been.

1. Do fatal hilarity and let the next member choose the next collaboration, whether is be a vital article or not. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Vital or not, it is still an article and deserves our attention. bibliomaniac15 00:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Although I haven't been as active in TSQUAD as I would like to have been, I think we should continue with the system we've been utilizing. The vital article will come when it will come. —Animum (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
5. We'll still be doing important articles as non-main collaborations. ^{Yes Nousernames, I've been slow on Qin... I plan to write more tomorrow.} · AndonicO ^Engage. 02:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Option 4

Something else? Propose it here. :)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-retiring.

I'll not be editing much anymore; I don't know if you guys would be uncomfortable with keeping this page here, or if you would rather move TS to Keilana's userspace (or maybe wikipedia space... but that'll probably be overturned). · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to host it if it would make things easier. I'm not sure Wikipedia space would be the best place for it. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia space would be the best place for it. We already have a "WP" redirect, and we have already established TSQUAD as a collaboration rather than a user-club. Of course, if Keilana hosted it, I wouldn't mind. bibliomaniac15 04:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we keep in Andonic's userspace to honour the person who founded it? ;) Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Fatal hilarity.

I found some possible references... I don't think they could be used as main sources, though. If none are found soon, the collaboration will probably need to be changed (to something with more notable sources, i.e. important).

• [2] Fiction, I believe. Nevermind, not actually fatal in the true sense of the word.
• [3]
• [4] Laughter as a premonitory cause of death (I believe insanity).
• [5] Fiction.

And then some on a laughter epidemic in Africa:

• [6]
• [7] I'd venture to say this is unreliable... scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I think you might need a backup plan, Animum, unless someone can find more ^reliable sources than I did. · AndonicO ^Engage. 12:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Number one probably isn't fiction, but I don't understand French and don't really know what the heck the "fatal hilarity" mentioned is supposed to be. All I know is that we will be very hard pressed to even get this to GA status when it comes to finding what to write but not just making it a list of stuff. bibliomaniac15 16:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How I pity the destiny of great Germanicus!

What was the price of his rare virtues?

Persecuted by the cruel Tiberius,

Poisoned by the traitor Pison,

He had nothing left, for last misery,

But to be sung by Pradon.

That part is fiction, but apparently the sentence with "fatal laughter" was in the audience (i.e. probably a figure of speech). · AndonicO ^Engage. 23:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind with Fatal hilarity; I realized my error about a day after I said I wanted it to be our collaboration. I'll pass the recommendation to the next person in line, NikoSilver, as I don't think I've been active enough here to choose. Thanks, —Animum (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you'll pass it along? I agree that fatal hilarity would be pushing it, but are you really sure you don't just want to change your mind instead? NikoSilver hasn't edited for a month now. We can give him a week, but if he doesn't show, the next collab might as well go to Keilana. bibliomaniac15 01:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, changing your mind is fine. :) (Also, we should give Niko a chance; he is next.) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, fatal hilarity was probably a bit too much for us to swallow... I'm not even sure if it would be possible to bring it to FA without masking a great deal of original research. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow! My turn?! OK... are you in for something difficult? Try Macedonia naming dispute. Make sure you study Macedonia (terminology) first, and go ahead and edit its brains out. And yes, I will abstain (partly bored, partly on vacation, partly coz I'm Greek)! Mail me if in a dead end. Happy editing! NikoSilver 16:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hell Niko, you don't ask for much, do you? That's even worse than fatal hilarity... anything else you can come up with? · AndonicO ^Engage. 18:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a bad idea for you to abstain. You are pretty much the only one of us with past expertise about this. Also, I don't think it would be in our best intentions to unintentionally start a firestorm. bibliomaniac15 20:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be around, and if a firestorm is what is needed, then so be it. Tzatzikify it, please! (Hell, you had to ask me even when you saw I was away for a month or so. I'm close to Italy right now, and the Italians would say "cazzi tuoi" for the occasion...) NikoSilver 21:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was more like "tu sei pazzo!" ;) · AndonicO ^Engage. 00:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

History of timekeeping devices TFA

And it wasn't even requested! I think... Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe Raul prioritizes history articles. 'Grats to all. · AndonicO ^Engage. 12:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Requests are only if you want it at a specific date now. Otherwise, Raul chooses what goes on. bibliomaniac15 18:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, wasn't it always that way? Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Before you could submit just any petition to let Raul know you wanted your page on the main one, but the requests got overcrowded and they had to devise the point system as well as a request limit. bibliomaniac15 00:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yay! :) Congrats again to everyone who worked on it. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Idea

I've been thinking... why is history of timekeeping a redirect? It could easily be an article, with one section on the history of calendars and another on devices. If Tzatziki could bring that and history of calendars (which isn't all that far, methinks), they'd have a viable featured topic: I can think of no other necessary articles for the series. (Indeed, I can think of no other articles for the series at all, but that's probably just me.) I realise that Cannon and its subarticles are coming along, but that series is huge and disorganized, lacking articles specific for cannon's history in entire time periods and having articles for cannon's use in specific battles. Would anyone be interested in creating the history of timekeeping article? Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We had a debate over moving it to "history of timekeeping", and it was for a while, but it got changed back when we realized just how broad it really is. I suppose HoT could focus more on calendars and the development of the Time standard rather than devices. bibliomaniac15 02:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of this history; I saw it discussed on the FAC (or was that the peer review?). Anyhow, I'd be willing to start the article if no one else is willing, covering the topics you mentioned. I'm a bit uncertain about how the structure should work, though. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to work on HoC first, then go back to HoT, because it's the most broadest and would be better handled last. bibliomaniac15 23:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm working on that right now. The history of timekeeping article, however, is vitally important, and shouldn't just be a redirect to a less general article. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to get cracking at that as well, we'd probably be best off making a draft first. bibliomaniac15 18:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I haven't been very active recently, and probably will continue to be inactive well into September, so I'm afraid that the draft will have to wait a bit, though. I have far too much on my hands now as it is... Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)