User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 13

Wikipedia outlook

Its odd but I have rarely come across somebody who has actually stated exactly what I am thinking on several issues on here. To me it seems very few editors on here think the same way. In my general experience on here, many editors indeed miss just what is important to this encyclopedia and what is it here for. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that Wikipedia has come to rely too much on the safe comfort of guidelines. Guidelines exist to reflect consensus, not to determine it. This is something I state at every opportunity, and I encourage like-minded editors to do the same, The purpose of WP:IAR is not to dismiss the rules, but to encourage editors to make them work towards Wikipedia's mission and not against it. Geometry guy 22:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Album covers in articles

Theoretically, we shouldn't allow album covers in articles at all, unless they actually increase the reader's understanding of the article - most covers don't, but in some cases the album artwork is notable, controversial, iconic, or reflects a certain style. A lot of these are on the borderline, and because of this the general consensus (per your WP:IAR, oddly enough) appears to be that a (single) illustration of the cover art is unexceptional in such articles. However, the bar for usage outside the actual article about the album is clearly much higher, which is, for example, why articles about musical artists don't have galleries of album covers in discographies any more. When you have an image such as the one in Reservoir Dogs, where it clearly fails the "significantly increase readers' understanding" clause, then I don't think you can really argue for its inclusion. (Edit: Actually, it occurs to me that the whole soundtrack section should be split out of that article anyway).Black Kite 01:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Covers help me to understand an article on an album: they are a visual reminder as to whether I know the album or not and instantly do the "picture paints a thousand words" thing. However, I don't necessarily want to disagree with your conclusion here. I think there is a case to be made for spinning out the soundtrack section, just as you suggest. However, it hasn't been spun out, and so the section has to be judged on its own merits, and so an argument can be made for keeping the image, just as it might be kept in a spin out. I am not saying that I support this argument (I'm neutral) but there isn't an algorithm here: the case you made for removal was based on a misunderstanding of guidelines (that the "item" was the album cover, not the album). The case you make now is a point of view, but actually this is something I applaud. It is quite likely that there is consensus for your view that "the bar for usage outside the actual article about the album is clearly much higher", but this isn't written in the guidelines, it is the product of experience, including your experience. Such common sense and experience does not need to be backed up by enumerated guidelines to have authority. Geometry guy 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hai

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

¡No hay banda!

Seems Mulholland Dr. passed GA without being picked apart, although I felt it necessary to abandon my plan to have VanTucky review it. Chicken articles apparently take up a lot of time... I'm going to read over it this week and change parts that I think are weak. Is there anything in particular you think would snag it at FAC? --Moni3 (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is all an illusion. You hear a GA, but yet, there is none :-) Seriously, I don't think the article needed to be picked apart: it is already at the high end of GA spectrum. I'll check it over for FAC issues, but apart from dashes and copyediting, I'm not a great expert. I saw the film again this weekend: it is an amazing film, and also it was fantastic to find several websites referring to this article as a great piece of work. Geometry guy 19:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What? Which websites said this article was a great piece of work? Shakespeare on Lynch.com? Laura Harring wants to come over for chicken on Tuesday at Moni3's house.org? I miss all the great sites! --Moni3 (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I lost my browser history. The best I can find so far is a link from here which is not very impressive. But don't get your hopes up: none of these sites suggested dinner for three... :-) Geometry guy 20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely my mad article writing skillz warrant a hot dog a Pinky's. Actually, never mind. That scene was creepy. Without fail, between 1,000 and 1,500 people a day read this article. Maybe they're the same 1,350 people who are confused and keep coming back again. If you happen to stumble again upon mentions of it, send the sites my way. Whenever... Thanks again for your help with the article! --Moni3 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

ROFL at your edit summary! That scene was pretty creepy indeed. Maybe I should start my own MD subpage, as I have promised before. Meanwhile, I think you have made an "Excellent choice, Adam". This is the girl :-) Geometry guy 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

As you've mischaractered my misstep at least twice now ([1] and [2]), it seems clarification is in order. My comment did not constitute a "[misunderstanding of] a basic principle of international copyright law". It was a dyslexic transposition of "works of artistic craftsmanship" with "artistic works", the latter of which are derivatives, even when permanently displayed in areas accessible to the public. There's no misunderstanding of any fundamental principles; Stating/believing, for example, all or, alternatively no works enjoy FoP in the U.K. would be a misunderstanding. I'm not appreciative of the unnecessary specificity with which you've mentioned the comment in unrelated forums; that everyone errors is self-evident. If you take issue with me or my judgment, I'd appreciate your addressing it on my talk page. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with you or your judgment. I regard you as one of Wikipedia's most careful, conscientious and committed editors. As you say, that everyone errs is self-evident, but nominators at FAC sometimes fail to appreciate this, and bend over backwards to address every concern, when in fact concerns can be invalid. I admire and respect the work that you and others such as Black Kite do, but reducing this to an algorithm blinds nominators by science and leads them to dance to an unfamiliar tune. I deliberately tried to avoid mentioning any specific editor in my remarks (the two links you provide are the only times I've referred to this). You have correctly identified yourself as the editor, and I apologise for making this too obvious, but from what you say, you may not have identified the edit, which was this one. The end of the first paragraph is what surprised me. I would also note that the first sentence might be interesting reading for Black Kite, who has also commented here. Geometry guy 19:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Source

Hey Gguy!

I came to you because of the boxofficeindia.com discussion here.

As I said, I was really impressed by your message on the FAC. Could you please particiate at the discussion and explain what you explained on the FAC? Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

boi

On the FAC, you seem to have upheld BOI's claim as a RS. Would you please bring your arguments to the related discussion on RSN where the issue is being discussed threadbare. Until now, we have not been shown any evidence that the site is RS. The only claim that User:Shshshsh keeps repeating is that the source has been used in other sources which qualify as Reliable sources under WP:RS. That claim, exaggerated as it is, however has nothing to do with WP:RS. I would be interested to know your arguments in your own words rather than have shshshsh interpret them for us. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never interpreted his arguments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now left a comment, but more importantly a diff to my own previous words. I'm sorry I was a bit slow, but hope this helps others reach some consensus. I think it is a mistake to declare a source is reliable without further caveats. The reliability of a source depends not only on the entity being used to support the information, but also the nature of the information and the way the source is used to support that information. Geometry guy 18:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Updating the {{WikiProject Systems}} with fields

Hi, I am impressed by the whole assessment of the WikiProject Mathematics and especialy by the differentation made in fields.

Now I want to realize the same kind of differentation in fields in the WikiProject Systems. Today I started updating the {{WikiProject Systems}} with fields, and ended up copying quiet a lot of the WikiProject Mathematics Assessment structure. I documented this efford here, and realized a same "Template:WP SYS 1.0" as the "Template:WP Math 1.0".

Now I came a long way, but I didn't get to really realize the "Assessment by subject".

