User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Re icon on theat-struct-stub

Hi Tony - I'm replying both here and on WP talk:Stub, since this does come up occasionally. There's no mandatory requirement for a stub icon, and, in fact, they were considered harmful to the servers in the past (see Wikipedia:Suspend use of stub icons), though that seems to have blown over with improvements to the servers. Though stub icons are nominally dealt with as part of WP:WSS, for the most part there is little control exercised over them except in cases where there may be controversy. Feel free to add your own (perhaps using some other iconned stub template as a guide), but please follow these simple guidelines:

1) the image should preferably be no bigger than about 40 or 50px in its longest dimension (we did have a full discussion about the size at some point, but I can't remember exactly where the discussion is or what its outcome was - keeping the icon to this size should not cause too much concern, however).

2) ensure that the image is free - "fair use" cannot be claimed for stub icons.

3) make sure it's an image that will look good at this tiny size, and try to make it as symbolic or recognisably "of its subject" as possible - a famous theatre, such as London's restored Globe Theatre, or a symbolic icon such as the smiling and frowning theatrical masks, is probably most suitable.

Grutness...wha? 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Try Image:P culture.svg :) Grutness...wha? 00:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, if you want an actual building, see the images on Wikimedia Commons under "Theatre buildings", and look for one that's free. I kinda like this one, but to each his/her own. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Coppola family tree

I compiled the Tree myself. Its already linked on one of the Categories for the Coppola family so I put it there... --Xallium (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok what do I do cause I have no clue what to name the page and stuff... =/ could you do it pweese ^_^ =D --Xallium (talk • contribs) 18:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris Young (baseball pitcher) GA on hold

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a few more things that need to be fixed. They shouldn't take too long at all, except for maybe reformatting the table for the stats. --Nehrams2020 22:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Claudia / Assyrians

Hi,

Im glad that the Claudia photo has been removed,and the article still states that she is Miss Iraq, but as long as there are some additions that direct people to the commentary section, I guess that is good enough, as for the Assyrian page, I have no idea what changes you made,since they still seemto use the page to attract attention to propose that they are an ethnic group and contradict themselves within the Paragraphs

"Being stateless, Assyrians also learn the language or languages of their adopted country, usually Arabic, Persian or Turkish. In northern Iraq and western Iran, Kurdish is widely spoken."

the above is a great example, how can you say learning the language of their newly adopted states,which basically means you migrated to these states and the point they are trying to make is that they are the descendants of the Assyrians who once started a civilization in Mesopotamia over 3,000 years ago.

I rest my case Nimrod1976 10:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL I dont know what to say! :D So now Assyrians are immigrants in Iraq and Syria. Tony can you please stop dealing with this user that seems to not know what his talking about? The only surviving language of Mesopotamia is the language of the Assyrians, yet were immigrants? "I rest my case" - :X Chaldean 15:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

World's Columbian Expo

I started a merge proposal for World's Columbian Exposition. Thoughts? ChicagoPimp 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Theatre

Tony, I appreciate your acting upon my comments and the desire to make this article a GA, but I am afraid it is not that easy. If all that was needed was a few small changes that could be made overnight by one editor, I would have put the article "on hold" rather than failed it. Unfortunately, there are some rather major issues that prevent this article from attaining the GA status, and I am afraid your edits did not address them.

As concerns WP:GAN, technically renominating it like that is rather improper, and you can even be accused of bad faith. I believe it would be good if you withdrew your nomination yourself. Please read my review again to see what else needs to be done (as I said, it will not be easy and I think it might be beyond one person to complete it, especially in a short time). Perhaps you might ask some experienced editors with expertise in the fields mentioned to help, or renominate it for CHICOTW. PrinceGloria 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I did not assume bad faith on your part, I was just warning you that you might find your nomination deleted from the list on the ground that renominating an article that has just been failed, without acting on all the concerns raised, can be seen as an attempt to get around the process in hope of finding a less stringend reviewer. If you acknowlesge yourself the article is not quite there yet, please abstain from renominating until it is - the basic premise of GAN is that you nominate articles you believe ARE fulfilling WIAGA at the moment of nomination. PrinceGloria 19:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ella Cara Deloria

Hi Tony. Why clog up a talk page with irrelevant tags? Ella Deloria spent one year, and by no means the most important one, of her long life in Chicago. It's not so much low as "vanishingly unimportant". Vizjim 05:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

i agree with the comments that you left on Vizjim's talk page. with reference to UofC alumni and similar categories, i believe tagging with importance=low does not cause problems and actually assists in (1) building associations across projects and (2) bringing higher visibility to a subject or project. as we increase use of the collapsible banner for multiple projects, resistance regarding talk page clutter should be minimized. ChicagoPimp 13:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy cremola! That's one elegant solution! I shall start implementing that across other pages I know in a day or two. Thanks for your patience and hard work. Vizjim 19:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Paul Cornell

In cases like that, I see them as equally reputable; I know some editors prize paper sources over online ones (and understandably so!), but once it's made clear that this is a digitized source from a major publishing house I doubt it will trouble anyone. (My area is music; we have the same problem with the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and its online counterpart.) Chubbles 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Assyrians

Hi,

I will send you links that are reliable sources

as for Claudia Hanna I am glad that the bloggers corrected their information and this article here regarding her is valueless so if it remains or is deleted i guess at this point it doesnt make a difference, because its obvious that she is a fraud and so are her organizers who are being sued by the owners of MISS ARAB WORLD, so her title is void. I also contacted the TV stations who interviewed her and she posed as Miss Iraq and Miss Arab World and that has been taken care of.

She will be ignored and if she attempts to use the titles for personal gain I guess then she will end up being in jail soon, and she might be arrested for fraud and impersonating some one else.

