User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Yo

Welcome back. Hope you had a great vacation. Nice to see your name up on my watchlist again! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, and I was going to ask if you were looking at FLCs today or not. I'm in on my lonesome tonight so I should have time to do the business if required.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Already did some FLC/FLRC stuff; see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Closure log. If you want to do more, feel free; I am done with closures for today, except for one or two that are almost there. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Good to see you back. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Dabomb, thank you so much for the Christmas greetings! My best wishes to you, too, for a happy and healthful New Year (and you know how glad I always am to see you back :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

McDonald's Cycle Center FA

This user helped promote McDonald's Cycle Center to featured article status.

Thanks for your involvement in the development of McDonald's Cycle Center, which has become an WP:FA in recent months.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats. Sorry I couldn't do more to help out. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Just realised you'd been away for a long time. Less needy FAC requests on my part these days for me to visit. Was it any good? Hope you had a nice time.

If you're about, have a look at Shortlist Music Prize which I've just sent to FLC. That's my cherry popped there. I'd appreciate some feedback. Cheers. RB88 (T) 01:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my time off was very enjoyable, thanks, though it made returning to the daily grind that much less delectable. I can't promise anything these days, but I might yet be able to pop in, as more time for Wiki is on the horizon later next week. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dabomb87. You have new messages at Killervogel5's talk page.
Message added 19:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Busy ?

I see your template says you're busy. Good day at FAC-- means a lot of reading. Could I interest you in looking over:

• Anna Anderson
• Peter Heywood
• Wife selling
• Justus
• Tchaikovsky and the Five
• Supernatural (season 2)
• Frederick Scherger
• Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)
• Edward Drinker Cope
• Baker Street and Waterloo Railway

? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Will take a look in about an hour. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! (I'm also going to take a lunch break before starting.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I scanned over all of them, leaving comments on FAC pages where necessary. I didn't read as closely as I usually do, but hopefully I helped out a bit. Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much (and thanks for catching the FFA)!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, might want to make a note of this. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Aligning

Hey dude. Happy New Year to you, hope your vacation was good. You are, no doubt, aware of the on-going saga at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts/archive1 regarding Cheetah's two outstanding oppose points, namely the linking (or lack of) for non WP:ATHLETE entries, and the mixture of table alignments. As, of course, you're aware, we have literally hundreds of lists which use a mixture of alignment. Is this a storm-in-a-teacup or have we all been missing the point the MOS is trying to say when saying articles need "internal consistency"? Crzycheetah mentioned something like "remember numbers have their own rules" which alluded to the idea that a mixture of left-aligned text but centrally-aligned numbers was fine (per MOS). I'm not sure at all about this and wondered if we needed a FL-wide discussion about it. What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that is probably best (FL-wide discussion). Do you want to start one? Since I'm probably the one who will be closing it, I want to stay as uninvolved as possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine about the FLC. Just wondered if you had a opinion... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The only opinion I have is one I have had all along: a red link criterion is just too much trouble to have; not saying that it's good or bad for Featured lists, but there is too much ambiguity for it to be truly effective. I'll take a closer look tomorrow or on Tuesday. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I was equally interested in the alignment issue... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

FLC returns

Glad to have you back, as everyone else at FLC surely is. I just returned to the FLCs you mentioned and capped/struck as necessary. Please note that in the FLCs where I indicated "Quick comments", I was not offering a full review, just skimming through it for obvious problems (as I figured a stand-in director should do). Since they were not as thorough as my normal reviews, I'm not inclined to support as I would after a thorough review is complete. Please keep that in mind when looking at the FLCs in question Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I wasn't expecting you to support/oppose, but I just prefer when the reviewers indicate that their concerns are resolved to having to make that judgement on my own. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

Thank you for your contribution to the article! If you have time with more copy-editing on the Nobel Prize please help out again, it really needs some love. --Esuzu 01:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esuzu (talk • contribs)

Kawartha Lakes FLC

I've collapsed my previous reviews and pulled the remaining issues out into a third review. If Floydian claims that the list is 95% complete, he's wrong. There's still many structural issues (overlinking, lack of suitable abbreviations making the prose poor, confusing prose, wordiness, formatting issues and the Google Maps issue) all left unresolved. I'm frustrated with this, and I'm ready to quit commenting further since I've even gone to making a sandbox to demonstrate how to fix it up. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'm grateful to you (and the other two reviewers) for persisting through the third FLC in trying to make things better, even if you aren't happy with the way things are going. I'm keeping a pretty close watch on that FLC, so if gets more out of hand, I'll intervene. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Series champions/archive1

