Hi Ucucha. First: Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! And ehm, I need your help on specieswiki (again, I needed it in October too ) Please delete the following pages:
I think you'd do better to wait until the end of the two-week period; it's been at FAC for a while and you may get more reviews when it's off FAC for a while. Ucucha (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually broke the bot completely around December 12 for some stupid reason—it ran correctly from the command line, but when run from cron it couldn't resolve some directories, leading to a PHP fatal error. The Toolserver's PHP configuration has it not print any errors, not even fatals, so it took me longer than it should have to figure that out.
Redirects may be an issue too, though. My script takes the article title from Template:TFA title, and then goes to the talk page of that title to attempt to add the maindate. I've changed the script by now so that it notifies me on my talk page when it can't add the maindate. Are you checking that all TFAs have the maindate set correctly? Ucucha (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I hope you're well- happy new year! As per this discussion, can I ask whether your bot is still running? Do we still need the WikiCup rule about notifying at FAC, or have you got that covered? J Milburn (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the code should still work. I forgot whether I turned it off a few months ago by having it check the date or by nuking it—I'll make sure it runs again come January. Ucucha (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I hadn't thought of reporting the bug; what would be the best place for similar issues in the future (WT:AWB, SourceForge, your talk page...)? Ucucha (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm with the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2011. I've been working on the Olympic marmot as part of a project, and now, multiple reviewers have told me that it's ready to be reviewed for GA! I nominated it, but TCO suggests to recruit reviewers to facilitate the process, and he directed me to you and a few other users. I would like to ask if you weren't too busy, to do the GA review for the Olympic marmot. I'd really appreciate it! I'm going to ask a few of the other names he gave me about this too, and whoever has the time to get to it first can review it. Also, I'm not sure if you were kidding on your edit notice about adding an image of a rodent to my post, but the Olympic marmot is considered a rodent, so I threw in a picture :) Thanks! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with the nomination! I'm afraid I won't have time to review it, but I'm sure a good reviewer will show up. Thanks also for putting the picture there; too few people follow that instruction. Ucucha (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I understand that you're busy, haha. The picture thing was no problem! I don't see why more people don't help you out on making your talk page more illustrated. Happy New Year! :) Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Also removed some unnecessary detail—a species article does not need a detailed review of phylogenetic relationships within the squirrel family, and it doesn't need to say what month a paper it cites was published. Ucucha (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re-list exemption
Per the instructions at WP:FAC, I would like to request an exemption to the usual two-week waiting period before re-listing Martha Layne Collins at WP:FAC. You archived the previous discussion on January 1 with only a source review, which I responded to promptly. I was hoping to get the article promoted in time to give it a chance to be WP:TFA on International Women's Day (March 8), or at least sometime during Women's History Month in the U.S. (March). Given the extreme difficulty I seem to have in getting reviews these days, an immediate re-listing may be the only way to do this. Your prompt response is appreciated. Thanks. Acdixon(talk·contribs)17:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can re-nominate the article. Your articles always seem to attract few reviews, which is a pity. Good luck this time. Ucucha (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; re-listed. Any advice on how I could generate some more interest in my nominations (short of developing a deep and abiding interest in The Simpsons LOL)? At this rate, I'll never get to my goal of having a Governors of Kentucky featured topic. Acdixon(talk·contribs)18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ucucha, since today the German article of Pipistrellus raceyi is awarded as "lesenswert" in the German wikipedia. I translated it from your article and worked it over for the German version so I think this should be interesting for you. Thank you for your excellent work, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ucucha. Happy New Year! Have you been aware of the goings-on concerning the Phodopus article? In particular, I found it necessary to tag it for citation check and expert attention, and User:Michaplot has been doing some rather fine work on it. Do you have have any views on the questions he has raised on the talk page, and could you advise him how he can get or make the maps he wants? Best regards, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed it on my watchlist, but hadn't really looked at the article yet. It's been improved quite a bit. I've written up some comments, and I hope I've not delved too much into obscure paleontology (further searching turned up another Late Pliocene record, from China; see Li Q., Zheng S.-H. and Cai B.-Q. 2008. Pliocene biostratigraphic sequence in the Nihewan Basin, Hebei, China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 46(3):210–232.). Ucucha (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Morganucodonta are mammals. The Mammal article maintains otherwise, however.
