I already replied there (I usually watch talk pages I write on), but perhaps you missed it in the pile of orange bars you must be receiving at the moment. :) Ucucha23:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever done a detailed review on a city article—you'd probably get a more useful response from someone who has more experience with these articles. For example, Albany, New York is currently at FAC (but having some difficulties) and Little Thetford recently passed.
I can see a few problems on a quick look. In the sources, there is some inconsistency (compare retrieval dates in current refs. 87 and 88), but more importantly I wonder whether these are all the best sources possible. For example, the claim that a mayor engaged in theft is sourced in part to La Cuarta, which according to our article is a tabloid comparable to the worst British ones—hardly a reliable source on such a sensitive BLP subject! "Further reading" lists a number of reliable-looking books on the history of the city; why are those not used as main sources for the history section? Ucucha03:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Respecting the refs number 87 and 88, they contain the data about specific schools, and is managed by the Ministry of Education; and added these preferably to not repeat the ref "Escuelas". Replaced the Mayor reference with "El Rancahuaso". And yes, "further reading" lists a few reliable books about the history of Pichilemu, but I haven't had the time to buy them, except "Pichilemu y sus alrededores turísticos", which has not much information about the history of Pichilemu itself, but about specific places. Note I have started the article History of Pichilemu too. Diego Grez (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers have changed a little, but you still have some that say "Retrieved July 11, 2010" and others that say "Retrieved 2010-07-05". A minor problem.
One of the most important FA criteria is 1c: that the article reflects a comprehensive survey of the available literature. That means that important books about the city really do need to be used in the article. Ucucha18:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah!. Fixed the dates of the references (I think I catched them all). And, I'll really have to buy these books for more information. Thanks Ucucha! --Diego Grez (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ucucha, I really appreciate your efforts to maintain Wikipedia a perfect encyclopaedia.
I'm quite new here and I've lot to learn from your literated gurus.
About a word, Probortunity, I really believe it's extremely useful in common language and specially in marketing language.
At the moment is already present in 679 web pages indexed by Google. I was wandering what happen with new words.
To get an inclusion must every new word come from a book? Is not the web, the fastest book library in continuous evolution ever built?
The page is already deleted, so cannot write in the talk page there.
I really appreciate your opinion and let me know what I should do for you to re-evaluate "probortunity".
00:03, 11 September 2010 Courcelles (talk | contribs) deleted "Probortunity" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probortunity) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Farioli (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia works on the basis of reliable sources—those are defined as information outlets with a reputation for fact-checking and reliability in reporting. Usually, those are peer-reviewed papers, books published by reputable publishers, and established newspapers and other mass media. In general, we only have articles about subjects that have got some significant coverage in such reliable sources. I don't think "probortunity" has received that coverage, and the other people in the AFD agreed.
To have the article restored, you will have to ask Courcelles to reconsider or file a deletion review. However, I think you will have little chance of success with either route. It's simply not for Wikipedia to popularize words that may be useful; Wikipedia should report on them if and when reliable sources have written substantially about them. Ucucha23:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another look later today. I saw on my watchlist that it's received quite some copyediting attention, so no doubt it'll be better. Ucucha15:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I also started a fuller rewrite at User:Ucucha/Balkan, but it's difficult to find precise records in many places, and there is the additional complication of species that occur in Kosovo but not otherwise in Serbia. Ucucha11:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, man, do you know how great work you did!? That is phenomenal! How i can help? I suppose that i shouldn't edit this page then? Is it best to wait for you in Balkan rewrite? --WhiteWriter speaks18:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not totally agree with you revert here. I think the word "decent" is vague, and unclear. I think "our" should be replaced with "Wikipedia's" , because who are the people behind the word "our" ? That word (to me) implies an informal organization, or group of associates of some sort. In other words a club.
By the way, I saw you User page. Congratulations on the tremendous amount of work you have accomplished here at Wikipedia. I mean all the FA articles. I am very impressed. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Decent" may be vague, but it covers the point better than "well written". GAs aren't only well written—they also have suitably licensed images, for example. The word "decent" indicates that while GAs have to pass a meaningful set of criteria, they do not need to be near-perfect, as the FA criteria require. In fact, "well written" would perhaps be more appropriate to the FA criteria ("its prose is engaging, even brilliant") than the GA criteria, which merely require clear prose free of grammatical errors.