With the naming issue sorted, is 3 supports a consensus? I don't remember what FL standards are. I only ask because the bot runs on Saturday, yes? Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer at least four positive declarations (although that number is not set in stone, because FLC is based on consensus, not voting), but if an old FLC has just three supports and no remaining actionable issues, I'll go ahead and promote it. Truthfully, I don't consider 13-day-old FLCs "old". Dabomb87 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oh I agree, it's just in an ideal world we could build reviewers and speed up the process to both kill the backlog and not have nominations lasting more than a month as we often do now. Sometimes responses are going to be slow, but I know you, myself, KV5, Giants2008, Rambling Man, and some others are pretty good about replying quickly enough that the stated criteria of "each nomination will last at least 10 days" isn't an unreasonable target. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well—and this is something I intend to bring up for wider discussion within the FL community—I think to "kill the backlog" we need more than just "more reviewers", which is a chronic issue that is unlikely to ever be fully addressed. We have to be more vigilant about not turning FLCs into "build-a-featured-list" workshop, and that takes a measure of boldness from both reviewers, who shouldn't be afraid to oppose if they see a lot of issues, and the directors, in closing discussions that clearly won't lead to a promotion in a reasonable amount of time. In addition, I think we have to realize that sometimes the best thing to do about stale no-consensus discussions is to close them, even if they lack substantial reviews (which is unfortunate). Dabomb87 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree about having something of a quicker trigger finger on closing dead or dying nominations, but I disagree about more opposes per se. I've never liked starting out your first post on a new F[anything]C with an oppose vote unless the item is pretty clearly not up to snuff. It comes off as somewhat aggressive/negative to me (even when I know it isn't), and leaves the risk that you could suddenly vanish from Wikipedia with a never-crossed-out oppose (I understand closers could check and decide the issue has been resolved, but still). Votes in general, whether support or oppose, should generally be an end in my mind, not a beginning. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• As I review pretty much every list, I guess I could support those which I am guaranteed not to close. That would certainly help in the short term I imagine. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• That would certainly help, although don't feel that you have to add supports to every FLC you reviewed. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain

Just went through the lede, made some tweaks but looked overall good. Sorry it took me a little while; got in some dumb argument on wiki :-(. Haven't looked at the tables yet; 1 question I'd have for you is whether the sentence fragments in the descriptions are OK or not. Thanks, Awickert (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Take your time; your edits are much appreciated. Sentence fragments in the descriptions are fine as long as they do not have sentence-ending punctuation. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK - thanks for that info! Awickert (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: the format and body text are all OK. There is an inconsistency in the way that the ages are presented, and I'm currently maintaining a holding pattern as I'd feel better if the nominator decides on what to do with this. Once that's taken care of, should be good to promote IMO. Awickert (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What is this?

What is this? I have a right to remove content I added to an article, since no one else has contributed significantly to it. Please revert yourself. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? You don't own the article. The information is relevant and properly cited, so there's no reason to remove it. Is there some guideline/policy that says you alone decide what belongs or does not belong in the article? Dabomb87 (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a guideline (or at least one time there was) that says an author has the right to blank what they have written. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not in the mainspace. Once it's there, it's there. GFDL and all that. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

FLC Family guy season 5

i see you failed the nomination, anyway i come to informe i will nominate it aging in like two weeks, i have completed giants requests. --Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 13:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

One of Giants' requests was that you find an independent copy-editor for the article. Have you done that? See WP:PRV for a list of possible reviewers and copy-editors. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing offers good advice on improving your own writing and recruiting copy-editors. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Saw media FLC

Hey there. I noticed you closed the FLC nomination for List of Saw media. I am assuming that this is because of the non-consensus from the community? I was wondering if you would support my decision to renominate it in the next few days once I fix the WP:OVERLINK issue? GroundZ3R0 002 23:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately the nomination did not receive enough reviews for me to determine whether promotion was warranted, so it was a no-consensus closure. Feel free to renominate in three or four days. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Rugrats Chanukah/archive1

Responded to your concerns. The Flash ^{talk} 02:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Further responded. :) The Flash ^{talk} 04:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bayreuth canon FLC

Thanks for your comment. My replies are atWikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Bayreuth_canon/archive1#Bayreuth_canon. Mostly I've just edited the article in line with what you said, but there are points about bold text, translations and whether or not this should be part of Bayreuth Festival where you may want to reply further.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now noticed that you've done some editing to the article too. Thanks for that.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Asian American Medal of Honor list