Hi, Ucucha! (Is it uh-cute-sha, oo-cut-sha, or something else?)
I am totally in agreement with the edit summary of your reversion of my recent edit. Only adherence to a crown-clade definition of Mammalia would prompt the exclusion of the morganucodonts from Mammalia, and I find devastating the attack on any such definition in Lucas, Spencer G. (1992). "Extinction and the definition of the class Mammalia". Systematic Biology. 41 (3): 370–371. doi:10.1093/sysbio/41.3.370. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (help) I call Morganucodon a mammal in a children's book I am writing.
Except inasmuch as it specifies a Triassic origin, however, the Mammal article consistently adheres to the crown-group paradigm, which excludes the Morganucodonta. The cladogram in the Evolutionary History section explicitly shows Morganucodon outside clade Mammalia. There is a major section on the McKenna/Bell classification, which excludes the Morganucodonta, not because they are extinct—the multituberculates are there—but because they are outside the crown group. No alternative classification is given.
The article is inconsistent in restricting Mammalia to the crown group while supposing that the class had its origin in the Triassic. I was admittedly mistaken in placing the crown-group's origin in the Middle Jurassic; Luo et al. (2011) place the initial divergence at the base of the Pliensbachian at 189.6 ± 1.5 Ma. That is still in the Jurassic, however.
Would you have a problem if, in the interest of consistency, I redid my edit with 190 Ma specified and Triassic replaced by Jurassic throughout? I do think that consistency is a virtue, even though I heartily disagree that taxa like Morganucodonta "are now usually placed in the unranked clade Mammaliaformes" rather than in Mammalia.
Are you aware of a secondary source to the effect that "few if any sources would place morganucodonts outside of Mammalia"? I do find one relevant to the Docodonta in Foster, John (2007). Jurassic West. Indiana University Press. p. 223. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (help) Foster says that McKenna and Bell were "essentially relegating Docodon and its relatives to a status of mammal-like but not true mammals. More recent analyses include the docodonts in the Mammalia, however." With good secondary sources, we can make claims like these in Wikipedia articles.
On a more personal note: as a Massachusetts resident interested in paleontology, can you point me to any Boston-area interest groups on the subject? This is a retirement hobby; I can work in isolation, but I would prefer some social interaction. I have not joined the New England Paleontological Society in Barre, MA, which is further away than I am interested in traveling. Surely, there is something in or around Boston, but I have yet to find it.
You are right, and my edit summary may have been hyperbolic—I forgot that McKenna and Bell do indeed place Morganucodon outside Mammalia. Even they, however, place the Late Triassic Hallautherium inside Mammalia (p. 42). I think the position that Mammalia should be limited to the crown group is a minority one (as I argued at Talk:Multituberculata) a few years ago; for example, the 2005 description of the Late Triassic Tikitherium (apparently a docodontan) calls it a "mammal" without reservation. Even a paper like Luo, Z. X.; Martin, T. (2007). "Analysis of Molar Structure and Phylogeny of Docodont Genera". Bulletin of Carnegie Museum of Natural History. 39: 27. doi:10.2992/0145-9058(2007)39[27:AOMSAP]2.0.CO;2., which talks about "mammaliaforms" and "crown-group Mammalia" throughout, is content to call docodontans "mammals".
I think the article should keep saying that mammals appeared in the Late Triassic (there is even a section header proclaiming that "True mammals evolve in the Triassic"), since that still appears to be the dominant position in the literature. Many of the related articles need work, though, and it's hard to cover a complex and unstable classification accurately.
I don't know of any interest groups, unfortunately. There are good paleontological programs at Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology and Peabody Museum—people there may well be interested in helping you out. Ucucha (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to produce consistency the easy way, but consistent terminology does the reader no favor when it is not the terminology generally used nowadays. You're pointing out that the correct approach is the harder one: define terms as they are currently used with historical notes, as necessary, explaining other usages, then modify the rest of the article accordingly.
McKenna and Bell define "Mammalia" as the crown group "comprising the most proximal common ancestor of extant monotremes and therians, plus all descendants of that ancestor." (p. 3) In presenting their classification, we need to explain that it is this crown group that is being classified, not all of Mammalia as the term is generally used. Where the text says that Mammalia is divided into the Prototheria and the Theria, we need to change it: what is so divided is the crown group. You point out that there is a section entitled "True mammals evolve in the Triassic"; that needs to be changed to "Mammals evolve in the Triassic."
