I moved "The Hotchkiss School" to "Hotchkiss School" again. Per Wikipedia's naming conventions, that's how the article should be titled. Despite the fact that Hotchkiss may like to refer to itself as "The Hotchkiss School," it's not a proper noun. This page also provides some guidance on this rationale. Cheers! Esrever(klaT)05:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your revert, but thanks for reaching out. The school does refer to itself as "The Hotchkiss School" within sentences (for example, here, among other places), which would support the use of "The" in the article title under the relevant Wikipedia policy. However, there are far more productive battles to be fought elsewhere, and I see no reason to push this further. Alansohn (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further, aside from being part of official chartered names, keep in mind that "THE" is an allowable leading term in WP. If you feel otherwise, then please start by moving The Beatles to Beatles before continuing. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You meant this link UNIVERSITY naming conventions on the same page where it talks about usage of THE in school names, which allows it (unlike the link you're using which suggests to drop THE. . Like I said, really not a big deal in the end. But you're right with "ugh". We've both spent too much time on this. Carry on. SpikeJones (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I probably typed too fast. We're both looking at the same page of WP naming conventions. You quoted the top section that said not to use "the" in page titles if possible, but further down the page it talks about exceptions such as musical groups (The Who, The Beatles), corporations (The New York Times, The Harford), and Universities (which I equated as "schools" for purpose of discussion, which lists The Citadel and one or two other examples that would be similar to use of The Hill School). You are completely right in asking for those other in-line sources that used "The", as that is what the guidelines ask for, but the university section already covered the topic and was more appropriate for the discussion you and I were having, including the fact that this was an allowable exception to the rule you were looking to adhere to. :) SpikeJones (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then which photo should I use for the user box? You said that it can't be copyrighted, but I thought every photo of wikipedia is copyrighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weirdo82 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm having trouble uploading an image onto the "phil&teds (strollers)" page... The image appears as a link, instead of an image. Can you help me please?
Parkaveking (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It's not necessary to put "at Discog" after the link, as anyone who chooses to click on the link can figure that one out for him- or herself. :) Cheers!"
Hi Esrever - thanks for your advice. However, I was only following the format as set already, such as "Jethro Tull at Allmusic" that I have seen on this page and elsewhere on the site. I don't think it is very consistant to have these links in one format one place, and another format elsewhere. What do you think? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Record collector 1000 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Esrever, could you offer some criticism on Eastern Nazarene College? I'm definitely the biggest contributor, but other editors like User:RGTraynor have suggested that I nominate it for GA status. I'd love your input, and I'm rather desparate to see what others have to say before I nominate it and see, officially, how much it sucks, haha. Aepoutre (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An unfortunate effect of a group less active than in the past is that our articles lose integrity. This one is at Good Article Review for that reason. The talk page is quite active as a result. You have the opportunity to help. This is the corest of our core articles, and it needs some attention because it gets a lot of controversial input from many sides. If you can spare any time to edit the article, please do what you can.
Soon after we were informed that Homosexuality is being scrutinized, we heard the same for one of our few Featured Articles. As a participant of the Featured Article process, I think this is actually a good thing. The standards for Featured Articles are getting higher with time. But as a member of this project, that means that a few of ours may be de-listed unless someone can swoop in and save them. This one has to do with the designation of homosexuality as a crime in Germany. Most of this article's sources are in German. If anyone has any particular skill in this area, please lend a hand!
I know you folks think I have much experience in a gay bathhouse, and I hate to disappoint you, but I actually do not. I seem like the sort of person who likes to stroll about in a towel. Shocking, no? It appears that Ashleyvh is single-handedly addressing all the problems with this article at its GA Review. While that's pretty impressive, it's also no doubt exhausting. Can anyone help out there?
In what I hope will counter the jolt of re-evaluating three Good or Featured Articles, José Sarria and Janet Jackson as gay icon passed as Good Articles, and Black Cat Bar (famous San Francisco oft-raided gay bar) is nominated, all by Otto4711. Rock on, man. You're a machine. Good luck with your nominations. What is it about women that make them gay icons? And are there lesbian icons that aren't lesbians? How about bisexual icons? Am I the only lesbian who reacts with soul-trembling fear at the sight of Angelina Jolie?
New WP:LGBT studies member Pinkkeith has done this cool thing. If you click on that link, you'll see all the articles, categories, templates, and miscellany up for deletion. They're usually there because they're not considered to be not notable. That can be a relative concept, and sometimes it has to be argued that topics pertaining to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues are notable.