• See for example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems/Wikipedia 1.0/Chaos theory

Now I want to ask you if you could check my work and give me some advice how to continue. Thanks -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the main thing you have to do is ask Carl (CBM) to provide bot support for your scheme (VeblenBot supports the mathematics and WP 1.0 listings). He is one of Wikipedia's most kind and generous editors (IMO), so I think if you can demonstrate your dedication, there is a pretty good chance he'll support you. I can help out with initial template issues if necessary, but you need to provide ongoing support for the scheme. Geometry guy 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you offer. Today I tryed to complete the necessary Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems/Wikipedia 1.0/Structure. And I think I only missed a few spots, see here. Now I have a few questions but they can wait. It would help, if you could tell me if there a crusial parts stil missing?? I will contact Carl (CBM) tomorrow. Thanks again. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks fairly complete, but I can't really comment unless Carl offers support. As well as (and probably because of) being generous, he is also busy. Geometry guy 21:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory? Not really. I still have a lot of work to do reassessing and further assessing the articles in the fields of systems science. Thanks for you comment. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A class of disambiguation pages

Hi, I have a problem that I can get tagged disambiguation pages into the Category:Disambig-Class Systems articles, see for example Talk:Scientific classification (disambiguation). Now I wonder if there is something missing in the Template:Sys rating. Could you take a look at it? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a typo. I fixed it (and a similar one for Cat class). Geometry guy 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Now I saw the WikiProject is using the "Dab" abbreviation instead of the "Disambig" I used, which I pick somewhere up today from User:Canglesea, see here. Do you know what the standard is here? I actually would prefer the "dab" abbreviation, because it is shorter. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a standard. Many (most?) WikiProjects don't tag Dabs and Cats, as there is no article quality progress to track. If you want to tag them, use whichever abbreviations you prefer. Of course #switch can accommodate multiple abbreviations, not just variations in upper/lower case. Just check out the diff for my fix. Geometry guy 20:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For me the whole idea behind tagging Dabs abd Cats is to get a better understanding and overview of the field of systems science and its boundaries. I was under the impression that the WikiProject Mathematics does tag Dabs, but maybe I am mistaken!?

Now I am not sure what you mean with the #switch command. I only understand half of the templates codes any way. Only just enough to make adjustments. If it works, it works. And I am very glad that the whole system worked last year. But I checked the difference from your fix and will keep this in mind. Thanks again. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your demonstration. It works. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

An alternative assessment

Hi. I am still reassessing systems science articles with fields. Now I haven't heard from Carl any more, what probably will have its reasons. Now I wonder if there is an easy alternative here, which doesn't need any bot support. I wonder if it is possible to categorize all articles in a specific field in one category, in the same way as class and importance articles are categorized? Such categoriescan gives me the exact number of articles in any field, which I can add manually to the Wikiproject Article Statistics?. This seems to me like a good start? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you tell me if this is possible? And could you give me some directions how to get this done? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem of Apollonius

Hey G-guy,

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but if you'd like to improve the problem of Apollonius, now would be a good time to do it. I think I'm basically done — barring any unforeseen corrosive critique. ;) The people at the Math WikiProject seem oddly uninterested in helping/reviewing, so I'm going to take it to FAC directly, after one last plea for help. I think this would be the first FA for an actual geometry topic, so we'd have cause to celebrate! :) Willow (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I really want to do this, especially after the article has had a high quality third opinion which helps to concentrate on how to do the rewrite of the lead. I apologize for not getting to it right now, but I'm recovering from a minor lull in Wiki-enthusiasm: I have been too critical (indirectly) of other editors recently, while failing to appreciate my own many flaws. I need to refocus a bit, and then I hope I can really help the article. Geometry guy 19:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice that as well as Melchoir, Michael Hardy has contributed, so your post to WPM has not been unnoticed. I'm impressed by JackSchmidt and think he will also help. However, I have also been disappointed by the WikiProject and don't know very much what to do about it. There are many great editors there but there is a definite failure to focus on improving content: AfD's and notation issues attract much more comment than content. I accept my own responsibility in this failure, because I rarely watchlist the page now. Geometry guy 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Breath of breaths — everything is breath. ;) Wishing you good breath, W

Yes, I was really gratified to have such nice visitors! :) Jack wrote me a very nice, very encouraging letter last night, which I took to heart. He and Melchoir have made some original suggestions for improving the article, with good insights. Is it really true that conformal maps need not be circle-preserving?

Perhaps you could let me know what you find disagreeable about the present lead, and I could try to fix it? That shouldn't require too much enthusiasm, would it? I shortened the lead today on the advice of Melchoir; others have found it to be well-written. If you have other concerns or suggestions, mayhap you could articulate those as well? If you'd like to react to a third-party review, maybe you could wait for the FAC, as Jack has said that he would do? I'm just trying to make it easy on you. Early on, I'd thought that you would enjoy working with me on such an article; I really don't want it to be a burden. :(

It is odd that so few scientists and mathematicians contribute content, isn't it? Everyone seems so concerned with squashing "bad science/math" or whatnot that they neglect to write/improve articles. I see that especially at WP:Physics, but it seems universal. I have funny feelings about it. I feel funny because a merely persistent knitter should not be writing articles on such technical topics; the experts should be doing that, no? I also feel funny, because I have to work so hard to understand things that would come so easily and quickly to them; why don't they help or offer guidance, even when I beg them? It just seems very strange, don't you think? Willow (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to intrude, but I have noticed the same, W. There is a solution, but it's the baddest of bad words, on Wikipedia: deadlines. The vast majority of words written by journalists and academicians weren't written because they wanted to. Version 1.0 is moving along, and the Germans are almost ready to issue their printed, 50K-article, 1000-printed page Bertelsmann (Random House) encyclopedia, having been hard at work on the printed version since 2004. Not getting a core of publishable articles on Wikipedia is simply not an option; it will be printed in some form or another, and as soon as it looks like someone else is beating us to it in this new wiki-world we've created, my guess is we'll get something out the door, if we have to hire content experts or translate the German printed encyclopedia to do it. Every wikiproject should be thinking about these things. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm more of a "joy in the morning" person, and I'm not really good about deadlines myself. I'm also ashamed to say that I don't really understand all the high-level discussions that swirl around Wikipedia, so I tend to just drift off into my dreamy little world. I'm very happy for the Germans, though; I think their success reflects well on all of us and on Wikipedia, don't you? I don't think we English Wikipedians should feel any competition; every plant in the garden and every beautiful piece of music unfolds at its own proper pace, which I think is true for Wikipedias as well. I was just wishing that I weren't editing alone so much, and wondering why that was, when there are so many smart and nice experts here. Willow (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, their success does reflect well on us, which they often acknowledge. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am also lurking on this discussion. I showed it to my biochemistry PhD candidate partner last night, and she replied, "Why don't I write about my protein? Because I hate writing." --Moni3 (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's funny! :) If you someday want to surprise her with an Featured Article about her protein, we should conspire. ;) I think we could have lots of fun with it, and learn a lot; and it's always great to write with people and for people who will like what comes of it. We're both busy now, but maybe someday? Willow (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For some reason Wikipedia 1.0 has not generated enough activity here, and is often misunderstood. I think enwiki suffers a lot from being the first. It has generated a lot of important guidelines, structures and ideas, but other wikipedia sites have been able to copy these structures without carrying over the historical baggage involved in creating them. Hence, they are leaner and meaner. I have seen physics suffering for some time, but there are signs of life. I hope mathematics can reinvigorate and refocus on content. There's an effort to improve articles related to groups which is promising. Geometry guy 22:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

PS to Willow. You could never be a burden to me, ever. I really want to help with PoA, but it is getting good input e.g. from Melchoir, who has experience in developing this kind of article to FA. My lead issues are probably best addressed once bigger structural and content issues are agreed.