I don't see "our" as inappropriate: it refers to the Wikipedia community, which is indeed an informal organization. But it's not particularly necessary to the text of the page, and I have no great problem with changing it.
Thanks for your praise, but perhaps the list overstates things a little—most of those are on very limited subjects, and thus short and easy to write. Ucucha01:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you response. Your reasoning makes sense, so I will just leave it alone for now. Sometimes, I think I know about something, and it turns out that really I don't. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I struck my comment. I don't generally comment on anything else than the links in an FAC, and therefore don't support or oppose. Ucucha21:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, his "blow-job" reference made me look at his talk page, and I saw I'd already been there before, and some other things, so wonder if contribs need checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice that you had posted there before. It seems he contributes mainly on philosophy articles, and while I'm not qualified to assess those, I don't see anything obviously wrong. He apparently likes to use dirty words; perhaps he finds it funny, or thinks it makes him cool. Ucucha01:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For being one of my favourite Wikipedians at the moment- rational, reasonable, a capable writer and willing reviewer. I wish there were more like you... J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least a couple of editors have expressed interest in taking Larkin 25 to GA status. The three editors discussing this matter (including me) are kind of in the dark as to how this goes. My simple request, which is also on their behalf, is would you be willing to take a look at this article and give us some pointers about what you think needs to be improved. This does not have to be like a formal review. This is more or less to grease the wheel (so to speak) to get things rolling. We can submit to the formal process when we have an idea about what general improvements need to be made on this article. Our discussion is taking place here at Larkin 25 talk - Good editing. You are probably busy, so whatever time you can spare would be appreciated. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is merely a general interest article. It is about a festival that is almost over, taking place in England. It pertains to a notable poet who lived in this area - the town is called Kingston upon Hull (very strange to American ears). The festival is all about this poet, Philip Larkin, and it marks the 25th anniversary of his death. A lot of frogs are involved because, so the story goes, he wrote a famous poem about frogs (or something like that). I only know this article from editing it. Hopefully this helps. This is a very easy topic (or subject). Now that you understand the cultural nuances, you wiil not find it challenging in the least. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ernst again
Hello Ucucha, I was wondering if you could figure out a way to gain access to the painted turtle related content from this source? It would be MUCH appreciated.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean? You probably can't see it because you looked at the book too often (I think Google Books has a limit to the number of views per person per book), but others can still find the book in the library, or on Google Books. Ucucha15:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the edit summary. This is a featured article, and its contents have been meticulously confirmed in reliable sources; please keep it at that quality. Ucucha11:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ucucha, I'm working on bringing a number of smaller fungus species articles up to GA level, including Clavaria zollingeri. I have found a good-looking source I haven't used yet, but unfortunately for me, it's in Dutch. I would be ever so grateful if you could have a look at the PDF here (volume 49(4)) and let me know what info it has that's not in the article. There's no rush (plenty of other stuff to work on). Sasata (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at an ANI thread, regarding an issue with which you may have been involved, here. Thank you ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ucucha. So you commented on the article's FLC page a while back, and said you weren't ready to fully express your views on the article. However, I fear the article is reaching the end of its nomination, so I was hoping you can specify how you feel in terms of "Support", "Neutral" or "Oppose", or if you have a comment in which I need to fix something first. Thank you Ucucha!:)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me22:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure as to what degree your dash-fixing script is automated but during this edit a space was introduced in a <ref name="name" /> to make it <ref name="name" / > This occured in a reference contained in a table cell and really messed up the page. Just bringing this to your attention incase it was caused by your script, if it was just a user error then no worries Jebus989✰09:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this was my own fault. I noticed that citation was defined twice, and removed one instance, but in the process introduced that typo. Ucucha12:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hoi Ucucha, hope this finds you well. Listen, I just made a little sub-page for myself, User:Drmies/Roman Catholic?, where I list editors who have been making wholesale changes ("Roman Catholic" to "Catholic")--it's a regularly occurring phenomenon. I am not breaking any rules by having such a subpage, right? If I am, please delete it, but I think it's useful information and I don't know where else to put it. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much experience with this kind of thing, as long as you're doing it for a legitimate purpose (i.e., dispute resolution or minimizing disruption). Ucucha23:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is the idea, yes. I seem to remember that there was an actual account making those kinds of edits, and if that account was blocked (as I seem to remember) then this is socking. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Been reading that Code for 15 years, and had never noticed that one little clause there in 35.1 - which really does seem to be the only place that specifically mentions the Code applying to superfamilies (other than the clause in 1.2.2 which does not include the principle of priority, and the clause in the princple of coordination in which a superfamily name automatically becomes available whenever anyone publishes a new family name). Embarrassing to have that pointed out, and it's also embarrassing that my failure to notice it is not unique; I know I've had conversations with other code-conversant folks who have believed (as I did up until about 10 minutes ago) that superfamilies were not subject to all of the standard Code provisions. When I have a chance here, I'll have to go in and edit my comments accordingly, although it does not lead to a different outcome regarding Dr. Lehrer's claims that Rohdendorf is the author of either Oestroidea or Sarcophagoidea; Rohdendorf is not the author of either, and is only notable for his idiosyncratic misspellings. Thanks for correcting my error, and I won't make that mistake again. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that my first ever contribution has been censored on the grounds that it was copied from another website; not so, it was laboriously typed out from a photo of a publicly displayed notice. I do not think that this is stealing anybody's copyright.