I will get back to you regarding the Assyrians soon. here is one that supports my claims and proves that they are not descendants of the semitic Assyrians that once settled the plains of the Tigris and the Euphrates valley. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/religion-christian.htmNimrod1976 12:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Rock & Roll McDonald's

I passed Rock & Roll McDonald's for WP:GA. Made some suggestions for improvements on the talk page. Good job. Jazznutuva 08:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama's Chicago importance

Sorry if I did the wrong thing. However I don't really think Senator Obama is "top importance" in the study of the city of Chicago just because he lives there. If he is elected president he might be. I didn't mean to vandalize or say anything against him. Steve Dufour 22:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussions now split

Hi there. Thanks for the note on my talk page. I'm replying here in case you didn't see my reply over there. The discussion we were having has now been split (with thanks to Kingboyk) between this one on the scope of WikiProjects (ie. the talk page tagging issue) and this one on the banner issues. Hope that helps, and hope someone knows the answer to those banner questions you had. Carcharoth 01:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

On what basis did you assign a lower priority to the article? 17:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I get that Nan might be of a lower prioity and importance to Project Chicago (I live in that area, btw), but how is she under that particular subset? She has never been there for any notable period of time. If anything, she falls under the aegis of Wikiproject: California, if there is such an animal. You might wish to remove your evaluation of the article's importance based upon basic jurisdictional concerns. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps her high school years of almost 70 years ago aren't of striking importance, but perhaps evaluating the larger scope of her life might be of more practical use here, wouldn't you think? I mean, she did accomplish a wee bit more than the rest of her graduating class, in that I am guessing that none went on to be film stars of note, or First Ladies, or philanthropists - you get what I am talking about here, right? I still assert that the involvement Reagan had with Chicago is but a smaller subset of her larger involvement elsewhere, and that it's a bit od a stretch to re-assign her notability and importance based on a 70 year-old high school education. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Kinda illustrates my point. While Obama's importance to WProject: Hawaii is as notable as Nancy is to WProject; Chicago, it would seem that the more notable category wherein these people are noteworthy is not the one assigning them less importance. Would you concede the idea that Nancy Reagan might be better included in, say, WProject: California than in Illinois, and that your stated example of Barack Obama belongs more appropriately in WikiProject Chicago (or Illinois) than in WProject: Hawaii? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, I went to the article again, and it looks like the only WProject it is contained in is Chicago's (and not California). So I guess the question now becomes, if two projects assign different levels of importance to the same article, what happens? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Change log

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chicago articles by quality log.↔NMajdan•talk 19:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm not sure what you are referring to. The bot should treat priority and importance the same, which I believe it does.↔NMajdan•talk 20:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, your project isn't set up for the priority usage, its set up for importance. You'll notice your WikiProject banner on that page doesn't even recognize the priority parameter. You also have no priority category (such as Category:Biography (politics and government) articles by priority). They can't be switched at will, the banner has to be setup for priority and categories should be created.↔NMajdan•talk 20:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It is up to the specific WikiProject to determine which one they want to use and then setup their banner and categories as such. They can not and should not be used interchangeably. WikiProject Chicago is set up to use importance. If you want to use priority, the banner needs a code change and the correct categories need to be created.↔NMajdan•talk 21:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Cans

Was I supposed to answer here? I'm a newb—this is what I wrote on my talk page:

I changed the markup for the characters (HTML dash: — or –) to the actual characters (UTF-8 dash: — or –). Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) is a good reference for this all. In short: hyphens typically join two words, en-dashes typically are used for ranges of numbers and em-dashes typically are used as pauses in sentences. Also, there should be no spaces on either side of these dashes.

Does this answer your question? Ask more if you'd like. --Parhamr 05:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony: Did you upload this image? Is it fair use or copright vio? It has been taken down and if it should be up, please help answer this.—Gaff ^ταλκ 01:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem.

Have you read WP:OWN? And WP:NOT#Bureaucracy? I think you might be losing sight of a few fundamentals along the way. See WP:ANI right now, you'll see what I mean. Just a friendly note, Guy (Help!) 22:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris Young (baseball pitcher)

Perhaps it is a pet peeve of mine, but with that javascript-based edit, I replaced all the __ with just a single _. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, do you mind if I merged some of the sub-sections into a larger section? I'm talking specifically about the "Collegiate Career" section. I don't really see a need to have so many sub-sections, given that each only contains a few lines. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sure thing. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be working on copyediting the existing article, and possibly using Baseball-Reference and Retrosheet to expand his playing career sections. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw you took the stats from Baseball-Reference, but I removed some since it doesn't seem to fit the page in Mozilla Firefox 1024x768. In any case, it shouldn't be that much of an issue. Every time he starts, we can just update the 2007 and career stats; it shouldn't be that troublesome. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You can add those back, but since he was a starter his whole career, it seems pointless to have those statistics. Given that most people work in 1024x768, it would be best to remove two other obscure statistics if you choose to add back games finished and saves. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson

Oddly, you removed the tag without correcting the problem. Either cite the claim or leave the tag. Contact me with questions. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like somebody added the referrence about the Duke case being dismissed. Is that what you were questioning or was it something else? Thanks, --Tom 12:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Norman Mailer and the Chicago Seven

Although he was not one of the Chicago Seven, Mailer gave testimony at the Chicago Seven trial: [1], so in that sense he does belong in the Chicago Seven category. I removed the Chicago project tag from the Mailer talk page because I didn't realize this was the Chicago connection it was in reference to. The only other significant Chicago connections out of Mailer's life are his writings on the '68 Democratic convention and his trysts in the mid-70s with Barbara Norris (later Norris Church) who would become Mailer's sixth wife, but whom he began a relationship with when he was still married to his fourth wife, Beverly Bentley. (A writer such as Saul Bellow is more clearly identified with Chicago--is he part of the Chicago project yet?) Please do restore the Chicago project template to the Mailer talk page if you believe his connections are significant enough.Qworty 19:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Director

No, you were simply told that we don't do that; and we don't. If you want mediation against Radiant, you will have to ask him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

People from categories

I suppose I'm a little confused as to what you are referring to. Can you give me an example? Thanks. Patken4 20:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do. Like you, I am from Chicago so that is my area of expertise. For other areas, I'm more at the mercy of people from that area. Thanks. Patken4 21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Resource

Hi TonyTheTiger, I stumbled upon this cool site while doing the stubification; the American Institute of Architects 150 Great Places in Illinois. They have a lot of pics and information, but I can't figure out how to link into their flash format for making refs. Anyway, I think it might come in handy. Speciate 01:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Absence

I do apologize for my absence lately from Wikipedia - reality has been a bit consuming! --Ozgod 04:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Double congrats!