You're really nice to reassure me like that. :) We are making progress, and it's fun; I just want you to know that whatever you do is good in my book. :) Thanks for the suggestion about the introductory section; I totally agree and we'll try to fix it up. :) Willow (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fun is how it should be: that makes me happy. I hope my brief comments on the article will encourage more fun, and I hope to join in a bit soon. Geometry guy 22:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Soon soon? No pressure. ;-) Melchoir (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Jbm

Yes, couldn't think of anything else, and turned out nicely! Tony (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:PR/editintro

Hey man, I noticed you created Template:PR/editintro. I just thought, since we put olour into things like the image uploads and whatever, I figured this ought to have a little more colour, to really make the notice stand out to editors. I do think the wording needs some tweaking too, but I'm not sure how, but it's just a tad clunky right now. --rm 'w avu 13:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you help. I've watchlisted the page, so if you want to tweak the wording, please do. Geometry guy 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

May 19 Dispatch

Hi Geometry Guy, Sandy said that you were taking over the May 19th Dispatch about the GA Process and asked me to help. I think that we could easily have two dispatches about GA - one to explain the process and mention key people (and maybe the icon issue?), and one to talk about the 2:1 ratio milestone (with an overview of whatever article(s) should be highlighted as the ones bringing GA to the goal), the icon issue, and maybe talk about anticipated trends (will GA ever reach 3:1 ratio?). I don't have a lot of GA experience, although I did follow the icon issue. Have you had any ideas or begun work yet? Let me know how I can help. Karanacs (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you talk about key people, it might be nice to mention Original GA'sters, those who formerly were key people, like User:Homestarmy, User:LaraLove and the editor who started it all.. umm.. was it User:Worldtraveller (who quit Wikipedia in disgust)... Ling.Nut (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for commenting: I have no desire to take over anything, but I recognise the strong desire to do GA-related dispatch and want to help. I attempted to draft a possible such dispatch here. However my writing is so bad that I could not bear even to copyedit it myself, let alone turn it into something presentable. What I drafted is an opinion piece, but the quality of my writing is terrible. So there are two options: take this opinion piece and convert it into something well written; or take some of the ideas from the piece and adapt them into a collaboration. Among the choices presented above, I think the first GA dispatch should focus on the milestone and trends: if this generates enough interest then we can discuss the history and key players in more depth. But that is simply my opinon, and I don't wish it to carry any weight at all. Geometry guy 23:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Geometry guy, I've moved your essay to Wikipedia:FCDW/May 19, 2008 and started massaging it. I'll hopefully have more time tonight or this weekend to take a look. Any other feedback is helpful too!Karanacs (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you: you have made incredible improvements and essentially have managed to do both of the things I suggested at once! My opinion piece is still there, but it has also been adapted into a rather nice collaboration. I have some hesitations about the order, and some things which I think need a bit more work, but I'll be glad to work with you over the weekend. I also think that we do have to decide whether the article does convey an opinion, or whether it attempts to be as neutral as possible. I am happy for it to convey my opinion, but then I need to have the final cut and some clear expression in the article that it is my opinion. Geometry guy 23:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now, somewhat belatedly, restructured this to reflect my initial impetus, which has been much inspired by your massage :-). I've expressed the opinion in more neutral terms, and softened the harshness of my earlier critique of GA, as well as adding some praise for the enthusiasm of editors at GA. I think it is important, if dispatches wants to be balanced in its coverage of content review processes, that this dispatch on GA should present it in a neutral to favourable (yet realistic) light. Further copyedits towards this end will be much appreciated. Geometry guy 21:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. Sorry for the delay: I got distracted. :-)

Madonna

Would you mind taking a look at the article on singer madonna. It is currently a GA article but im quite sure it no longer meets that standard. On a quick scan, the lead is poor, there are a number of unreliable sources, a number of unformatted sources and the article is too long. Its unnessarly long, its 105,000 bytes while the Michael Jackson article is 92,000 (a great accomplishment considering his complex public life). Admittedly its not fair to compare the two articles that way but i think you will see that the madonna article no longer meets the criteria. What are your thoughts on this? Ive also asked user H20 for his input. Cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is at GAR, so I will look at it at some point soon. Geometry guy 22:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a reply. Cheers. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You have done fantastic work here, and I really hope this work can be used to benefit the encyclopedia. We have the information for a strong article on Madonna, but we have to ensure this information is accurate, reliably sourced and neutral point of view. A lot of people will come to Wikipedia's Madonna article, so I (and no doubt many other editors) greatly appreciate both critical and "lets fix this" editors coming together to get it right. Geometry guy 20:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This isnt going to be fun, some of the sources are terrible. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Spell it out as a new comment on the reassessment page. Allow for the fact that crap information from crap sources can simply be cut without it being a GA issue, but also allow for the fact that important information must be reliably sourced. If you can advise other editors on these issues, without design or preconception, you will have contributed greatly to the encyclopedia. Actually I think you have already greatly contributed considerably in this spirit, so thank you. Geometry guy 21:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for your support, this was such a good article, i dont know whats happened to it, im going to look after it from now on. ;-) Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you might like to take a look at the article and review page, if you see any other dead links or unreliable sources please do the same, some i were unsure of so left in. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a look and there are a lot of citation needed tags! I thought they might not all required at the GA level, but actually I think that most of them are. I hope this won't discourage editors with access to good sources from fixing the problems. Geometry guy 22:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

White Mountain Art

Thanks for your help re White Mountain art. You were very helpful when I was discouraged by the process. I do believe that the article is much better after comments from all concerned, especially Moni3. Now, on to FA (after a breather). Thanks again. 24.183.182.104 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry about the earlier signature. 13:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC) JJ (talk)

Helping wonderful minds meet is one of Wikipedia's great pleasures, as I'm sure you appreciate. Thanks for your thanks. Have a nice breather, and good luck with FA: ping me if you'd like my advice. Geometry guy 23:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

On the path to FA, Moni3 has suggested I list White Mountain art for peer review. I noticed that you are a volunteer for such reviews. Would you be willing to provide a peer review and offer your suggestions for improving the article? You have been very helpful in the past, and, therefore, I have respect for your opinions. If you're willing to do this, would you just add another section to the article's talk page? Please let me know. JJ (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have much expertise in what's expected at FA in an article of this type. I recommended listing the article at Peer review and I will add my comments to those of other peer reviewers if I have time. Geometry guy 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. JJ (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur peer review

I have addressed your comments on the lead. I am not the main editor, who is rather busy, but I have a few books on the subject and have been responding to the peer review comments because the article is on the FA team's task list. Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get back to you before the PR closes: I did have further comments, but need to reread the article and lead. Geometry guy 23:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem FAR