Thanks for the copy edit on the article. I have a question about one group of edits that you did though and that was in regards to removing the link to Italy. It has been my experience that featured lists must have all linkable items in tables linked, has that changed or is there an exception to this rule that relates to these? Im ok with it either way, just wondering. --Kumioko (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't mean to do that. I have reinstated those links. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and no worries, I just thought I missed a memo. --Kumioko (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem

No problem, just trying to further along the process. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 09:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

FLC promotions

Hi there. I'm just wondering when you think the next round of FLC promotions will occur? I was anticipating them last night, but figured it was more a lack-of-time thing as opposed to a no-promotable-lists thing. Thanks, Mm40 (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had plenty of time yesterday, but many of the promoteables had minor issues that needed to be sorted. Anyway, I'll be promoting today. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Welcome back

Well, if the current FLC directors are basically the ones handling FLRC, then I wouldn't mind taking up that duty again. I was just making sure I wasn't unseating anyone who had taken up the job in my absence. Thanks, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps that is worth discussing on WT:FLC. I hope that if you do end up returning as a director, you don't take such a long unannounced break again ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Abbriviations

I was just wondering, now there is some type of turmoil in the Wrestling WikiProject regarding Abbreviations for Locations (eg New York, where it should be listed as New York, New York or New York, NY) in the Title pages and has already been brought up here with 0 response, I'm not so much asking a response although feel free to give one, I'm just wondering which is the preferred listing if there is any? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 16:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the consensus is, but I myself prefer spelling out the state's name. Using the postal abbreviations for states creates an additional hurdle for non-American readers, and many Americans aren't intimately familiar with them, except for the more obvious ones such as TX or NY. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I just thought I'd ask you since you are an FLC Reviewer, thx for the response. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 11:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

MSM FAC

Thank you for your comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marriott School of Management/archive2. We have tried to address your concern and would invite your further participation in this FAC. Cheers! —Eustress ^talk 00:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Yep... its me again about the List of Kawartha Lakes FLC

Hey there, I know you must be sick of me by now. However, I am told that the candidacy closed this morning. I didn't see any changes to the article/its talk page or the FLC for it. If I may ask (or perhaps plead by this point), can it be extended just 48 hours? I've bent and broken and finally made the major change that was the cause of every oppose (from all of the candidacies). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind allowing you to renominate, but before you do I would like to hear from the reviewers themselves that the major concerns have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe imzadi still has a few minor nuances they'd like me to fix. The other two reviewers were only left with the Google Map references that I removed yesterday. Should I direct them here? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about list