First, for the long hoped-for FA. Second, for the amazing coincidence of this being a day when i looked at the Main page (which i almost never do). This is a testimony to your good judgment on the topic, your persistence, and the quality of your research and editing. I take a certain tiny measure of pride in the thot that i may have encouraged you more than i discouraged you! Thanks for your great work.
--Jerzy•t 22:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no requirement that the name appear in the article. The Pittsburgh WikiProject could probably help with the Andy Warhol article since there's information relevant to Pittsburgh there, but it's unlikely that the WikiProject would be able to help (at leasts, not better than any other) on the Campbell's Soup Cans article since there's not really any relevant information contained there. ShadowHalo 00:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Projects

WP:CONSENSUS says A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. This applies to a WikiProject as well as any other small group.

Membership in a project gives no special privileges; all a WikiProject is is a place where editors with a common interest can communicate with each other. Therefore, if one editor thinks (based on a project programme or not) that a tag belongs somewhere, and several other editors think otherwise, it is uncivil and contrary to consensus for the one editor to push his POV. Bots don't count in this; bots don't think at all.

If several editors think any page on Wikipedia is harmful to the project, they have the right to make that argument. If they outweigh those who like it, they have the right and power to prevail. It would be preferable to reach an agreement; but sometimes, especially on yes/no questions, this is simply not possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Tags on any pages to which they do not belong are a waste of edits, of memory space, and time. Of these the last is irreplacable.
• Consensus applies to all parts of Wikipedia, even to user space (as a glance at WP:MfD will show.
• Neutrality does not apply to talk pages; but I see no reason for WikiProject Chicago to concern itself with pages not obviously related to Chicago, by every standard. If the question had not been raised by another editor, I might not have bothered; and many of the Project's tags are doubtless being tolerated in the same fashion. Spreading its attention to tens of thousands of pages (consider how many alumni UChicago has had) is not likely to help the Project either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Claude Monet,Meules, milieu du jour -Haystacks, midday- 1890, oil on canvas,65.6 (h) x 100.6 (w) cm.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Claude Monet,Meules, milieu du jour -Haystacks, midday- 1890, oil on canvas,65.6 (h) x 100.6 (w) cm.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Claude Monet, Haystack at Sunset near Giverny (Meule, Soleil Couchant), 1891, oil on canvas, 73.3 x 92.6 cm, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston..jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Claude Monet, Haystack at Sunset near Giverny (Meule, Soleil Couchant), 1891, oil on canvas, 73.3 x 92.6 cm, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston..jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Claude Monet, Grainstack, Sun in the Mist, 1891, oil on canvas, Minneapolis Institute of Arts..jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Claude Monet, Grainstack, Sun in the Mist, 1891, oil on canvas, Minneapolis Institute of Arts..jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

NRHP resources

I see you've been creating some articles on places listed on the National Register of Historic Places. You might be interested in a couple of resources. There's the main National Register of Historic Places site, along with the National Register database. I've loaded the database on my Web server at home and provided a few query tools that make it easier for Wikipedia access. You can find these tools here, where you can query by city, county, architect, and others, and you can create the {{Infobox nrhp}} infobox. Also, you might be interested in the Historic American Buildings Survey photo database, located here. It has photos and data bases for the most notable structures.

If you're even more interested, there's Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, which has more resources as well as editors who can answer questions. Happy editing! --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:Chi redux

Hi, TTT! I'm finally back online and able to contribute again. Stupid cable company took almost a week to get my internet!

In any case, I've just taken a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories#Cook County, and before I sic the bot on those cats, I wanted to make sure that was what you wanted.

As I get caught up, I'll start working on your other suggestions for tagging - I like them and would like to add them in.

Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris Wright

Most important player of his generation? Just wait until Bob Huggins and pals give Georgetown the smacking they deserve. :) (although I would have been much happier had John Beilein stayed) DarkAudit 18:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Community Areas vs Neighborhoods

On the talk pages for Chicago Community Areas and Chicago Neighborhoods, it looks like a concensus was reached where both would be used. The problem (in my view) is that the UofC Community Areas are rather like the post-colonial countries of Africa, in that they poorly reflected tribal boundaries when they were created in 1920, and history has moved on since then. Hyde Park the neighborhood and Hyde Park the community area are the same, but some community names have been forgotten. The neighborhoods of Pilsen and Bronzeville are particulary problematic. A number of people have issued maps of Chicago's modern neighborhoods in more recent times, but we cannot use them directly because of copyright, right? Many of the community area pages say "official," which in my view is untrue because the were created by a private institution. It says all this on the Community Area page. In no way would I advocate a complete changeover of our Chicago pages to mention only neighborhoods, but since Hyde Park community area and neighborhood are the same, I thought I would use the term "neighborhood" since it is what people say right after they say "Hyde Park." Speciate 02:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Hyde Park Township still exists[2]. The Cook County Tax Assessor's office are the only ones that care about Chicago's Townships[3]. Its borders are State Street, Pershing Rd (aka 39th, but not including the modern bend over the drive), Lake Michigan, the State of Indiana, and 138th St. The little messiness on the lower left corner is associated with a meander of the Calumet River. On that map note that they still have the old Indian Boundaries. Crazy. Speciate 07:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate article

Hey,

Just wanted to let you know that there is already an article on the 860-880 Lake Shore Drive Apartments. (Go figure, no?) So you might want to consider merging the info in 860-880 Lake Shore Drive with that one.

By the way, I got your message about the Chicago Landmark Stubification process. I'll take a shot at the Noble-Seymour-Crippen House if I have some time later. Zagalejo 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Zagalejo 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Top

I assume these are new nominees for Top? Carol Mosley Braun deserves High, but not Top. Ditto with Marquette and La Salle. I have heard the names Bronko Nagurski and Red Grange, but did not associate them with Chicago, so no. If Ditka gets Top then so should Phil Jackson (perhaps High is plenty for them). Speciate 03:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

I strongly advise you to shorten you signature. Links in your signature such as User:TonyTheTiger/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM can be very confusing for a new editor requesting help at the Help desk. I advise you to read Wikipedia:Signatures again, and in particular WP:SIG#Length. ~Spebi 07:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Busch-Adolphus 3rd obit.GIF

Hello, TonyTheTiger. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Busch-Adolphus 3rd obit.GIF) was found at the following location: User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 5. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Barnstar

Here's the image you asked for, is it OK?----User:Rock2e ^{Talk - Contribs} 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Done----User:Rock2e ^{Talk - Contribs} 17:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Misc activities

thanks for the note on my talk page.