Hi - I don't know if you've paid any attention to WP:FAR#Monty Hall problem. I'm curious if the current version addresses the concerns you raised here (i.e. what Math Project rating would you give it?). Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to comment, but it seems I am too late: congratulations on the keep. I notice that a very good editor did again raise questions about the lead. I will check it out and share my own thoughts if I have time and if they would be appreciated. Geometry guy 23:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's never too late for comments and, yes, they would be appreciated. The comments about the lead were a little odd, and the editor didn't respond to my reply about them (I don't know why - perhaps my reply came across a little cranky). I've stumbled upon the FA-team and note that you're both members. I'd be happy to try to improve the lead, or for someone else to take a crack at it (a complete rewrite of the lead should perhaps be proposed on the talk page first). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's still not too late for comments, and they would still be appreciated. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If/when time permits, I'd like to help, but I'm getting more requests these days, so I can't promise! Geometry guy 00:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What's this spam? :-) I though we academics opposed spam in every form. I did not expect to find you (of all people) sending me spam! Get out of here, you most widely trusted and appreciated administrator. :-) Geometry guy 23:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. You must live in a quite different part of the academy from me. The amount of academic-related spam I receive is atrocious... book catalogues, calls for papers, notifications as to why the flag on campus is at half-mast...  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My spam filters kill almost everything apart from thank spam from grateful admins :-). And the occasional telephone call telling me I've won a holiday in the Carribean. Yeah, right. Interesting to know you're a Mancunian: that explains a lot :-) Geometry guy 23:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. Please don't forget the dispatch. I left a message on your talk page.

I haven't forgotten. Will get to it later today. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Gracias

Thanks for granting me rollback! And thank you very much for the kind comments in your edit summary - that is very much appreciated! Karanacs (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If all admin decisions were this easy, I'd use the tools more often :-) Geometry guy 02:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick question on Apollonius

Back in my day, we had to use kappa (κ) for curvature. I notice that in Curvature, k is used for signed curvature. Apollonius uses k throughout; anything wrong with that in your experience? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is defined, it is fine. Geometry guy 18:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

pah!!!

empassioned so is a word! :P --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(and if you ever see a "thorough" discussion on WP, give me a shout, eh?  :) ) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "impassioned"? Geometry guy 23:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried "vigorous" instead of "thorough", but there may be a better option, or perhaps even multiple descriptions: "at times childish, at times mature" :-) Geometry guy 23:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

GA review 1 to GA1

Just saw the change on Dr. Dre and as long as it creates no ambiguities or technical problems I think it's perfect. Concise, quick, understandable. You've got my support. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I probably need help with the "onlyinclude" sentence, which explains to nominators and reviewers that the review is transcluded, but they can edit the section as usual. These concepts are second nature to me now, so my ability to explain them to others is rapidly diminishing! Is it clear enough? Can you suggest improvements? Geometry guy 21:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:TLDR!

• WP:TLDR!
• Perhaps to my shame, I just don't have time to read through Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Is there an option that decouples GA from the ranking system, but (absolutely crucially) retains the GA dot, the GA WikiProject, the GAR and GAN processes, etc.? Preferably by making a C rating to retain the current number of levels of ranking? Note that I want both of those things, not just one or the other of them.
• You made a big mistake in your proposal by offering too many options (remove, rename, etc etc) under a single heading. People who are opposed to one but not necessarily another are inclined to !vote Oppose. People who are inclined to Support some portion of your proposal are less eager to make a blanket statement...
• Ling.Nut (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm considering this:

1. Rankings: FA–A–B–C–Start–Stub. This decouples GA from the rankings.
2. Retain the current GA buttons, bangles, projects, pages, etc.
3. Make GA a three-reviewer system. Have a list of "Approved Reviewers"; preferably twelve or more. Any article that gets !Supports from three (or two, instead?) Approved Reviewers is GA right then and there. Any article that gets !Opposes from three (or two, instead?) Approved Reviewers is removed from GAN right then and there. The added burden of time needed to get these !Supports would probably necessitate getting rid of the On Hold option, or else just making it harder or less likely to be used... If "let's take our time and discuss this" sentiments do exist, they can be pursued by !voting "On Hold"... which can still be vetoed by the minimum !opposes. Wordy? The idea is this: the default option is Fail Not Pass. Minimum !Passes will result in Pass; minimum !Fails will trump and On Hold and result in Fail.
4. Award the green dot in mainspace as a token & side-benefit of the new three-reviewer system.

Ling.Nut (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right and thanks for the critique. There's an old joke in academia about a visiting academic who offers to give a seminar. "When can you give it?" his colleages ask with interest. "Well, if it is a 2 hour seminar, I can give it now; if it is a 1 hour seminar, I can give it tomorrow; and if it is a 20 minute seminar, I can give it next week." I subscribe very much to vigorous writing (see the copyediting work I do for GAR), but I do not subscribe to WP:TLDR: another editor's waffle is no excuse for contributing in write-only mode.

I had minus one day to prepare for this poll and convince other editors that we needed to add an option on GA. It looks like I screwed up and an opportunity has been missed to sort out the confused mess we have at the moment. However, if you look at the motivation for the opposition (almost entirely from GA), you will see that it comes from an irrational fear that removing GA from the WikiProject scales will make GA irrelevant. This is, of course, complete nonsense, as you (anyone) can easily check by visiting the user page of any user who records their contributions: you will not find a list of the articles they brought to A-Class, but instead a list of the Good articles they contributed to.

Curiously, almost none of the Wikipedia 1.0/WikiProject regulars have commented either way on Option F. This could be because they did not like an extra option being added (Option G received even more scorn). Or it could be because at the back of their mind they are thinking that removing GA from the WikiProject scales will make the WikiProject scales irrelevant. I have the feeling that many editors secretly want or believe the FA-A-GA-B-Start-Stub system to be something which it palpably isn't: an encyclopedia-wide content review and quality control process. If they want that, the scheme should be removed from WikiProject templates and added to ArticleHistory instead, with approval from all contributing WikiProjects required to raise the Class of an article.

Anyway, enough complaining. Your considerations 1 and 2 are exactly the kind of thing I was aiming for, but as a matter of pure pragmatism, FA-A-B+-B-Start-Stub would be much easier to implement: just a simple rename with adjustments to the assessment descriptions to make B a lower standard and B+ slightly lower than the GA standard with more emphasis on subject matter.

I disagree completely with 3. The day GA drops the lightweight one-nominator-one-reviewer model is the day I quit GA. I guess that may mean I'll quit quite soon, as many others seem to want to make GA more and more like FA, and this has been intensified by the unhealthy obsession with the mainspace green dot. Ironically, as Marskell eloquently argues, this is much more likely to lead to the demise of GA, by making it redundant. As I hinted in the Signpost, I want to make GA less like FA, so that it actually serves a useful purpose instead of being FA-lite.