It seems a recurring issue which articles to tag, and what to say about a topic that's tagged. Certainly, because an article falls under our scope doesn't necessarily make the person gay. Florida Governor Charlie Crist has been rumored to be gay in some newspaper accounts. Although we all know Fred Phelps is supergay, he won't admit it so instead he does the absolutely awfulest anti-gay things on the planet to deflect suspicion. NAMBLA, the red headed stepchild of the LGBT world, is tagged with an explanation we have yet to decide if we'll keep.
In the lurking I do around and about on Wiki, I've long been astounded at the forbearance Benjiboi has for the utterly insane. Perhaps not so much, since the message on Benji's talk page notes frequent absences due to homophobia and transphobia. But it takes some kind of ... something that I don't have to face the constant anti-gay POV Benji does.
Benjiboi is a a bit of a WikiFaerie, a WikiGnome and also a member of the Article Rescue Squadron in addition to being a LGBT project member. A few of Benjiboi's favorite links for making the wikiverse more fab are:
Becksguy didn’t start actively editing until May 2007. His most frequent tasks on Wiki include reverting vandalism to LGBT articles and creating new project-related articles. He comes from New York state, and to prove not all of us are teenagers (ha! I am so totally 15!) he's in his 60s and retired.
Becksguy considers his biggest triumph on Wikipedia so far was a DYK in December 2007 for the first-ever newspaper report on what became AIDS, in the New York Native. He's also helped save several project-related articles from deletion. His lowest moment here was getting involved in the discussion on a particular terrorism related article, thinking he could help calm the roiled waters on an extremely contentious subject with multiple edit wars and passionate editors.
Here at WP:LGBT, he creates and improves articles that present notable LGBT related subjects in a fair and balanced way, and tries to include more of the significant alternative sexuality related subjects without being an activist, and works to better source project-related articles.
On Wikipedia as a whole, he says, "I think we need to learn better what processes work for a massive collaborative project. Some of what worked well for a more informal small project doesn’t scale up well. Process is not as important when the participants know each other. We need to get more of the current members to be more active. If more members were energized, the project would be able to accomplish more. We should be, in effect, the smaller and included Wikipedia for LGBT related subjects. Overall, I wish we could focus more on content creation and improvement, and less on vandal fighting."
"A Supreme Court decision in 1958 reversed a 1956 ruling by a federal district court that U.S. postal authorities were correct in prohibiting the mailing of the Mattachine Society's ONE magazine. The lower court had ruled that ONE was not protected by the First Amendment because the magazine's contents 'may be vulgar, offensive, and indecent even though not regarded as such by a particular group ... because their own social or moral standards are far below those of the general community ... Social standards are fixed by and for the great majority and not by and for a hardened or weakened minority.'" - Michael Bronski in Pulp Friction, 2003
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Moni3 know.
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film, and drama (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
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
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
Hey! Sorry to bother, but I've come to respect your opinion on university-related matters for Wikipedia. I've set up some templates for Talk:Southern Nazarene University#Merger proposal and posted info at Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers to see if I can generate any discussion on whether or not we should have separate articles for SNU history, athletics, buildings, awards, etc. I'd cast my vote with the idea that, if well-crafted, the content can all be included in the main article, but I don't feel as if one man's opinion matters quite enough to start creating and destroying willy-nilly (or if my philosophy is even reasonable). Let me know what you think. Aepoutre (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure that pointing me to a category of college rugby teams does anything to rebut my argument that the Loyola team is not a professional rugby team. Esrever(klaT)12:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely showing you that each of these colleges have Rugby teams with their own pages. There is no reason Loyola shouldn't have one. Interzil (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image
Hello Esrever. I saw what you did to Image:CSU.PNG a long time ago, and I would like to know if you would be kind enough to explain me how to tun a non-transparent image transparet. I assumed you used Inkscape to do it. I don't know what would I have to save it as a .SVG. Plain a .SVG, or the likes? Thank you in advance.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think for everyone's conveniences, I think you should go ahead and perm-ban this IP address because this is a high-school user account that everyone had access to. There are more than one person using this account and subsequently, this computer. I ( me talking) have a wiki account at home and apologize for my classmate's disruptive behavior. Please ban or restrict this IP! 69.92.95.145 (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm not an administrator, so there's nothing I can do about this issue. If vandalism continues from that IP address, it'll eventually be brought to the attention of the admins who can block it. Thanks for your comment, though. Cheers! Esrever(klaT)00:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU
Thank you for explaining me how to make transparent images. I would humbly like to give you an award I created for a WikiProject and I hope you shall kindly accept it.
Wake up WP:LGBT! It's time to kick in gear and get some things done!
Project News
Wake up!