• i have been absent from the COTW effort for a couple of weeks, as i am not too interested in stubification. i have been active at GAR, and likely will continue to be. in regard to hillary clinton, i may have been too harsh in my judgement. admittidely, i am a fanatic for broad referencing, especially for "controversial" topics, e.g. politics, religion, culture, etc.
• now that the project has >8000 articles, do you have any thoughts regarding other articles that might merit top importance? i have been giving thought to topics of high notability but often paired with low recognition, several of which i consider "foundational" knowledge about chicago that i have mentioned previously. for example, (1) daniel burnham may merit top importance because of widespread influence in planning, architecture, and politics. (2) great chicago fire because of influence in architecture and street planning. (3) chicago river because of influence in landscape, economy, neighborhoods, etc. ChicagoPimp 20:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Flamingo

Thanks for your comment. It's funny that you used that link because I was in Chicago for the first time a few weeks ago, and went to Artropolis. (Maybe *that* needs its own page...) anyway thanks for the suggestions, looks like we have some outdoor sculpture articles to get cracking on. Cheers! pinotgris 21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Articles

I know that you do a lot with the Chicago Project, so I figured I would pass along a few Chicago articles that I find you might want to look over.--Kranar drogin 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Bailiwick Repertory Theatre
• Richard J. Daley College
• The Work of the Chicago Low-Income Housing Trust Fund

Thanks for that. You are going to be getting that a lot as I find them. Well, the ones that don't have project tags already to begin with. I assume that |nested=yes can go down there at the bottom then no problem? I will just have to try it out I guess.--Kranar drogin 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I created a stub here William W. Powers State Recreation Area so that the guy who is plotting points on the map can get to this one. You may want to expand it some. I have listed a link in there to the Illinois State website on State parks.--Kranar drogin 02:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion @ Chicago Landmark

Ahmmm that's your call Tony - no offence taken. I was trying to help with some sound decision making relating to the size of the Chicago Landmark article - points to which I note in the following... (1) Gallery was only set up by me to retain the images somewhere for the time being or so that the pictures could be adjusted perhaps in the format shown in this FA article - or they could go to a gallery on commons with a pointer on this page however with respect the area quoted by you as policy is in fact not currently active and is no longer relevant - see top of that page?; (2) I understand the list article did not have a particularly impressive lead but that could be fixed quite easily, and finally but most importantly (3) this article will almost certainly have to be split to reach WP:FA and probably even WP:GA simply because to pass the first (and in most cases the second) editors must follow the WP:MOS. Part of that Manual of Style includes the policy that articles over 100KB (and this article is already well over that size before the extra details are added) almost certainly should be divided up Cheers!--VS ^talk 18:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing is contentious with me Tony - blank what you need to. However whether you/we are going to FA or FL is not the issue - am I missing the main point or are you? - Tell me how do you/we get past the massive problem of breach of MOS policy with page size if you present this page at WP:FLC?--VS ^talk 18:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Fair enough - I will post it as a question at Eligibility. I close by noting that the featured List of United States cities by population - by definition a larger list with 255 entries than Chicago Landmark is only 38kbs ... I wish us both good luck given I would like my name added to its featured status if/when it gets there.--VS ^talk 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Yes heavy citation - or perhaps more pointedly the method of citation that is required for this particular article/list - is perhaps part of the problem (as are images). Boy Scouts is an article not a list but still only 30kbs - Charles Darwin is the longest Featured anything I know of at 99kbs (just under MOS policy) and has 151 citations - but it loads quite quickly because there are not many images. Chicago Landmarks does not sound like a list at this stage (hence my comments regarding FA) - but a name change can fix that ... I guess we will see.--VS ^talk 19:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I had gone back to bed after my last message and just got yours now. Thanks for confirming my thoughts on splitting. The other way may be to remove all images to a specialised commons gallery?

As for Magic Mile - I wouldn't worry about it too much - it probably has nothing to do with the topic and more to do with people's real lifes. Perhaps run it for a second week?--VS ^talk 23:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Landmark

I've been slightly iffy about having the list at Chicago Landmark fromthe start. My suggestion would be to split the list into 2, possibly 3 List of Chicago Landmarks (?-?), which can be referred to from the main article. The resulting parts should be listable as a group nom at WP:FLC (and, alongside Chicago Landmark, at WP:FTC). Does that make sense? Circeus 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant (although it's hard to tell which is the best division point.) Circeus 20:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're wondering about the length of the Chicago Landmark list, check out List of important operas -- it's pretty long, with 319 citations, yet it managed to make it to Wikipedia:Featured lists. It's not as long, though -- just 68 KB -- but the featured list review seemed to make it through with no concerns about its length.

Oh, and I never replied to you about your question about {{ChicagoWikiProject}}. The short answer is that I don't know of a way to make parameters case-insensitive (i.e. make "Class" be the same as "class"). I took a look through the template documentation and nothing obvious popped out, though there may be other template experts who would know a way around this. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock autoblock

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Batman Begins

It seems unreasonable to include a film under a city project if only a part of it is filmed there. With this line of thinking, this film should fall under WikiProject London and WikiProject Hong Kong. I've never seen any articles on films filmed in multiple locations having projects addressing each location. Do you really feel it is appropriate to include it? I would suggest bringing up the matter on the talk page, since one other editor and myself have removed the project template. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicago

See edit summary? You couldn't have just told me directly? That seems pretty rude, I am not a child, not too mention there was a discussion about the tag on the Reagan talk page which you simply ignored. IvoShandor 13:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My assessment that you were rude was premature, I am sorry. In the future though I would address ongoing discussion directly as opposed to in edit summaries, it's easy to perceive as rude, in much the same way as using templates to notify established users of IfDs, AfDs and other things can be considered rude. I mean, if you took the time to post on my talk page you could have posted the edit summary there, but I see you weren't trying to be rude. Basically I have over 2,500 pages on my watchlist and stuff gets lost there quickly, thus to find the edit summary I had to go to the article history, that's probably why I thought it was rude, but like I said, sorry. I also posted a reply to your comment at Talk:Ronald Reagan if you're interested. IvoShandor 17:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, also, I notice that you took the pics on the Marquette Building (Chicago) page. Do you have a Commons account? Are you at all familiar with it. It's a wiki but for free use media only, I upload all of my photos (including a bunch I took of U.S. Cellular Field yesterday, with more to come of Chicago as a whole, got some really good skyline pics from The Cell too) there because it makes them available to Wikipedia projects in all languages and to use them in Wikipedia takes no special skills, you just use them as you would photos uploaded to Wikipedia. All uls to Commons must have a free use license though.