But nobodyfew will read the Signpost article as it is too long. And so is this post. Geometry guy 12:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I read it and i agree with you. The main thing about GA is that despite its one reviewer/one nominator style it's pretty rare that an article gets passed without other editors contributing. This probably only happens with more specialist articles anyway. I disagree with changing this as there's a huge backlog now, let alone if we needed more than one reviewer! For me, GA is the threshold for a useful and informative article. Some articles will never be FA; lack of available references on a subject can prevent that. Personally, FA is far too fiddly and copyedit overdose for my liking, but that's the way IT should be, taking GA down that road would be hideously bureaucratic. Just my thoughts. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for this comment. You make good points, and of course, I agree! Geometry guy 14:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) FA Lite (aka GA) serves a valuable purpose! Is this the difference between us (?): I am looking at the service it provides to the editors, as opposed to the service it provides to the articles... are you looking at the latter? If so then your remarks do have a certain odor of truth about them: the closer GA comes to FA, the less important the distinction between the articles is. However, FA Lite (aka GA) is, as I have mumbled repeatedly, the entry point for whole hosts of serious-editor-wannabes. It's where folks learn about Harvard refs and footnotes and WP:LEDEs and the importance (?) of image licensing and so on and so forth and yadda yadda. I have been squawking for the need for GA reviewer training, but don't you see, GA has been providing training to the editors—as opposed to the reviewers— all along. To be honest, in my mind that is its best function. Its second-best function is converting utter crap into tolerable workmanship. That function fails, however, when we have folks who drop in for a few drive-by reviews to make their RfA look sexier... or when we have folks offering to swap pass-for-pass... or when we have folks who don't actually know how to review up to FA Lite standards (a lesser problem, if the reviewer is sincere... since they can learn... even tho we still don't have GA reviewer training... etc. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point, and not one I had really taken into account. You are quite right that I am looking at the service GA provides to articles, both directly (improving content) and indirectly (motivating editors), but I hadn't really thought about its role in training editors on issues like references, the lead, and image licensing. However, this role is perfectly compatible with my view that GA needs to refocus on converting crap into tolerable workmanship, rather than achieving such a reliable and high standard that opposition to the green dot will be overcome. Anyway, you have a least reassured me that if my view is not accepted, which is likely, then GA will still serve some purpose! Geometry guy 14:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"No one will read"...not true, I read, especially the part about "the day I quit". Three words: 1. You 2. can't 3. leave. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and don't worry: I've no plans to leave the encyclopedia. I just prefer to contribute in areas where I can make the most difference to the encyclopedia, and if my views on an issue differ from those of most others, I can't do that. That does not mean I give up easily, though, and I'm definitely not giving up on content review processes yet! Geometry guy 14:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I admit to being opinionated, but I like Wikipedians who have a certain maturity level, that is, they spend a certain amount of time doing things they don't particularly enjoy in order to achieve a goal, and you're one of them. You're totally entitled to focus more on the processes you think are working best; I wish everyone would. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The FA reviewers spend much time commiserating with one another about the lack of help. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) But I'd be happy with a one-reviewer system at GA if the reviewers were trained. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that I was initially not in favour of your training suggestion, and in the form you were proposing I'm still not. But I can see there could be advantages to moving at least a little way in that direction. Perhaps new reviewers could be encouraged to carry out their first few reviews in tandem with an experienced reviewer? So far as the underlying philosophy of GA is concerned, I very much share G Guys view that it is an attempt to get as much of the content up to at least an acceptable standard as quickly as possible, so I'm just as much against the GA as FA-lite move as he is. The more articles that can be processed, the more editors will see what that minimum acceptable standard is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Malleus. If mass-quantity is the goal, then the system of awarding GA to worthy articles is not the best idea. It is design lends itself to camping out on individual articles, coaxing people to change them, etc. You need assembly-line editing (as opposed to reviewing) if you want large numbers of articles to be processed— something in the same spirit as the project that handles Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links.... but we currently have, or so I believe, several wikiprojects that handle different aspects of editing. There's a WP:LoCE and one for finding references and.. others, I think..? These should all be merged into one large Editing Wikiproject, with the current Wikiprojects recast as Task Forces folded into the larger one. That way we wouldn't be all willy-nilly scatterbrained chasing a bit of this and a bit of that all over the place, and making no appreciable impact. The new superset Wikiproject should have a list of articles to be improved, and editors should all work from that same list... hopefully dividing the labor efficiently... all at once on the same article? or on a group of four or five? I dunno what would be the best division. But there should be a concentrated effort by each task force on a small number of articles at once, which could either then be passed on to a different task force, OR all the task forces could work on the same article or small group of articles at once. I dunno all the details of implementation; the take-home ideas are:

1. Editing, not reviewing
2. Coordinated effort; merge all the disparate and tenuous (and in some cases, dying) wikiprojects together.

Later, Ling.Nut (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If there are many sporadic WikiProjects related to editing, then uniting them is certainly a very good idea, and I hope you will pursue it once you have finished your dissertation! On the other hand, GA is popular and very successful at motivating editors, which is not something that can be easily created from scratch. The current backlog at GA is huge: it demonstrates both the editorial need to create more GAs, and the lack of reviewers to respond to that need. We need to streamline process and lighten the criteria so that we focus on what is essential for an acceptable article. I do believe it is possible to make GA creation 10 times faster than FA creation.

When I first got involved with GAR, there was an over-emphasis on inline citation density. On the other hand, I myself am a proponent of prose quality, and this has affected GAR too. Neither of these issues are anywhere near as important as the quality of the sources. Six beautifully phrased sentences with many inline cites to unreliable web sources are no match for a poorly written paragraph based on two definitive textbooks. We need to trim down what we require from good articles so that it is realistic that the one-nominator-one-reviewer model can deliver this standard, and so that it is possible to provide an efficient reviewer training programme. Training reviewers to evaluate sources and to be aware of copyright and neutrality issues is far more important than training them to evaluate broadness, use of inline citations, formatting of references and other MoS issues. Even though some of these issues matter to me, I think we need to background them at the GA level and focus on the idea that a good article should follow WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Here I do not mean that every sentence must be cited, but the more general idea that an article must be written from sources. I value WP:NOR much more than WP:V: the latter is a consequence of the former. Such an approach to GA would merit a green dot, because such articles pass. Geometry guy 21:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fullurl

Hey template guy. GAN would be more functional for me if it used the fullurl template that for instance WP:RFA uses, that lets me view, and more important, watchlist, just the subpage that I'm interested in. I think that will make it easier to recruit people interested in particular subject areas. Has this been considered? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Can you elaborate (and feel free to waffle!)? Do you mean something like the system at WP:GAR which provides view/edit/history/watch links at the top of each article reassessment? Geometry guy 18:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, GAR is another page like that; I can watchlist the Bleach (manga) review without watchlisting all the reviews (although I see the fullurl template isn't needed; yet another thing I didn't know). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well WP:Good article reassessment/Bleach (manga)/1 uses {{al}}, which is a template I created, based on {{la}}. This in turn uses fullurl. But I don't see the problem with GAN: under the current system you just watch the article talk page. Under the proposed new system, you just watchlist the subpage. I can, of course add similar edit/history/watch links to the subpage. Is that what you are asking for? Geometry guy 19:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I can watch an article talk page if I know the article is at GAN, but in order to watch which science articles appear at GAN, I have to flood my watchlist with everything else that shows up at GAN. I'm talking about applying {{al}} or fullurl to the "mathematics" section, etc, of WP:GAN. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not completely clear. At GAR there is no way to watchlist only the mathematics articles which appear at GAR: you have to watchlist the VeblenBot page to see when articles are listed for reassessment, and then you see all of them. Articles listed at GAN already use {{la}} to provide watchlisting links. So what you seem to be suggesting is that it should be possible to watchlist each section of the GAN page. That would require placing each section on a subpage, which is not the case right now.