John F A Rankin (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
John Rankin[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the list at FLC. The dead link has been update with a working one, and please let me know if there are any additional concerns that need to be addressed. --Another Believer(Talk)18:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to find a solution to the sorting that works on Safari 4 [1]. I guess it didn't work out after all? I would be good to find a solution for everybody, and to be honest, I'd much rather spend my time working on fixing problems than having to argue about them. The more I look at it, the more I suspect we may need a patch to wikibits.js using appendChild to circumvent the innerHTML failure. Do you think WP:VPT be the best place to take this? --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it didn't (it sorts to 2005–2006, 2007–Present, 2004, 2007). I tried again, and this does work. It's a rather inelegant solution, though.
I'm delighted it works for you, Thank you! Putting a hidden span on each cell in the column is inelegant, but we can use the {{sort}} template instead to make it easier for the folks at WikiProject Discographies to copy an example. I've implemented your fix at Yvonne Strahovski, and hope the functionality is accessible to all now. --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, as I didn't evaluate the article. My comment actually referred to the post before yours: GA noms should be reviewed on the basis of the GA criteria, and neither "was written in more than one week" or "was not written by SPAs" is in the GA criteria. Ucucha22:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I hope I didn't inadvertently change the meaning, in which case I'll happily correct the text. (Consider what an inexperienced editor would think on seeing "WEIGHTing discussions, backed by RS, are fine: they don't go to topic or coverage, but to extent and focus of coverage. WEIGHTing discussions haven't been disruptive.")
1. I don't know much about copyright law, but I thought that very small amounts of a work could be reproduced without infringing copyright.
2. Am I right in thinking that there is no reason why the same information cannot be conveyed in re-worded text that still cites the source? --TedColes (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what a court would say, but instead of committing either a copyright violation or plagiarism, we can (as you say) simply use different wording to convey the same ideas, citing this source. Ucucha17:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox book
Why did you make it so that only pages were the article name is the same as the book name be italic? This excludes all pages that don't use the subtitle, like The Hobbit and all disambiguated articles. The template {{Italic title}} is made to exclude the disambiguated part from being italic. Also would you mind doing the same for movies and television: {{Infobox film}}, {{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox television film}}, Thanks. Xeworlebi(talk)18:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was careful, perhaps too much so. Conceivably, we have articles on topic "X" that have a section on book Y with an infobox; in that case, the title should not be italicized. I think this is better discussed on the template's talk page.
I don't think I've posted to an "illustrated talk page" before; there was no really suitable rodent but I think I found something suitable. Thanks for the dabcheck and running the dashes script. I have a question about the dashes I hope you can help me with; there was a time when I would change en dashes to the entity reference "–" in order to make it easier to see whether the dash was the right kind in the edit window. I don't do that any more, largely because there seems to be a preference against it; and it's fine with me either way. However, it would be handy to be able to see what kind of dash something is. Do you use, or know of, an editing tool or preference that helps with this? Thanks. Mike Christie(talk)01:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WIKED shows a small "n" over an en dash and a small "m" over an em dash. (It also provides a find-and-replace functionality; if you wish, I can easily change the dashes back to the HTML entities.)