I'll say a few things that I think are pertinent, though they're perhaps little more than my personal opinion—make of them what you will.
Perhaps a divide is developing between the uses of the formal term "Mammalia" and the informal term "mammal": people do employ the crown-group definition of Mammalia, but continue to call strictly non-mammalian mammaliaforms "mammals". Gaetano, L. C.; Rougier, G. W. (2011). "New materials of Argentoconodon fariasorum (Mammaliaformes, Triconodontidae) from the Jurassic of Argentina and its bearing on triconodont phylogeny". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 31 (4): 829–843. doi:10.1080/02724634.2011.589877. place Argentoconodon in Mammaliaformes only, but then suggest it was part of a widespread clade of gliding mammals.
McKenna and Bell's classification is often cited, but I think that may be less because it is good than because it is the only comprehensive and recent classification of fossil mammals. It's actually decidedly idiosyncratic in many places—I don't think I've seen any other classification put hyraxes, sirenians, and elephants in the same order, or split off golden moles into their own order, or call the bandicoot order "Peramelia". When people do use their classification, I think there's a good chance that that is because it's far easier than making a complete new classification. They're also pushing Linnean classification to the limit; no one else seems to like their mirorders and parvorders and legions much.
I don't think it's much more accurate to say that crown-group mammals are divided into Prototheria and Theria. The distinction between "mammals" and "crown-group mammals" is of course only meaningful when talking about Mesozoic mammals, and I don't think anyone still uses the Prototheria–Theria dichotomy there. McKenna and Bell for example use the subclasses Prototheria and Theriiformes, and relegate Theria to a supercohort. Other people will use other names; Boreosphenida and Australosphenida seem to be becoming increasingly fashionable (see the description of Juramaia, for example). When you're only concerned with Recent mammals, it's convenient to just divide them into Prototheria and Theria, and the latter into Marsupialia and Placentalia, but with all those fossil groups in between, the situation gets more complicated.
Oh, and I forgot to reply to the question about the pronunciation of my username. I'm not actually sure how it ought to be pronounced; it's the Quechua word for "mouse", and a few years ago I chose it because I liked Thomasomys ucucha so much. I suppose it should most likely be pronounced as in Spanish: uˈkuʧa. Sorry for my ramblings; I hope they'll find some use. Ucucha (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, thanks for your dedication to FAC over the years—as others have said, FAC wouldn't have been where it is now without you. Good luck with your work in reviewing, medical articles, and Venezuela! Ucucha (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the short run, this is going to mean that we all need to pitch in and help at FAC. If there's anything you'd like me to cover, Ucucha, just ask. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha, is the "older nom" bot mover broken? It seems to have been stalled for days, but I'm not sure ... can't remember what it's set at. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Palaeontology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ya sure?
For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Plateosaurus/archive1, i'm inclined to think that ref 43 is unacceptable. It is Mallison's personal blog. WP:SPS possibly? i'm aware of the Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications provision, but stuff like:
"But which paper am I f-ing supposed to read?"
"suffice to say that a certain highly esteemed (no kidding!) researcher"
"Oops!"
"GRMPH!!"
"And here we get to the nub of the problem, and the reason why I think AMNH FARB 6810 should not be called P. erlenbergensis, but rather P. engelhardti." pushing a fringe viewpoint!
"he checked if there were enough good characters on the sacrum to make it diagnostic (yep!)"
"Uhm, is that a total IGNORE of Moser’s assessment, or am I a hedgehog? I don#t want to have to grow all spiky all over, so I’d say it is an IGNORE, because the rest of the Discussion deals only with the question if P. erlenbergensis is a nomen nudum or not (not, P-M&N conclude)."
You're welcome to comment at the FAC if you think it's inappropriate. You cite all the examples of informal language in the post, but omit the scientific soundness of the rest. What you call a "fringe viewpoint" is the essential point of the blog post and what it's cited for in Wikipedia. I don't know much about sauropodomorph taxonomy, but the use of the name engelhardti rather than erlenbergensis agrees with recent good taxonomic sources on Plateosaurus (e.g., Moser, 2003; Yates, 2003) and with nomenclatural rules. Google Books results for Plateosaurus erlenbergensis and P. engelhardti in the recent literature suggest the same picture.