If WP:GAN is automated using VeblenBot-style automation, then there would be a subpage (perhaps of VeblenBot's user page, if Carl is willing to do this) for each section. Peer review is already a bit like this: whereas the peer review page itself is static, there are VeblenBot subpages which track all reviews, and also reviews within each of the 9 main topics. Would that be satisfactory? Geometry guy 19:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy with the WP:PR system. But just to be clear, and correct me if I'm wrong, I would also be happy with the way WP:RFA is set up, which is different, since it doesn't depend on a bot. I can click in any of the edit tabs on the long WP:RFA page and make an edit, and when I do, people who have watchlisted WP:RFA and also people who have watchlisted the particular candidate subpage will have the change immediately show up in their watchlist. I'm guessing that the WP:GAN could be set up similarly; that is, the page would appear to someone who edits any part of it to be exactly the same it is now, but any edit made to an item in the Mathematics section would simultaneously appear in the watchlists of people who are watchlisting WP:GAN and people who are watchlisting the (new) Mathematics subpage. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe you are wrong. Check out the edit history of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. You will see only nomination and closing activities, not contributions to the vote (and here I say vote rather than !vote). So I'm afraid your edits to individual RFAs only hit the watchlists of those who are watching that RFA. The same is true at GAR: watchlisting WP:GAR provides very little information. It has to be this way: otherwise an edit to {{fact}}, {{main}} or {{dablink}} would light up watchlists across the entire usership. Again automation could solve your problem as it does at peer review, where there is both a list of all peer reviews, and a list of peer reviews by topic. Geometry guy 21:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. In that case, the system WP:PR uses would be better for me; I don't know if it would be better for others, but I expect there are people who want to watchlist particular categories of articles at GAN. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Change rationale

What was the point in your edit on the talk pages of Harold B. Lee Library and several other articles? You changed the text from {{GAN}} to {{GA nominee}}—both of which render the same information on the talk page. I realize that you were using AWB, but if there was no rationale for this edit, I hope you will pursue fixing this problem with the program, as these types of edits may be used deceptively by some editors to "inflate" their edit counts. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

They render the same information because I moved {{GAN}} to {{GA nominee}}. I did this in order to free Template:GAN to support a change in the GAN process as discussed at WT:GAN and WT:GA. Perhaps I should have added a further rationale to the edit summary, sorry, but likewise you should have checked the background before making your comments.

This kind of comment is demotivating: inflating my edit count is absolutely the last thing on my mind. Even if I weren't an admin, I would not stoop so low as to favour my edit count above the interests of the encyclopedia. The reason I got involved in the Wikipedia project, and the only reason I still contribute, is because I think the encyclopedia is a worthy goal and I want to help. I am not naive and accept that other editors may have other motives, but I always try to assume the good faith that their deep-down motivation is similar to mine. Geometry guy 00:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you have commented here, because it drew my attention to Talk:Harold B. Lee Library. I have fixed the incorrect subtopic, and wish you luck with with the nomination. But I hope you will try harder to assume good faith. I know myself that it isn't always easy! Geometry guy 00 :47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

you deserve...

		Cookies!
		Even if you haven't finished !! you deserve some for all your incredible work on the new GA route to date. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks. Actually, cookies help even more on the journey than at the destination. Got to keep those blood sugar levels up :-) Geometry guy 18:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

beach book

• a book for the beach this summer Ling.Nut (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  For you or for me? :-) Actually, I quite like the sound of this one by the same author. :-) Geometry guy 20:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your help is requested

...at WT:Summary_style#Keep summary and main synchronized using transcluded leads. Does the suggested template work, do you think? I'm not sure if we ever got resolution with this. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've kept this on my watchlist for a while now and have commented. I sort of like the idea, but I'm not sufficiently convinced to be a driving force. Please keep me updated, e.g., if there's a Village Pump discussion. Geometry guy 20:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Copied from WT:Summary_style: Regarding "The technical issues are not completely resolved, but I'm willing to help think up further improvements": I guess I'm waiting for either you or someone else who's good with templates to give the technical issues a clean bill of health before I proceed. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I cannot pronounce a clean bill of health on templates which I have created: that's a COI. They do their best, in my view, to provide coordination between summary article and spinout. I do not think all issues have been addressed: for instance, this edit contains several valuable concerns as well as encouragement. The only thing I can say is that templates can be used to address problems with the transclusion idea, and I have created some. The best way to establish a clean bill of health is to open up the discussion so that other editors can find problems. I am willing to help to see if problems raised can be addressed. I am not willing or able to look for the problems. Geometry guy 21:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an incredible idea. Let me see if I can summarize: Specialist articles have a small bit of markup added to their lead which encloses a portion suitable for a survey. Survey articles then have one section per specialist article, use the {{main}} template to link to the full specialist article, and transclude the specialist article directly after. Due to the markup in the specialist article, only the survey portion of the article is included.

This is sort of a bottom up way of writing surveys, but in some cases this is probably wise. It also allows multiple survey articles to include the same summaries. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll mention this to Bulten. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the idea. But it really needs editors who are enthusiastic about it to make it sing. I think it could be a useful contribution to the encyclopedia, and will be delighted to provide technical support. But I think others need to promote and develop the basic idea. Geometry guy 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

← Ah, I finally figured out what part you guys were asking for help with: the spinout templates? I can find a bug in anything, so if you are willing to fix them, we are in business. I'm planning on doing a little web of articles soon, p-group, regular p-group, powerful p-group, p-group of maximal class, etc. and I'll see if I can use this new technique. Is the technique called "spinout"? It needs a name, that talk page is a bit too jumbled for newcomers to jump in. JackSchmidt (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, no need to look at the whole talk page, feel free to join the discussion at WT:Summary_style#Keep summary and main synchronized using transcluded leads. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, spinout is a good name, and is slowly replacing the less accurate "subarticle". Your help in any way will be much appreciated. Also, a demo of this idea related to p-groups would be fantastic for me because I could look at it using both my subject knowledge and my understanding of the Wikipedia idea to see if it really works. Let me know if you need any template help. Geometry guy 22:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I detect a certain lack of faith

You've done a fantastic job with the GA templates over the last few days, so I'm sorry to see that maybe you're losing some of your enthusiasm for the GA process.

For myself, I'm doing what little I can with the GA sweeps – clearly a hopeless case – but I won't review GANs. Perhaps we need to have a debate about what GA should really be about? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We probably do, but I think waiting a little first would be a good idea. Geometry guy 11:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate a little, in a sense I have actually never been a GA enthusiast. I just want to engage and improve the process, while trying to remain as objective as possible about it. I'll be interested to see if the working party is helpful. Anyway, I didn't mean to discourage a debate about "What is GA for?" and anytime you would like to initiate such a debate, I will be happy to contribute. We seem to see eye-to-eye on this one anyway. Geometry guy 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Finished with "Cold fusion" at GAN...it passed

I mentioned at the start I would "simply try to help both sides become effective Wikipedians". Well that gang agley in a hurry, because only one guy who was at the mediation was willing to put in a lot of effort, and he was a supporter, so I had to do quite a bit of work to keep everyone happy. I don't think I screwed up, or overstepped my role as reviewer...or at least, the feedback was positive. In fact, now that I think of it, from the early years that I remember of the controversy, I can't remember that anyone was ever liked by both sides, so I suppose just escaping with my skin intact is an accomplishment. But feel free to have a look if you like; this one was tough. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked over it, and you did well in challenging circumstances! I support the idea of reviewers getting involved, so I don't think you overstepped your role. Others might disagree, as you did contribute a lot to the current state of the article. However, you seem to have been constantly aware of this issue, and that is the most important thing.