This way you can avoid attaching galleries to articles (per the provisions of WP:NOT and just make gallery pages at Commons, if you look at Ogle County Courthouse you can see how I linked my gallery via {{commons}}. The project has really been growing. Might be something to think about anyway. IvoShandor 18:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent message; moved discussion (w/ my reply) from my talk page to Talk:Paul Wolfowitz#Chicago?, where more people interested in that subject can benefit from reading your explanation. --NYScholar 21:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Burnham Park GA hold

Yeah, I saw that you did a lot of work. You did your part and it's a better article, but the guy working on the history section says he may not be able to get it done so readily. That 1860-1890 graf still needs more citations, and the use of all three verb tenses in the timeline still needs to be fixed. Daniel Case 19:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've passed it now. Good work! Daniel Case 04:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff Tony - happy to see this one get there also.--VS ^talk 04:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

For direction & commitment to the Chicago WikiProject

		The Chicago WikiProject Barnstar
		For outstanding direction and commitment to the Chicago WikiProject please allow me to present the Chicago Barnstar award to you? --VS talk 06:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot image replacement

The bot is removing all nonfree images that aren't in the article namespace. I'm not sure if this applies to past TFA's though. ShadowHalo 02:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Querying by Multiple Property Submission name

Right now, I don't really have a query set up in my NRHP database query tools to query by multiple property submission name. However, if you do a query by city, it will list the Multiple Property Submission names under "multname". For example, this query for Chicago lists the following properties within the Black Metropolis Thematic Resources:

• Chicago Bee Building
• Eighth Regiment Armory
• Overton Hygienic Building
• Unity Hall
• Victory Sculpture
• Wabash Avenue YMCA

I think I linked to the PDF for the Multiple Property Submission when I did the Wabash Avenue YMCA article. If you have any other questions, let me know. At some point, I'll see about writing a query by MPS -- it would be useful. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of a public domain skyscraper database that I can use to query the fields for {{Infobox Skyscraper}}. The National Register database is public domain, being a work of the federal government, and is actually downloadable at this link. The Emporis.com data is proprietary, as far as I know.

As far as a general infobox for Black Metropolis-Bronzeville District goes, I don't think we even have an infobox for multiple property submissions. {{Infobox nrhp}} can produce an infobox for historic districts if "nrhp_type" is set to "hd", but multiple property submissions can't fit neatly into one infobox. About the closest I've come is at Cuyuna Iron Range Municipally-Owned Elevated Metal Water Tanks, but the types of properties are so similar (five metal water towers) that an infobox makes sense. We've had a bit of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places about documenting multiple property submissions, but there's still no real standard. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the Category:Historic district contributing properties category was originally meant for properties that were included as a historic district that itself is listed on the National Register, but that isn't a hard-and-fast rule. For example, Chicago Bee Building is listed as a property within a multiple property submission on the National Register, but the National Register didn't designate a district. On the other hand, the Chicago Landmarks Commission designated a Black Metropolis-Bronzeville District, so I think an argument could be made that Chicago Bee Building could be listed as a contributor to a historic district. I don't know if anyone at WP:NRHP has discussed it yet, but I don't think anyone is being bureaucratic about such things. If the types of historic districts ever become an issue, we could always revise the categorization scheme. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert Pelinka

Antonio,

I seldom log in, so just got your message about Rob Pelinka. I was able to verify that he is a Ross alum, so I've added him to the Ross page, and wikilinked his personal back back to the Ross page. I don't know if he went UM for law school, so I haven't done that linking as of yet. Again, thanks for the pick-up.

Wolvve85 Wolvve85 19:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured article userboxes

Hi, I noticed your question on the Help desk. There are featured article userboxes available at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia#Other - scroll down and watch for the userboxes with the FA stars in their id box. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 04:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hasek FAC

I addressed some of your concerns on the Hasek FAC page. I couldn't find a specific box score or two, however. Please take a look when you get a chance. Sportskido8 07:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Added extra box scores you requested. Sportskido8 04:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Chicago vs. GAC

Tony,

In reply to your message, I actually do not know the current "pass rate" - perhaps you could dig one out of the GA statistics somewhere... I didn't take that much interest in it, I'll let you know if I come accross it. That said, I believe it is pretty irrelevant - such number means nothing and trying to match up against it is pretty much pointless. What is important is submitting really high-quality GACs, especially in view of the wildly varying standards of reviewers, some of whom seem not to be aware of the WP:WIAGA at all, or at least hold it in high disregard, to say so. That results in the fact that a technical "pass" does not have to mean that the article is actually "Good" in the WIAGA sense, which is what this whole system is about.

We are actually repeatedly coming accross articles that got "passed" and exhibit glaring examples of not meeting one or several WIAGA criteria, which usually results in delisting of such article. Thus, the whole GA "passing" process in such case can only serve the self--gratification of either the nominator, author or reviewer, and can then lead to disappointment and frustration once the article is duly delisted. What is more important is the gratification you get from being sure that you have actually greated a Good Article, only then does the tag have some real meaning. I myself get pretty discontented when I find my noms passed without any comments or improvement suggestions, as I have the impression then that nobody bothered to verify whether my nom really is a good article.

OK, I guess this whole post is not quite cohesive, so I'll restate what I find the most important - the bottom line is that there is a huge responsibility on the nominator to make sure the article meets the standards before nominating, as the standards of reviews are very uneven atm, and so "passing" should not be a goal in itself. It is good to study the comments of reviewers who bother to leave them (while everybody should, you are fully entitled to solicit them from any reviewer, whether it was a fail or pass) to make sure your next nominations meet the tightest of standards, rather than count on a "second opinion" from a more careless reviewer "the next time around".

Gee, seems like I lost the plot again. I hope you did make out something out of it - I will try to later :D PrinceGloria 16:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK - excuse me for being very brief, but I really need to get some sleep tonight, and I hope that being overly brief I will manage to get my message accross better:

I don't think you can take reviews seriously in a selective manner. If a reviewer highlighted some major points about the article, you cannot just ignore those that are hard to fix. That DOES mean that some articles have to be put off indefinitely if there aren't enough sources/manpower/whatever available at the given moment, and not every article you nominate does come close to the GA criteria - on the contrary, I have noticed you did nominate quite a few that are quite far from it on their development paths.