I say this to myself as much as I say it to all of us. I work a lot by myself or with individual editors who spend time at Featured Article Candidates. It seems on November 5 a fog was lifted off my brain that helped me realize that we have massive potential in this project to get things done. Take this allegory, for instance: On Wednesday, Nov. 5, 1980, my 10th-grade American history teacher started class by unfurling The New York Times. She pointed to its triple banner headline: “Reagan Easily Beats Carter; Republicans Gain in Congress; D’Amato and Dodd are Victors.” “Save this paper,” she told us. “This is the start of a whole new era.”Judith Warner from The New York Times
It definitely seems a start to a whole new era now. If planets align correctly to remind us that whatever advances we may have made in electing what appears to be an extraordinary president in the US, the moons that revolve around those planets also serve to illustrate it's not that simple. Florida, Arizona, and California all appear to have banned same sex marriage. As someone who was married in California and lives in Florida, this is particularly poignant. We seem to be at the juncture of two converging paths. If we maximize our efforts and take the right ones, we might just be able to affect some change for ourselves.
Though what we do is an interesting hobby for some, we have the power to make a difference. California's ballot initiative to ban gay marriage was a fierce fight. It's being challenged right now, but just look at how Wikipedia played a role in that: in October 2008, 360,238 people read its article. On November 5, an astounding 467,000 people read it. I commend the editors who work on that article—both those who support and oppose it. A look at the talk page shows a concerted effort to keep it civil and accurate.
What can we do?
How do you fight ignorance? With information. That's what Wikipedia is for. This project is overwhelming with 8,576 articles in its scope. We can continue to work piecemeal as we have in the past, or we can focus on goals. These are examples of areas we can concentrate on.
Current political events
LGBT Media and Literature
LGBT History
Sex and sexuality
Articles about political issues in the US and around the world that have been especially relevant within the past 5 years
Depictions of LGBT people and issues on television, film, newspapers, magazines
Topics about gay rights activism and the opposition to it
There are more than 8,000 articles to work on. Can we build a list of priorities? Can we build enough enthusiasm to work on these? What if we had editors who oversaw progress in these areas and reported to the talk page or in the newsletter? Surely someone here wants to report on the progress of sex articles.
Tony Perkins (irony) from the conservative Family Research Councilwas heartened by the recent passages of gay marriage bans. The Republican Party is without direction. What's going to take the place of a moderate voice will not be pleasant to our ears. Watching and improving articles of subjects that have opposed gay rights in the past will be of vital importance very soon, I predict.
But WP:LGBT is not a very active project
All we can do is start somewhere. The first step is answering this newsletter on the project talk page. Join in the discussion.
More things we can do
Give out more barnstars, and let each other know that what they're doing is valued.
Create a guide to stave off burnout, because editors in this project get burned out faster than others. There are many hills to climb.
Bring back the monthly collaboration project.
Participate in LGBT Peer reviews.
Get familiar with the characteristics of Good Articles and get our top priority articles to WP:GA.
Use the Newsletter, Moni3! You can suggest what to send out in the newsletter, too!
Offer research materials, copy editing, ideas, and support to your fellow editors.
Keep the project talk page informed of problems and discussions we should know about.
Proposal: Put Importance Levels on articles
If this was decided long before I was a member, maybe it's time to revisit it. Other WikiProjects, such as WP:Novels determine that some subjects have an importance category: Top, High, Mid, Low, or None (undetermined). If we decide that our most core articles, it might help to organize which articles to address first. Top importance, for example, would be Gay, Homosexual, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Sappho, Oscar Wilde, Stonewall riots, for example. High importance would be Homosexuality and psychology, Harvey Milk, Mattachine Society, Harry Hay, or Daughters of Bilitis, and so on. This can be a matter of discussion, or perhaps we could have someone in charge of determining these levels for all the articles we have tagged.
These are the editors I've seen working (and I know I'm forgetting a few). There's more of you out there I haven't seen. Some of you are new. We need all of you. Please help.
Miami, January 18, 1977 after the gay rights ordinance was passed: While Bryant and the others were creating the beginnings of the repeal effort, (gay activists) Basker, Campbell, Kunst, and the other (gay rights) ordinance supporters congratulated themselves on their success and then quickly disbanded... There was no organized recognition or celebration of the victory. As one activist remembered, "We just went home." They had little idea of the battle that was before them. - Fred Fejes in Gay Rights and Moral Panic, 2008
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Moni3 know.
Thanks for fixing the article title error, I tried to do that myself but couldn't figure out how, could you fill me in? Also if you have any other thoughts on the article I would be grateful. Beanbuff (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee Kids
Thanks for fixing the article title error, I tried to do that myself but couldn't figure out how, could you fill me in? Also if you have any other thoughts on the article I would be grateful. Beanbuff (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