The list is worse without the Google Maps references at all. Now there is no verifiable source for the mileage. A better, non-Google source should be found for the mileage. I would actually prefer the Google sources to be there than no source at all. To sum it up, the article is nowhere near FL quality and should not be renomianted again. ---Dough4872 02:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say there were no other problems with the article; I said I would refuse to review the rest of the article until the Google map sources were removed entirely because I would oppose solely on that. Now, the issue Dough mentions needs to be resolved before you can even consider a renomination. --Rschen7754 02:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Google maps never was the source for the mileage, I said that a long time ago. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But then what is the source of the mileage? --Rschen7754 03:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ontario Back Road Atlas (Map). MapArt. 2010. ISBN 978-1-55198-226-7. I also used the Canadian Topographic Map Atlas to confirm, but didn't feel it necessary to cite both references when one would suffice. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Use those references then instead of Google. ---Dough4872 04:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I do. It's at the top cell (the bold title cells) of the length column, as a reference following "Length." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Maps as sources for length are not acceptable since there are inevitable accuracies when you measure this way. --Rschen7754 08:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Policy please? Do you have this map? There are slight inaccuracies: I can get the kilometre down accurately no problem; The 0.1 km is an intelligent estimate based on how close to the next kilometre I am, which I can verify with Google Maps (which can accurately calculate non-linear distances). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure there are no government sources available that list the mileage of the routes? They would be better to have as sources. ---Dough4872 16:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish there were. I've sent dozens of emails to the Kawartha city government. They don't even dignify with a response. The limited information they do have on the system is slowly being pulled from their website. Next summer I am going to try and visit the archives and see what I turn up. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you wait until you get a better source for the mileage before renominating for FLC. ---Dough4872 19:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? This is a verifiable and accurate source that fully meets the requirements of WP:RS, and the conditions set out in WP:OR. You guys are just nitpicking over nothing now and its becoming rather annoying. If a policy cannot be produced that shows that A) paper maps don't qualify as a reliable source, and that B) The Canadian Topographic Atlas is unreliable, then I rest my case. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't state lengths from a paper map to a greater level of precision than given by the scale. If the scale is denoted in tenths of a kilometer, then you can give lengths derived from the map to that level of precision. You can't give lengths derived from a paper map by measuring with a ruler to a level of precision greater than the ruler used. Now, the google maps/length issue is not the only reason I was opposing over. Using the featured list criteria, I will say that your FLC didn't meet criteria 1 (prose), 2 (lead), 4 (structure, related to table sorting), and 5 (MOS, specifically related to overlinking). Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Using Google maps isn't all that different from using GIS data (although, it is adding an additional layer, and another source for rounding errors). However, the use of GIS data to source length has withstood scrutiny before. It's not the best source, but when nothing else is available, it has been used. From my own experience, the best you can do with Google maps is to .1 miles (and sometimes only to 1 mile, depends on the area). I've never tried Google using metric units, so I don't know about KM. However, I definitely agree that arguing over the source of length is petty. This list does have issues, however IMO the text formatting issues merit more attention than the souce used for length. My apologies to Dabomb for continuing a discussion on your talk page when this is not the most appropriate venue.Dave (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for continuing this... But where am I left on this? I've got a bunch of editors, some of which may have a grudge against me due to earlier encounters, saying "lengths aren't sourced" when they are... But I'm sure that when poked they'll blurt out a new set of objectives to satisfy. However, these are the same editors that determine whether I can renominate this list... - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read my comments at the last FLC. I had objections based on FL criteria 1, 2, 4 & 5. It wasn't just sources for lengths. If you also read the other two editors comments carefully, you'll note that they did not do complete reviews, instead were waiting until the sourcing of lengths was satisfactory before continuing their reviews. Simply put, I already stated ALL of my objections, whereas the other two have not. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the prose was down to a few items remaining (I will double check though). Number four is a pretty moot point, as I've already explained why I've made it sortable, and how the sorting works. There is no pressing need to remove that as it is a feature that requires the users input in order to be used. Five I fixed, and explained that in the road tables, each community is linked just once (and should be). I don't believe a single link is duplicated now. As for number two, I used your lead. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

After reading the above Floydian, I don't think the list is ready to be re-submitted yet; the reviewers' comments here indicate that issues still remain. If you feel your colleagues are not giving a fair assessment of the list, then you should bring it up for wider discussion on a WikiProject talk page or submit the article for peer review, where objective editors can give their feedback. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

speedy

Thx for that info on the delete thing. Oooh, how does one put that note on the edit page about availability? I'll see if I can work it out. ... Nope, I can't. Tony (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

List of United States Military Academy alumni (Confederate States Army)

See post on TRM's page about this. Can you also run your dash bot on this? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dash script run, and replied on TRM's talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Adams

I just found out that the main editor of the Samuel Adams article, nominated for FA review, is a very important person. He is more than an admin. He is somehow related to Arbcom, Checkuser, and more. Because of this, can I withdraw the FA Review request because of his position? If so, you can close the FA review for that very reason. I do not want to cross an associate of ArbCom since this is their website (and Jimbo Wales' website), not mine. JB50000 (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not the person you should be asking to close the FAR; that would be User:YellowMonkey. Second, I agree that the FAR should be withdrawn, but not for the reason you have (which is not a valid reason at all to close an FAR). See my comment on the page. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey there

Hello, if I remember right, you were the editor who I corresponded with on the first FLC for the List of Saw media, right? I just wanted to let you know I have resubmitted the page for FLC per our previous discussion and I am not sure how to get the talk page updated to show the current FLC. I would appreciate it if you could fix this for me. Also, if you aren't too busy, would you mind leaving some comments on it or supporting/opposing if there are no comments to make? Thanks for your time, GroundZ3R0 002 02:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You were supposed to put {{subst:FLC}} first before initiating the second nomination. Anyway, I've fixed it for you. As for reviewing the list, as an FL director, I would prefer to stay neutral and not review it, but if the FLC does not receive enough attention within a week or two I might take a look. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. For future reference, is that all I need to put and a bot will take care of the rest or what? And that sounds good thanks for the help. GroundZ3R0 002 00:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's near the top of WP:FLC, under the heading "Nomination procedure". Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Number-one lists