The blog post is used for a single sentence that would be impossible to source to anything else, because it refers to a very recently published paper. I think in that limited context it's acceptable. Ucucha (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply here, becasue the point wasn't raised where it belongs.
Yes, my language on my personal blog is quite informal. That's entirely the norm for the (dinosaur) palaeontological community. After all, "RTFP" is a standing expression. As Ucucha pointed out, the P-M&N paper is very new, and there has not been any scientific publication on this topic that I could cite. Thus, my blog is the best there is. Obviously, as soon as something better comes along I'll exchange it. There will very likely be something in a high-impact journal soon, by someone who is much better at Plateo taxonomy than me). (btw: I called that person recently, he agrees with my conclusion.)
So, as far as is possible given the timing of the new paper, I am "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". If you ask for more, you ask for the impossible - and thus for wikipedia to be wrong. HMallison (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, btw: "fringe" viewpoint? I#d say the "fringe" is the view that has no support anywhere, goes counter established research, and cites no support, not even a reason. As I pointed out in my post. And as Ucucha's research shows. HMallison (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the course of an ongoing case, the Arbitration Committee has decided to collect all relevant information regarding Malleus Fatuorum's block log and, as such, has created a table of all blocks, which can be found here. Since you either blocked or unblocked Malleus Fatuorum, you are welcome to comment, if you wish. SalvioLet's talk about it!13:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you ask all the people who could pass the FAC to review the article, in the end there'll be no one left to promote it. I'd say you should get as many people as you can to look over the article (specifically at prose, which seems to have been the major issue in the last FAC), and then try again at FAC. Ucucha (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To answer that question with any degree of certainty, I'd have to review the article. The only way to find out for use is to nominate the article at FAC. Ucucha (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It's a very interesting article and thanks for bringing it up to FAC's standards. I hope you'll decide to stay and contribute more high-quality content in this area. Ucucha (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I said before that I think you should focus not on lists of the kinds of animals that have been found, but on more analytical topics, like the claim in the beaver paper that many immigrants into North America first appear in the record in the John Day area. Also, as I mentioned in the FAC, it's problematic to speak of "pigs" and "antelope". Did you check the books I mentioned last time? Ucucha (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
For the translations
Thanks for helping with the translations; hopefully the article can have a support or two on prose soon. Hope you don't mind a local brew Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ucucha. A case has arisen in a FAC review, where an article's use of Template:MSW3 has been replaced by a direct use of cite-book that roughly, but not exactly, imitates the output of MSW3. The purpose is to make this citation display similarly to others in the article, for example regarding (non)-hyphenation of ISBNs, and (non)-inclusion of location of publication. I can't make up my mind whether to worry about this or not. Template:MSW3 merely invokes cite-book with certain pre-defined parameters, so on the surface it may just be a question of convenience. But it does reduce the utility of Template:MSW3, or else constrain anyone preparing mammal articles for FAC to revise all citations to make them appear like those generated by Template:MSW3. What is your view? --Stfg (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use Template:MSW3 myself (see False potto for example), because there are several problems with the template; among other things, it barely allows you to cite the work you should actually be citing, which is the chapter. Ucucha (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got through the top two-thirds and ... found same as always, not much to close, lacking reviews ... haven't read yet below Nyon Conference. I'll resume in the am! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I started again at the top, hoping for some change since yesterday. Nothing I can move in the top 35-- now on to the "older nominations" again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Variegated Fairy-wren
Hi Ucucha. I added a reference to The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates for a rediscovered species of "Miller's grizzled langur", see [1]. De entry of "Miller's grizzled langur" is, as of now, still listed in red, meaning there is no article. The latin name is, as noted there, Presbytis hosei canicrus. Just for fun I had a look at the spanish wikipedia article es:Los 25 primates en mayor peligro del mundo. There a species is listed and linked under the latin name Presbytis hosei canicrus, but as you can see in de the edit mode, as ''[[Presbytis hosei|Presbytis hosei canicrus]]'', thus linking through on the spanish wiki to es:Presbytis hosei. This in turn has a link to the english wiki: Presbytis hosei which redirects to Hose's langur. The question is this: is Presbytis hosei canicrus the same as Presbytis hosei as the spanish link implies, and is 'Miller's grizzled langur' then the same as 'Hose's langur'? I understand very very little about all this species classification and latin names. I recognized your nl.wiki-name as one of editors of the endangered primates list. Thought you might know how to clarify this. Thanks. --VanBurenen (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The three-part name Presbytis hosei canicrus it is a subspecies of the species Presbytis hosei; it's the same species as the other subspecies of Presbytis hosei, but has some minor differences. According to MSW3 and the 2004 Asian Primate Classification (Brandon-Jones, D.; Eudey, A. A.; Geissmann, T.; Groves, C. P.; Melnick, D. J.; Morales, J. C.; Shekelle, M.; Stewart, C. -B. (2004). "Asian primate classification". International Journal of Primatology. 