As for for the current article, I find the ordering of the sections a bit odd. It seems as if it fails WP:LEAD by starting with ongoing controversy, rather than history, or the original experiment. Geometry guy 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Everyone is a bit tired out now, so I will follow through on my promise and only copy the "As for the current..." part over to the talk page to get a list going for the next time we have a "quorum". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

GA subpages

OK, so when someone does this, how am I supposed to tell if there is a subpage or not, and what it's called? Gimmetrow 02:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it this evening. GA and FailedGA need a page parameter I think. Alternatively, a separate "action" template called "Old GAN" could be introduced. If you have any preferences, let me know. I did ask a couple of days ago. Geometry guy 09:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

PR help

Hi G guy, I am taking a wikibreak this weekend. I have made the new archive for semiautomated peer reviews at Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/June 2008 so that should be fine. I will run the new SAPRs on Sunday and I think someone may do them for me before that.

Is the new PR archive made / ready? Could you keep an eye on PR and do semitransclusion if it gets too big? The bot is archiving so that should be fine, but Carl is offline too. Thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've set up the templates and archives for the new month. Carl needs to get VeblenBot to list the new monthly category, but I'm not going to bug him with this while he has family issues to attend to: it isn't urgent to list an archive. I'm watchlisting the PR page as always and if it gets too long, I will intervene while you're away. Geometry guy 00:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I only had to semitransclude 4, but it reminded me that this is a pain. We need to find a better way. Geometry guy 00:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Carl has it as one of the planned bot tasks, but I also do not want to bother him now. I have a copy and paste help for semi-transclusion here. Since I am doing very little archiving lately, if you would want to take the links to edit the article and edit the talk page out of each PR, that would be OK with me. If you are interested in puzzles, I found a PR request which seemed to have never had the template on the talk page - I added one since but am not sure how they got it to work. It is fixed, so if you are busy / have other things to do, don't worry about it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The FA-Team

Hi. There has been some discussion of how to improve the FA-Team's functioning. It's be grand if you could comment on the new suggested structure, and perhaps also look at our current proposals. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've stepped back a bit here per WP:OWN and time constraints. I will comment if I get time, but I think team needs other editors to work out how to make it into an ongoing success story, rather than a flash in the pan. Geometry guy 00:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need worry about ownership in the slightest. But yes, we do need to ensure that it isn't a flash in the pan. I do know, however, that you have plenty of other fish to fry. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, not that many fish, but also not much frying time. I'm probably flattering myself, but I do believe that if, post MMM, Mike, Wrad, myself or other FA-Team founders had vigorously engaged with the proposals process and provided strong leadership on what to do next, then we would not be in the current position. But I don't think it is a bad thing that a big next project didn't happen yet, as I think the FA-Team needs to find a way to operate which generates synergy without relying upon individuals blowing trumpets. At the moment you are probably the most prominent figure, and if your enthusiasm for the FA-Team can take it forward, then I am most happy to support you, but the ideas you suggest also provide ways to make the team generate its own synergy with a much lesser need for individual leadership. This can only be a good thing, as individual editors do indeed have many fish to fry. Geometry guy 00:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, you're not flattering yourself at all. Anyhow, I think there are still enough enthusiastic editors that we can figure out a new modus operandi. MMM was, after all, a bit exceptional in many ways. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Template question

G-guy, out of curiosity, what does using <include<includeonly></includeonly>only> on Template:GAN/subst do? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Template substitution in Wikipedia is a world of pain, and I appreciate it every time someone thanks me (as you did) for working through this world of pain and achieving the desired result. One of the biggest problems is handling noinclude, includeonly and onlyinclude sections. In this case I wanted to provide a includeonly section on a page using a substituted template. This can't be done directly because the software will simply strip the includeonly markup. So it has to be disrupted, and the only standard way of disrupting it is to use the includeonly software itself. In this case the software recognises the

<includeonly></includeonly>

and removes it when the template is transcluded. If you remove this from the code, you will find it reads

<includeonly>.

If you just used this code on its own, then the software would remove it, but by disrupting the software, it is now too late for the parser to recognise this as html, so it just adds it as plain text. Without the disruption GA review pages would include the subpage comment on the subpage itself as well as the article talk page. Geometry guy 00:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm oh so jealous of your skills. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, since I'm here and you've mentioned it, what's the difference between includeonly and onlyinclude? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a bot, which is a skill I've not yet learnt, even via AWB, although I understand the principles well enough to work with those who operate a bot. So now to includeonly vs onlyinclude. Any text between includeonly tags will only appear when the page is transcluded, not on the page itself. This is great for adding categories to an article with a template without putting the template itself in the category. Onlyinclude is more subtle and much more rarely used. Basically, if there is any onlyinclude tag on a page, then the only parts of the page which will be included when the page is transcluded will be those parts within onlyinclude tags. This was handy for a while at automated peer review, when I only wanted to include a short message about the automated peer review, not the entire text. There is also an idea to onlyinclude lead sections of articles into summary style sections: it is much easier to use onlyinclude for this (around the lead) than noinclude (around the rest of the article). Does that clarify? Geometry guy 00:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It does, thanks. About a bot, the only thing being added to WP:AWB/CP as a bot does is give you an auto save option. I'm sure you could do that! ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

White Mountain art (again)

Geometry guy: Please do me a favor and do a quick review of my introduction and the first section title "The Willey tradegy." Before I respond to Drewcifer, I would like your help. I believe I have documented the assertions. Do you agree? Thanks. JJ (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In the Willey tragedy section, the documentation supports the assertions nicely.

I'm not happy with the introduction, however. If you haven't read WP:LEAD, I recommend reading it: it is not too long, and is a good policy which really helps write good introductions and good articles. The main point is that the lead should summarize the article, yet also be a good introduction. This means the rest of the article needs to be sufficiently well-written and well-organized so that a precis provides a good introduction. At the moment, the uncited sentences

"The images stirred the imagination of Americans, primarily from the large cites of the northeast, who traveled to the White Mountains to view the scenes for themselves. Others soon followed: innkeepers, writers, scientists, and more artists. The White Mountains became a major attraction for tourists from the New England states and beyond. The circulation of paintings and prints depicting the area enabled those who could not visit, because of lack of means, distance, or other circumstance, to appreciate its beauty. During the ensuing years of the 19th century, art, tourism, and the economy of the region became inextricably linked."

do not appear to be well supported in the article, and thus conflict with WP:NOR. The solution is not to cite these sentences, but to rewrite them, and also expand the rest of the article so that these sentences reflect material in the body which is attributed to reliable secondary sources. You need to explain how the Willey tragedy encouraged not only artists, but other people to visit the region. This has to be done carefully, because Wikipedia articles are not the place to develop an argument. This article is sailing close to the wind here: it makes the argument that the Willey tragedy and increased tourism led to the development of an artistic movement which was inextricably linked to tourism and the economy of the region. This argument must be attributed to reliable secondary sources. Your own work can be among these sources, but if it predominates, you will run into trouble at FAC.