I noticed this. I'm by no means stringently opposing this type of list but it might be worth keeping an eye on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2005 (U.S.)/archive2 to see if the year vs decade debate picks up and has any impact on the lists at FLRC. I hope all is well, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

By all means feel free to start a discussion on the talk page. If there's an issue, the FLRC page is a good place to raise it. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

TOC

Dabomb, do you know to fix the TOC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2010? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks! I hate doing that while I'm trying to alphabetize. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

IWGP Jr Tag

I did not think there was an outstanding sort issue with the IWGP list, Will mentioned one in his sandbox that I have not had time to look at but as far as I can tell the one up for FL looks to be resolved.  MPJ -DK  05:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My FLC

Hello Dabomb, I've noticed you've sent requests to some commentors on my FLC. Thanks, I usually do that but I've forgot too lately and been busy. So thought to drop by and say it is appreciated on trying to get it moved along. Hopefully my next FLC will not be as much trouble.--WillC 11:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Delegate/director

Hey, just noticed this where you made Giants2008 a director. Meanwhile, in the FLC instructions, he's still a delegate. This paints a confusing picture (not least of all to me!) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, now fixed. When I changed the name, I didn't even think about fixing the "hierarchy", so sorry for the confusion. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

FLC

Thanks for the post. I don't think my issues have been resolved yet. I still think that the English is pretty ungainly and not what is required for featured content. That is a matter of personal taste so I would be prepared to be talked out of it if other editors disagree.

However, I also consider the issue on the SA flags is important. The sporting boycott of SA started after the apartheid authorities refused to let Basil D'Oliviera lay cricket against them. Therefore I think it is important to distinguish the two eras of SA cricket by using the flag of the racist state as appropriate. The list author is also still following up my content query about whether the interruption to Bradman's international career started earlier than 1941.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Take your time on the review; I'm glad you're putting in the effort to help bring it up to featured status. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Don't expect my presence to be so evident once my candidate is fully processed. I have a "zero-carbon" policy whereby I try to do as much work in an area as I cause. As several people have reviewed Bayreuth canon, I'm doing a few reviews back in FLC.

I do also have an aim of spending time each day I'm on Wikipedia considering an article at one of FLC, FAC, GAN and DYK or looking at ITN candidates. Because I've had both a FLC and a GAN recently, the other areas have been rather neglected. The rate of progress at FLC seems to be such that a look in about once a week to see if there is a candidate on which I have some knowledge or in which I am particularly interested would be appropriate. At the other places I try to pick similarly.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fair. I'm sorry that your FLC is not attracting reviewers, but that seems to be the case for most FLCs not relating to pop music or sports. That's systemic bias at work, I guess. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I was reluctant to pick the Bradman article for that very reason but nothing else remotely caught my eye. At least if there is going to be an FL on a cricketer, then the Don is where it should start. And I have now commented on as many candidates as people have commented on mine. Hopefully something interesting will appear by the time someone else comments on the Bc and I have to reciprocate. On the good side, I was surprised to wake up this morning and find my classical music GAN assessed when it was still a little bit from the top of the music list last time I looked.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for promoting my list! Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:FAMP and CAT:FAMP

Hi Dabomb, this is not a super-important or urgent thing but you might be interested. I noticed that the article count in WP:FAMP is about 800 off from what it is in CAT:FAMP, the latter of which is populated automatically. I remember back in September they were almost the same, so when I first noticed this tonight I got shocked and started trying to figure out what I had messed up in the category to make it stop working. But after some investigating, I think the number in WP:FAMC is the one that's wrong.

I used Perl to compare the lists in each page and see what articles were present on the WP page but not the CAT. (I was expecting to find several hundred, and then check them at random to see if I could figure out why they weren't listed in the category.) As it turns out, there were only 4 listed in the WP page and not the category, and those were all ones that were listed in error. Then I used Perl again to count the pages listed at WP:FAMP, and it came up with 1217 1214, a good deal lower than the 2000-something that is listed on the WP page but almost identical to the number listed in the cat. So unless I made a huge error in pasting the page contents to notepad, I think this must be the correct number.

I notice that the count's sudden jump from the 1000s to the 2000s occured with this edit in November. Since you're the one who made that edit, maybe you know something that I don't. Anyway, I just wanted to run this by you and see what's going on with it.

Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. When I first started maintaining that page, I never initially checked to make sure it was accurate, so who knows when the errors first appear. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably early next week I'll do a comprehensive comparison with WP:FA to fix any errors. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Year linking?