Would you change them back, if only temporarily? I just realized that I'd forgotten to unspace my em dashes, and now I can't find them. Sorry! Glad you liked the image. I will try WIKED, but probably not till tomorrow night. Thanks. Mike Christie(talk)01:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ucucha. So I remember from the FA nomination page that you were thinking of maybe copy-editing the article. You see, the only real problem would be that, so I am looking for an independent editor to help out. Do you think you can? :). Thanks anyway!--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me00:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through the article and left some templates and inline queries. I wouldn't immediately oppose it at FAC now, but I don't know whether its prose is quite good enough for FAC. Also, I'm not sure about the point of the "Legacy" section; the first paragraph seems largely critical reception and the rest is about music videos. Ucucha02:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you. I will nominate it once again, after her other pending album finishes. I will let this one go through all the way this time, so that I see any comments/concerns. Well, the legacy section is supposed to reflect "critical and commercial info" and stuff, check out other pages, like Madonna ones. Thanks again.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me02:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how it makes sense to label a section on "'critical and commercial info' and stuff" as "Legacy", and the first Madonna album article I looked at, Ray of Light (GA), doesn't have a "Legacy" section. Ucucha02:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ucucha, since you participated in the failed "Butterfly" nomination, I would like your opinion. Do you think this article is better and written better? Thanks--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me17:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy too (and you should feel free to do the same), but without that fix, your tool returned a 301 error, saying the page had moved to the URL I changed the template too. Perhaps we should use some encoding magic word? Ucucha00:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
301 and 302 codes are redirects not errors. I accidentally turned on debugging mode when refactoring the code earlier today. Its now fixed, sorry about the trouble. — Dispenser01:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if "error" is not the right word. The message did say that the page had been moved "permanently", so you can hardly blame me for thinking that it had. :-) Ucucha01:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew H. Knoll recently taught me about Neolecta, a fungus that may represent a third evolution of complex multicellularity in fungi (in addition to ascomycetes and basidiomycetes). Seems an interesting organism to work on; what do you think? Ucucha01:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I agree. I had vaguely planned to work on the earth tongues of family Geoglossaceae that have had some extensive phylogenetic work published on them very recently. I will add this one to my list. Sasata (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't know anything but names for most extinct pigs. Is hesitation in order for any suggestion that a biological family named for a central referent well represented by an English word like "pig" might contain, even if no such creature is known to science, might be assumed to contain creatures which likely would represent an intermediate form that would cause reasonable, informed people to disagree as to whether they were really (in this case "pigs") or not? In that case, there must have been "hippopigs" at some point, some of which would be in the pig-dae and others would be in the hippo-dae, and then some that would be in the gray area, even right on the line. Could this line of argument be used to caution against the idea of moving pig to Suidae, because a Suid that isn't a pig is not only possible, but probable? Chrisrus (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're using this line of reasoning often—asserting that English vernacular terms have some ulterior meaning that we have to dig out with thought experiments. I think that's wrong; in reality, words like "pig" are simply used inconsistently by different sources. Some use "pig" for the Suidae, others for some subset of the Suidae, some for Suidae + Tayassuidae; in colloquial usage it refers to Sus scrofa domesticus. We should consider what those sources say, not whether a hypothetical human who is transferred into the Miocene by a time machine would call Taucanamo a "pig" or not. Ucucha13:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what arguement is there against "Suidae" not being the article called Pig instead of Sus, as is done in the case of, for example, Squirrel? Oh, and we have gone by sources, and you're right they don't agree, but the article Pig has to go somewhwere, and despite my urging have not chosen Domestic Pig nor the disambiguation page, they've chosen Sus. I have gone in and added Suidae to the title line of the article, but by taxobox and link it's still an article about Sus only, so maybe I shouldn't have done that and return it to saying in effect, pig = sus. We can forget about the argument about probable transitional forms if you don't think it's an argument against Suidae housing "pig", but as you say it should be based on sources, and so is Sus therefore justified? Chrisrus (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I said this before on Talk:Suinae: "pig" is rarely if ever used for Sus alone, and often used either for the family or for the domestic pig alone. We should choose one of these two or make "pig" a dab page. Ucucha19:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