Anyway, your contributions to Wikipedia are much appreciated and I hope you continue to view my advice (on how to adapt them to Wikipedia principles) in the friendly spirit I intend. Geometry guy 22:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  Blimey, that took a while to digest! At least it gave st47 the opportunity for a nice piece of comedy: "Oppose per nom"! :-) Geometry guy 16:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  That comment gave me quite a chuckle too... :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  Indeed! Good luck anyway... I hope my challenging questions provide some the opportunity to show your critics that you have the judgement needed to be an admin. I may switch to support, but I may also switch to oppose, even though there's a lot of company there I'd rather not join. I most expect I will stay neutral. I hope you understand that I appreciate your contributions and our interactions anyway, however I !vote, and whatever the outcome. Geometry guy 02:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  Indeed, our interactions have been excellent. Much more important than the RfA. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot

Hi we meet again. The idea is that we collaborate with all of the indidivual wikiprojects and ensure we create the articles to the best of our ability and plan out and sort out names or anything else, sources etc in advance. Nothing will be done without prior discussion, unfortunately most of the people on that page have miscontrued what will actually be done. We will not be creating "millions of articles". That isn't true, has anybody stopped to think actually how long that would take. We are adding thousands of articles at a time for each country in a coordinated fashion. It may amount to around 1.5 mill eventually but not after we have seriously ensured we created articles to the best of our ability and avoid the idea that we are creating a bank of sub stubs on hamlets that will remain forever. We really haven't any idea what the total missing is. Many countries will be different and have diffferent sources. We will try to use the best and more detailed sources avilabale as suggested or proposed by each wikirpoject who have better knowledge of their countries. So Ethopia etc would be discussed and then the bot would merely establish the articles after humans have organized what will be done. There is a huge misconception that this is a lousy bot just intended to sub stub without proper planning for the future, If the information is avilabale ther eis no reason why the bot couldn't create start class articles full of data. The main obstacle is gaining access to information on may places. That isn't because there isn't anything to write about them but because a great deal of the devleoped world as yet hasn't had access to the Internet so not much is avilabale on line. I believe than given the scope of wikipedia eventually these countries will develop on the Internet in general and we will gain access to a great deal about these places which people write off as worthless because there isn't much avilabale online. Even for m,ajor towns and cities accessing reliable data is very difficult for these places, but as I say each country will be treated differnelty and whatever is available we will use to make the starte articles intially as detailed aspossible. Believe me if there was population and details avilaable on some places we'd be using them. Whatever is planned my the bot is actually a small proportion of what exists, for example google maps only lists 28,000 places in India, actually 638,000 places actually exist. This is a small proportion of what exists and we believ eis also an indication of the most notable towns and villages by country. There must be thousands excluded by each country, hamlets,tiny villages which aren't recnogized by these maps, that for me is a good indication of notability.

What frustrates me is that other countries don't get even coverage on here (the other day I started severla African cities with a population over 100,000). Its so Angol-Centric/ I've seen data for countries like Madagascar become avilabale on line and suddenly we have over a 1000 articles with half decent starter content and I am certain over time decent information on these places will became availabale if it isn't already. How people can think ignoring 95% of the world is a good thing I don't know particularly when there are so many particuarly excellent articles that could be included. If something was done automatically in creating these articles I could change my focus to actually developing and wrtiting articles rather than spending virtually ALL of my time starting them. It would allow myself and the group of editors who develop such articles to build content and concentrate on quality once we have addressed the huge uneven bias problem. I would love to start translating some of those french articles too like I did with Houmt Souk, may not be a perfect translation but it is beyond the one liner it was two weeks ago. What is very concerning is that people automically assume that nothing could possibly be written about any of the articles createfd by the bot and then they will ALL remain useless forever. The untlimate goal is a full and detailed article on every main town and village in the world. I believe we have to make this happen given the scale of wikipedia and its diversity of editors from around the world and is a step in the right direction. I guarantee that if wikipedia researched these places in their native lanagues and within the countries involved on paper people would be absolutely amazed at what actually could be written, Its not our fault that a vast amount of Africa, Asia and Latin America haven't developed enough to display their information on a computer and the web.

♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, agree with most of what you say, and am sorry if my contribution has contributed to the misconceptions in any way. Unfortunately the proposal seems to have been caught off balance by a bot approval which may not have been carefully considered, followed by an unreasonable backlash. I read through the bot request and a fair proportion of the discussion before commenting, and can understand how editors came to the conclusion that this could create over a million new stubs. I am against "inherent notability" and I think the principle created almost accidentally by the Rambot exercise is not one we should follow.

What I really want to know is how many additional articles we can expect in a year's time. This doesn't require knowing detailed population information for individual places, but only rough statistics on the city size vs rank, and an approximate sense of the minimum size of development for which this project will create an article. Even if you don't agree with an in-principle minimum population size, it might be strategic to introduce one as I think it would address many concerns. Geometry guy 20:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thats very well worked out and i believe you are likely to be within range in your estimation. Thankyou very much for being one of the few people who have tried to discuss it properly. The misconception is that I am happy to add stub articles on everywhere that will remain like that forever. I consider this very offensive in that I would love to see full articles for these places and believe it is is possible, I've seen proof of it when even I had dismissed that they would stay like that forever. You have a very valid point for creating articles on places 1000+ people. In a scale of notability, places with over 1,000 people are likely to be more notable than places with less that this and it is mor elikely that information will become avilabale on them sooner. I would certainly have no problem with geenrating 200,000 articles on these places. The main problem however is obtianing data to highlight all the town in world with a population over 1000. My concern was that America and Britain have developed grossly unevenly geographically and I am keen that the world is covered as evenly as possible. I believe that many places between 100 and 1000 people and all of the 1.5 mill articles could be developed fully...but eventually, many are likely to remain stubs for a long time, not because we couldn't write a full article on them, but because of the inability to access the knolwedge. Just yet.... So if we can find a decent amount of data for 200,000 settlements which can be created and developed I would welcome this warmly. Ideally I would willing that we could generate all the articles listed and initially create them with more details and claim to notability. If however it prooves impossible I am open to ways in which we could develop it the best we can. What I strongly dislike is such a straw poll on that village pump where people completely misundertsand the good you are trying to do for wikipedia and right off the idea without even considering that something beneficial could come of it or even consider discussing it rationally. I extrmeely dislike having to justify things to people on such pages and end up looking like a self interested and arrogant person. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If however a decent amount of info can be generated for the proposed places, I would strongly recomomend adding the full whack, providing they are adequate for people. People add villages all the time from around the world and most are one liners without proper referenceds or infoboxes, which is far worse trust me. More discussion needed I think, but remember every country will be different ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely with this last comment. Unsourced articles on villages need to go to AfD. But when reliable secondary sources are found which establish notability, such articles should be created, no matter what is the population. I would oppose at every opportunity a population requirement for articles on villages. However, it is a good first approximation for a bot, upon which human editors can add their judgement based upon available sources. Certainly this will require a different approach for each country. I hope that the recess will be accepted and that more detailed and clearly expressed ideas will be widely supported. Geometry guy 22:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

GA guidelines

I like the new procedure with dedicated review pages. You should make sure it gets in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and good point. I'll raise this. Geometry guy 00:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)