Ryoung, I find it even more troubling that now you are inserting date links as you please even while the issue is being discussed (and you have not gained any consensus for your viewpoint). I won't revert you since I know it would be futile at this moment, but please note that this sort of behavior in defying widespread community consensus will get you blocked. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you note that I merely "restored the status quo"?--that is, the way it was before the issue came up? Certainly in judicial terms, you've heard of injunctions.Ryoung122 13:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

But the status quo has changed. I do, however, agree that a cooling-off period would be a good idea. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Jay Pritzker Pavilion

	<font=3> Thanks again for your helpful comments. Jay Pritzker Pavilion is now a featured article! TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Interpol discography

Why was this closed? I was far from given enough time to act on the most recent comments. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 12:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The FLC had been running for more than a month. Please see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Closure log. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but, have you seen in the lead of WP:FLC where it states, "...longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process"? Keeping in mind the discussion was closed less than twelve hours after the most recent comment? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 00:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Longer does not mean indefinite. Keep in mind that the target FLC timing is around 10 days. As per my comments at the closure log, the issue regarding sourcing were far from resolved. Keep in mind that FLC is not a peer review. I suggest that you fully address the issues brought up at FLC, make sure that the reviewers are satisfied, and then renominate. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering that FLC also says "at least 10 days", I don't agree that this is the target time, considering this is the minimum amount of time required. And "far from resolved" is completely inaccurate, if you read the review I had found an alternative source in my final edit of the article, and had simply not put this in place for the everyHit.com sources as I thought that GoodRaise had accepted them. Surely then, it would have been simply one more edit, to use more from the same source for the other chart positions the user wasn't happy with? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 18:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if Goodraise had agreed his concerns were resolved, there still wouldn't have been consensus to promote, and once again, a month had already passed. At this point, I think you would be better served by making sure all of the remaining issues were resolved instead of arguing with me over the closure. Feel free to renominate in a couple days if you are convinced there's nothing to correct. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

RFA?

You interested in an RFA, you highly qualify for one. Thanks Secret ^account 22:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I don't think I can handle an RfA right now. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

FL

Yes I haven't edited it for a little while, because there weren't any comments until the past two days or so. I'll probably get around to it some time in the next few days. Did you have something in mind? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. No, I personally wasn't planning on commenting there, but I just wanted to make sure that someone was watching the FLC so that it didn't stagnate. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Done

Just wanted to let ya know by your request I have left a comment at the Black Eyed Peas FLC. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk}

Inform me if you need anything else done. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 21:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Highway FLRCs

Considering the Marquette AFD failed, in ways I have no idea why, I don't know what we want to do, as it seems the project consensus thing may go right out the window with this. I would want to say put the FLRCs on hold and see what happens, because its obvious we have opposal from outside of the project, including the fact that these 4 FLs have FTs attatched.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 16:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, lack of consensus means that we preserve the status quo, which in this case would be to keep the lists as FLs. I agree the best thing to do right now is to wait and see. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Eloise/archive1

Could you withdraw this please? Given the new one-nomination-per-user rule, it's probably best if I spent some time off FAC incorporating the new sources into the article. Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan

Sorry about that. I'd considered the AfD to be a foregone conclusion! Anyway, I'll do a few new FLC reviews tonight or tomorrow, I've been a bit slack lately.

Also, I was wondering if you could take a look at my suggestion here. I'm not overly bothered about the fate of the individual list, the support is more procedural than anything else. But I think it's worth clearing the matter up once and for all, rather than diluting the discussion over several promotion and removal nominations. WFCforLife (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, FLC reviews, and proposal. I'll take a look tomorrow; I'm tired now and feel a throbbing headache coming on. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Dabomb87/Archive 17, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't like the idea of an invitation-only project. Unfreferenced BLPs need all the help they can get. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

neither does anyone else! I was naive to write that, thus I am refactoring the template, thanks! Ikip 04:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Random question...

heya, in your comment at the BEP discography FLC you said that everyhit.com is acceptable enough for use and was not a big enough issue to deny an article FL status. however, that was the precise reason that the pussycat dolls discog flc failed 4 days previously? Mister sparky (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing issue was just one of the issues at the Pussycat Dolls FLC. The other problem was a general lack of support on an FLC that was more than a month old. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

so basically due to a lack of interest. no worries. i'll renominate again in a lil while. Mister sparky (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20