25: 97. doi:10.1023/B:IJOP.0000014647.18720.32.), Presbytis hosei has four subspecies, of which two—Presbytis hosei hosei and P. h. canicrus—may be extinct. P. h. canicrus is known only from Kutai National Park in Indonesia according to the Asian Primate Classification. Ucucha (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P. h. canicrus has been found not to be extinct according the reference I mentioned above and added to the article. May I conclude from your answer that the Spanish wiki has made a wrong link: ''[[Presbytis hosei|Presbytis hosei canicrus]]''? --VanBurenen (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily; it's a reasonable position to take that subspecies shouldn't all have their own articles and should instead be covered in the species article. But it can certainly get confusing. Ucucha (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He may not be a troll in the true sense of the word, but what he did was not at all constructive. I don't mind a strong opinion, but it should be a responsible one with that - edit-warring and suggestions that are contrary to all guidelines I've carefully checked is anything but responsible. Just saying. - ☣TourbillonA ?20:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been on for quite a while, received no support, and the reviewers identified several issues; with FAC backlogged, I have to make some tough decisions to archive FACs that don't seem to be approaching promotable territory. It's better to try again with a fresh FAC in a few weeks. Ucucha (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just let me work through the identified issues and not worry about the backlog? It wasn't as if the issues weren't being addressed in a reasonable timespan. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to worry about the backlog. You've certainly been replying promptly to the issues raised, and that's commendable, but the article had been at FAC for three weeks with no support—that made it highly unlikely that it'd get through. Ucucha (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eraser, it's also a matter of the "fastest route" for the article to the bronze star. When a FAC drops to the bottom of the list and has been sitting there for weeks with no support, it's unlikely that reviewers will engage, and the article has a much better shot by coming back fresh, to the top of the list, in two weeks. It's often the best route to success-- good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you... but it's just that I missed the "two weeks window" part of WP:FAC, and restarted a nom after just 2 days - me and another user just finished the copyedit, and after all the previous one was killed partly because the only Oppose in that would not answer me. Is it okay to keep the nom or it's better for me to wait? igordebraga≠14:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Igordebraga, I saw this on my talk and hadn't yet gotten to it, so will respond here. First, I entirely defer to Ucucha, since my resignation is effective in seven days and he'll have to decide how to handle these. But second ... the problem that I see is one I've always had with the WikiCup. If one Cup participant gets an exception in an environment of competition, then all have to get it. It's an issue to be resolved-- glad Ucucha gets to do that :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then. On the 11th, when I come back from a trip, I'll remake that nom. (and while the Cup points are a part, it was just me wanting to get to finish my work on Jaws and improve other articles...) igordebraga≠17:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm avoiding any reviewing and nominating at FAC at the moment, since a week from now I'll be the only FAC delegate. Once I have a new colleague, that may change. Ucucha (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC closes Saturday. I promise one new FAC delegate will be appointed very shortly thereafter. (And I plan to appoint another new one before too long) Raul654 (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I've updated the /ar page. There seem to be a lot of half-hidden places where the FAC and FAR delegates are mentioned; we'll have to get them all up to date when the delegates change again in a few days. Ucucha (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FAC question
Hi Ucucha. I currently have an FAC open on Katharine Hepburn. There are a couple of discussions there that have been resolved, would it be okay to put them in a "hidden" drop-down box? I'll do it myself if it's okay, but I wanted to check first. I would ideally like to keep the page clean and easy to read. Thanks. --Lobo(talk)10:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We prefer not to put templates in FACs, because they sometimes cause the archives to exceed template limits. Instead, if the reviewer agrees, you can move some commentary to the FAC's talk page. Ucucha (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
