This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for the offer, I'd love to have you as my wikipedia mentor! Unfortunately I'm somewhat swamped with schoolwork at the moment, but I'll leave a message here in a couple of weeks when things settle down a little. (Grillspyd (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
Admin coaching
I see you are at the top of the list of requests for admin coaching. I'm an admin who ready to start coaching someone. Would you like to be my coachee? --Ginkgo100talk 03:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's easiest to have a centralized page. You can create one in your user space with a name such as User:Themcman1/Admin coaching. --Ginkgo100talk 14:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
From the South
Hi again! I am, Miguel Rodriguez from FROM THE SOUTH group. We want to aks for help in our Advanced English final project. It was required for us to extend a stub or write a new article that does noy exist at Wikipedia, about any topic of our country. FROM THE SOUTH decided to extend a stub. We found Amecameca's page could be a good option. We proceeded to add relevant information supported by reliable sources about this municipality of Mexico. We would like you to read it and give us some feedback. You can check it at>>> Amecameca Please if you have any comments or suggestions feel free to write us at our group discussion page at >>> Talk:From the south
Thank you for your time, we really apreciatte it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmiguelrd (talk • contribs) 19:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles).
The backlog at
Good Article Reassessment
currently stands at 12 articles up for re-review.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the
GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk·contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk·contribs
) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles!
Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen monoxide
!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of March include:
as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
To delist or not to delist, that is the question
So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its
assessment criteria
—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination.
This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for
reassessment
on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies.
Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article).
Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at
GA mentors
, who will be happy to advise.
Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first.
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
The backlog at
Good Article Reassessment
currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
Noble Story (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk·contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include:
as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the
on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species
be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to
ArticleHistory
}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the
GA criteria
, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and
criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited
for details.
Did You Know...
...that there are slightly less than twice as many
Featured Articles
?
...that the total number of
Featured Articles
combined is 6,085?
...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
From the Editors
There is currently a
this page
.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
The backlog at
Good Article Reassessment
currently stands at 4 articles up for re-review.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the
GA criteria
, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and
criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited
for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
talk ·contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs
) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include:
as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at
WP:GAN
in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{
ArticleHistory
}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
Did You Know...
... that there are slightly more than twice as many
Featured Articles
?
... that Giggy has some really neat and useful tools to assist reviewers in conducting their reviews?
... that there are ten experienced reviewers listed on the
GA mentors list
that can offer assistance or a second opinion in reviewing articles?
From the Editors
A GA working party has initiated discussion on ways to improve the Good Article project and processes. The goal of the working party is to come up with suggestions for improvement based on recent issues and concerns raised in the past, primarily in the wake of the
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
talk
) 06:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing
WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing
!
Please see the navigation sidebar on our main project page for information about our project guidelines, resources, and pending tasks. You can post any questions at the
talk
) 12:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Just joking. Thought I'd try the new template out on you , since it's brand new.! Wotd'yamean by "does anything need doing?". I'm slowly going mad, wondering if anyone else is around at all, apart from vandals and deletion enthusiasts! Here's
talk
) 09:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
How about updating the fishing portal and conducting a creative drive for active members. You could produce a new newsletter – but who would we post it to? --
talk
) 12:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Glossary of fishing terms?
Just a thought... I am currently working on a
talk
) 06:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Template:Welcome fishing
I am mystified by the changes you made to the size of images on this template. The original version displayed excellently on XP:Explorer, XP:Firefox2, XP:Firefox3, OSX:Firefox2, OSX:Firefox3 and OSX:Safari. Your version displays with distinctly shrunk images on all of these, and looks particularly bad on OSX:Firefox2. Can it be that you use Vista:Firefox3? Also, I don't know what that crap about me being a "slave" is about. I'm not your slave. --