I have more to say, but I guess by trying to keep it one thing at a time perhaps I will make it more comprehensible. I am a terrible communicator those days, please bear with me. G'night, PrinceGloria 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

One of your May 21 CfD posts...

I think you may have gotten this one in the wrong place... - J Greb 20:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Promotion

Thanks for the promotion, I feel quite honored. Speciate 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Theatre GA on hold

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. --Nehrams2020 06:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Have started on this for Wiki-Chicago - Tony.--VS ^talk 07:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • PS Damn hard to find some extra stuff on the Frank Sinatra re-opening in 1986! But still looking.--VS ^talk 07:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Lost FA

I don't understand. What nomination? Isn't it already a FA? If it needs better citations, we should just fix it. Speciate 21:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the train aficionados will do a much better job than I ever could. Speciate 21:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If it gets demoted, so be it. Speciate 21:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Rookery revisions

I've had a go at adding some content to Rookery (Chicago landmark). However I'm a bit of a fan so I'm sure the text would benefit from some NPOV-ing. Take a look when you get a chance. Ronnotel 13:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicago subway or elevated train pictures

You took hundreds of pictures of Chicago that are in Wikipedia. If you have any of the subway in Chicago or the elevated train and would be willing to submit them to Wikipedia, I may be able to use them in an article.VK35 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

GA tags

Thanks for the tags; I can't say that copyediting is worth a lot of recognition, but it was fun working on Chicago articles. Used to live there, miss the city a lot. Chubbles 20:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

Well, I appreciate the notion, but I think there's definitely more I can help out with before I can actually say I've done major contributing to the article. I left the article two weeks ago because I went to work on J. R. Richard and 1926 World Series from scratch. J. R. Richard is basically FA-ready, and I'm getting 1926 WS to GA soon. After that, I'll get back to Chris Young and hopefully do more copyediting work and expansion. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Soup can userbox

I thank you for this. I hardly deserve it, as you did the vast amount of work, but it is true that I provided some help, so I have put it on my user page with an edit summary that acknowledges your primacy! Tyrenius 22:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again. Your achievement was superb. I am glad my input was helpful in the run up to the second (and successful) application. Tyrenius 22:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd just like to quickly say thank you for the honor. It was nothing really, I was just having fun. Thank you very much again. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 22:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

No worries on the National Recording Registry list. You were the main man on that one. Keep up the great work! — WiseKwai 04:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Blackstone Library GA on hold

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 06:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Help desk qeustion on locator dots

Hey, I noticed that your Help desk question on locator dots went unanswered. I saw a thread on this a while ago, {{Superimpose}} will get the job done.--Commander Keane 11:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Editorial assistance

Well, I'll elaborate. The original J. R. Richard article was around 5KB in length, and I did a total rewrite, and basically none of the previous material (except the infobox and the categories) are in the 55KB version I've written. For 1926 World Series, there was only a paragraph of introductory context, and a bunch of stat boxes. I removed the previous text, and rewritten everything contextual that you see in the article now. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's a new page creation, I think people would most probably say "I created this page". Nishkid64 (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

CFD slow processing

Per your question on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#CFD slow processing: The administrator who closes the discussion is not required to move the articles. Normally the admin puts a note on WP:CFDW to have a bot do the work, but as this is a split, there is no way for a bot to do the work, and the admin may not have had the knowledge of the articles. I suggest that you go ahead and do the split (if you have the knowledge to do so), and once complete, just tag the old category with a speedy delete tag referencing the closed discussion. Alternatively, if you can provide a list of which articles go where, a bot operator, or someone like me with WP:AWB can make the moves for you. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure about the progress of the split, but it seems that someone has already done a lot of work moving articles into Category:Films shot in Chicago. Is it fair to assume the remainder are those that belong to Category:Films set in Chicago?

As far as AWB goes, before I got my new laptop, I had requested AWB priviledges and did not set up the software. I guess I should learn how to use it. However, can you move the remainder to the desired category unless you think it is a mistake to do so. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like only 1 article is in Category:Films shot in Chicago, plus the category which is to be split is a subcat to it, so, no, I don't think it has been done yet, and I would not be comfortable moving all the others to Category:Films set in Chicago. I am happy to help with the moves if you can provide 2 lists in a sandbox, but I'm not knowledgeable enough in the subject, and frankly don't really have the time, to evaluate each article at this time. Perhaps you might ask if someone in the WikiProject can assist if you also can't go through each article to know which belongs in each category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

per the discussion below, I have deleted the old cat. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Editorial assistance

I have now recieved a featured article userbox and a block for 3RR violation for exactly the same edits. Amazing – Gurch 23:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Browser correction failure

I mean to suggest that you try adding the <div style="height: 251px; overflow:none;">...</div> around the other code, so that overflow from the one that should have a scrollbar does not appear outside the one that should not have a scrollbar. It might not work either way... and now that I think about it, the extra 1px doesn't matter, either. I hope it works eventually - the only alternative I can think of immediately is to not use Internet Exploder. ;) Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 23:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: FAR FYI Pioneer Zephyr

I've been going through Pioneer Zephyr this evening converting refs to inline citations and adding a few more refs as appropriate and I've also started on ensuring that all fair use images have appropriate fair use rationales (which I didn't see mentioned in the FAR until I brought it up). Since you brought up the references requirement, are there any other items that you'd like to see improved on the article while I'm working on it this week? Slambo (Speak) 01:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Coppola family tree

Hi. I fixed a couple of the spacing errors but about the recent entries on the tree, im not sure about their validity. So I'm just gonna leave it like that until there is some confirmation (that it is correct or incorrect).

Lol haha... when I wrote that I planned to fix it right after but I never got around to it. I guess i'll fiddle with it now =/ --Xallium (talk • contribs) 22:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicago movies

• Thanks for your note - Yep I can handle this split for Chicago Group - will start this Saturday. Cheers!--VS ^talk 02:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Tony - this job is completed. Old category has been tagged for deletion. Cheers.--VS ^talk 01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure Tony. Not exactly sure what you are asking me in relation to Category:Second City alumni but I note the general consensus on the category for discussion point is to keep at this stage. I have added my comment there also. If I can help directly with anything please just ask - if time permits I will always help where I can.--VS ^talk 02:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Editorial Assistance

Thanks for the recognition. I appreciate it. Eggishorn 16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive for speedy delists

I say no, but I'm not really sure. To me, speedy delists are for articles that should have never been brought to review but, rather, just delisted immediately. In those cases, I put GAR as the action, but I do not include a link, only the oldid. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 04:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: New Featured Topic Viability query

I'm not sure if articles about all the things named after this man can be put together to meet the "clear similarity" and "well-defined topical scope" criterion. A topic about "things named after Blackstone" doesn't seem like a topic that one would want to study as a unified group of subjects. Maybe you should look into making a topic about "Chicago architecture" or "the Alton Railroad". If you want to try proposing it as a topic, I would include the fourth article; it was, historically, related to the others. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that "Chicago Skyscrapers" would make a good topic, though it would either be a very large topic or you would have to find a way to limit its scope. With a bit of work, either Chicago architecture or List of tallest buildings in Chicago could work as a lead article. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

New project for me

Originally, I was going to write about Chicago mass transit because of a red link but I found out that there's already a good article on it by a slightly different name. Thanks for the link.

I am going to write about Newton Minow, who has quite an interesting background. He is in Chicago. He's the Honorary Counsel General of Singapore to Chicago, has quite a law background, and headed the Federal Communications Commission at one time where he coined the term "vast wasteland" for TV. Nothing for you to do but it's my foray into Chicago related topics!VK35 17:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: IIT

Yes, it was on GAC, although I couldn't tell you why I passed a GA from a year ago, when standards for sourcing were not quite so stringent. I'm not sure I would pass it today. Nifboy 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Some advice

Thanks for the userbox on the Chicago Theater work, I didn't do much but it's nice to be recognized. For NRHP related articles, a word of advice here, I generally use three major sections, others if needed, History, architecture, and significance. History can cover everything about its history, who built it, when, who owned it and when, current operations etc. The Significance section covers things like honors, landmark status, Register listing, how it compares to other structures, its importance etc. Just a thought on logically structuring articles. Pop culture and trivia sections have no place in an encyclopedia article if the material is relevant it can usually be added in one of the aforementioned sections. Not just my opinion IvoShandor 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I used to be User:A mcmurray but I don't think we crossed paths until after my username switch. I am not actually a member if the Chicago Project but my travels around northern Illinois have me editing Chicago related articles occassionally. Currently, I am working on some places in Oak Park. Also hope those tips help, I just happened to notice some GA review comments on Blackstone Library, I think that was the one. IvoShandor 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have always seen the GA process as a step on the way to further improving an article, I take it as such when I review an article. I apply the criteria pretty strictly, other editors sometimes don't. I would say more articles fail than pass. All of my noms have passed but I usually do significant work on a GA submission, if an article isn't a good length (by my personal standards) I won't even nominate it. While some of the WP Chicago noms I have seen have been a bit undercooked I wouldn't worry too much if an editor thinks some of yours are, address the concerns and nine times out of ten you will have a better article, which is really why the GA process exists, to improve articles. Overall most of the work the Chicago project has done as far as GAs has been decent, I have seen a few passes I disagreed with, as you know from my review nomination of Marquette Building, but I wouldn't take it personally if someone doesn't like some of them, not a big deal. I welcome reviews and comments because my only goal is to spread knowledge, green plus signs are nice too but not the end all of end all. Hope this doesn't come across badly, I mean this with all due respect. : ) IvoShandor 04:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As an example I have a couple article which might pass GA, Ghostbusters Building, The Century (building), but I haven't nominated them because I want them to be better before someone declares them a GA, just my personal take on the process. I think a GA should be as good as possible. IvoShandor 04:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, I had to work overnight last night. We each have our own ideas of when it is appropriate to nominate an article for GA or whatever. Just because an article lacks the status of GA doesn't mean it isn't good. My own standard, I explained a bit above, but basically I don't nominate anything that I couldn't turn into an FA with a bit more work. This, of course, is just how I like to do things. Basically any article I start (about 500 so far) I try to approach as if I might one day take it to GAC or FAC, that way I don't have to make major alterations later (like I find myself doing to the earliest articles I wrote). Then again, I am kinda a freak when it comes to architecture, so maybe that's why I nominate such a limited quantity of articles. I have a slew that have been rated B-class and I always want to get them up to GA but I keep myself too busy lately. Did you see my Oak Park stuff, I have been working on it pretty feverishly lately, been taggin' each page with WP:CHI too since Oak Park is all of one mile on 290 from the city limits. Anyway, if your interested (and I see that you are an art lover as well as a ninja (just kidding)) Oak Park has some amazing Frank Lloyd Wright work (which by any definition is art), I toured his Home and Studio (which sadly doesn't allow interior photography because it is amazing), I suggest making the trip over there if you get a chance, the tour was $12. Then I spent the day in the Frank Lloyd Wright-Prairie School of Architecture Historic District, saw, among others, the Arthur Heurtley House, Mrs. Thomas H. Gale House, Frank Thomas House and the Pleasant Home (designed by George W. Maher). Took in the other sites too like the Oak Park Conservatory and the Unity Temple. My gallery on commons for Oak Park tells a better story than I can, though I haven't uploaded everything yet and will be heading back again soon, maybe we could double team the district or something, if you're interested in that sort of thing. (There are two other districts in the area as well as one in River Forest that includes more Prairie style stuff and Wright work. I didn't even begin to scratch the surface of the Ridgeland-Oak Park Historic District or the Gunderson Historic District, both in Oak Park).

Sorry to be so long winded and off on tangents here. Basically as far as GAs go, don't worry if they don't all pass right at first, and don't hesitate to ask me for assistance on stuff man, I have worked as a newspaper editor (so I am a pretty good copyeditor) and a writer, I am around here to lend my skills. Not to toot my own horn or anything but I also know quite a lot about architecture and history so if any questions along those lines arise feel free to request my assistance. Most of all don't get discouraged or take it badly if something is being reviewed or one particular reviewer feels something isn't up to muster because it is very likely that the editor wants to see the article improve as much as you do. Anyway, done babbling for now. IvoShandor 12:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the Landmark stubbing, most excellent as I found out I lack the patience for stubbifying articles. I will be doing the Miller House (See: [4]), (I have given the architect of the house, John S. Van Bergen a pretty good start already) for you guys if you haven't already, even if it is stubbed I will try to give it a decent write up, I should be able to photograph it eventually, I am a sucker for Prairie style homes and will seek them out eventually. IvoShandor 14:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Review record

It never occurred to me I should keep one - and the more article I have reviewed, the more a chore it would be to dig out all the stuff... I think I have reviewed about 8-10 articles since I've been using this account actively on GAC and yes, most of them ended in failing (btw, I have also delisted two or three) - mostly because I tend to choose articles where the outcome is clear from the outset (I don't have that much time to spend on WP these days, so I like to make my life this bit easier :D ).

I must also say a good deal of those articles are your noms, because ever since the first article I reviewed (I think it was the Chicago Theatre) I was attempting to find one that is actually passable more or less to show you the difference. I actually think Monet's Haystacks might come close, I just have to put aside enough time for a thorough review. I guess it will have a long "on hold" list.

Oh, from your post it was not obvious to me whether you mean my record as reviewer or nominator. I have only nominated two articles as of now, one of them was promoted without much comment (even though I expected a "hold", I guess I need to "review" it myself now), and another was a fail, this time with a rather dubious justification (I am awaiting a reply from the reviewer). So it's about 50/50, though I guess the entirely wrong way :D

Now, back ad rem - you want to know what I consider a Good Article. I really intend to get down to re-reviewing the articles starting with the ones in the "Architecture" section. I do need to do some nifty time-planning to accomplish that, but I hope I will be able to start soon and I guess you will be able to see both good and bad examples. Cheers, PrinceGloria 15:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. Re: the Chicago skyline pic

I am not really sure I got what you mean, and I really don't see why an article on a building being a part of the Chicago Skyline has to include a panorama. If you could turn this into a nice template (as I said, I saw things like that done nicely, but I can't tell you how it's done), then of course it would make sense. Otherwise, it is just cluttering the article and making download time a disaster for people on slow connections. The original FA pic is, as I said, too large - though it really looks FA-ish without the protruding captions. I don't think I have answered your question as I didn't get it. Slow uptake, they say. Have a good day :D PrinceGloria 15:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: IIT GA/R

Thanks for the note. I agree the article could use some review and work - I was suprised when it made it through GA the first time around. Unfortunately I haven't had much time to devote to implementing the "roadmap" laid out shortly after the first review, but the more review the better here. - Duncanr 14:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Portage National Historic Site

I see you changed the importance of this stub. I really don't care, but why? This is considered the place of Chicago's founding, wouldn't that constitute a Top prioty rather than a Low priority? I am just wondering since it is the Plymouth Rock of the Chicago area, and most Chicago residents do not realize that. Just a question.--Kranar drogin 19:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, got it, you guys vote for top importance. I have nominated said article, and I will vote for two after a little bit of looking.--Kranar drogin 19:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Miller House

Tweak away. I still hate the address. But you guys do it how you do it, don't let me stop you. I will add coordinates to the box (which is a much better way to list the location than the address as the address has little meaning to anyone who doesn't know Chicago (read the rest of the world)). Also I posted a link to the NRHP nomination form for the Blackstone Hotel on the talk page there, it has some pretty in depth description of the interior and exterior architecture as well as information on the artchitect. IvoShandor 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I wish I was, truly. Instead I am an aspiring historian with a leaning toward architectural history and research, read historian who loves architecture and its relationship with history and culture (The research thing is the journalist in me, an occupation I have worked in as well). I have no problem taking on the section, I have almost started it twice btw that database is the most useful thing I have found as far as Illinois Registered Places. IvoShandor 23:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bplus

Hey Tony, I noticed in your edit summary on Bertrand Russell that you said there was no such rating. There actually is a rating Bplus according to WP 1.0. In fact, if you look at the diff you will see that the various wikiprojects (except the first one) display this rating in their boxes as B+. Thanks--Cronholm144 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Haystacks (Monet)

Hi Tony--thank you for the complimentary words. There would be no article to refine if not for your yeoman's work creating it! I was much impressed with your research, especially the Wildenstein catalogue numbers, which I deleted, sadly, in the interest of simplification and consistency. You provided the raw data.

I tried to find the quote you refer to, and have not yet. Let's both keep looking, and see if we can strengthen that particular section. I do think the article is solid. Cheers, JNW 02:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have found some sources, which I think help strengthen the section. JNW 05:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite

And for your hard work on the Chicago project. I lived there for 10 years and loved it. However I spend way too much time on WP already without jumping in on another project. Cheers. Steve Dufour 04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rookery @ DYK

Looking in the history, I got that you added the COTW notice on May 22 and in the following edit (at 21:25) it already had 1,848 characters (which was added to already by the end of the day). I just realized, though, my time zone is set at +6 (same as Chicago, actually), so that would have shown up as May 23 UT, which is probably what you're looking at and I should probably use for this purpose. I'm sorry for my error, but it was actually too late already (I did that yesterday, May 29 both here and in London, so the article was already past the five-day limit). Rigadoun (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, template text (navigational, infobox and/or stub) doesn't count, nor headings, references or see also's. Lists sometimes don't either, depending on how much they seem like text. I got that it was just under 1,000 when you put the COTW tag on, and in the next edit was expanded to 1,850. Rigadoun (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Had the Rookery been chosen in time, I think it would be eligible. (Basically, eligibility for an older article is fivefold expansion of text from a stub shorter than 1,500 characters, plus good refs, etc. I counted the most recent version as 6,000 some, so it met that requirement.) However, it had to be chosen within the five-day window, and for whatever reason (maybe that there have been quite a few good contributions lately, or some editors didn't find the hook interesting enough) it wasn't selected within that time. But if you just want a record of it having met those standards, you could mark it as eligible as of May 24 or so. Or did you mean for the new collaboration, Historic Michigan Boulevard District? If it gets expanded this week, it could be selected. Rigadoun (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just too old now; as DYK are supposed to represent the "newest articles." It was put in the correct place (you put them under the date of the version where the article began significant expansion, even if it was not quite up to standards yet, as it was a few days later) but it just didn't get chosen in time, maybe because the editors selecting articles didn't find the hook or article interesting enough. Rigadoun (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and don't worry about it. The article is much better (which of course is the main goal of the CHICOTW) and as you do this every week I'm sure there'll be more chances to get on the front page. Rigadoun (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

RE:GA

I would repost and wait for a different reviewer, better to have some fresh blood and an unbiased opinion. If it's up there for a while, though, I'll take another glance at it. DoomsDay349 19:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)