This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TonyTheTiger (talk | contribs) at 16:23, 11 August 2013 (→Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1: Sandy too). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:23, 11 August 2013 by TonyTheTiger (talk | contribs) (→Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1: Sandy too)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Archives |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
FL Nomination for List of AFC Wimbledon seasons
Dear Graham, thank you for your help regarding my featured list nomination. This is my first time submitting one and I appreciate your help. with kind regards, Jodie25 (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- You are very welcome. Transclusions can be confusing. Graham Colm (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Perseus (constellation)
Hi mate, have you had a chance to revisit this one lately? I gather it's been copyedited since you raised your prose concerns... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Ian, I still have a few concerns, which I have raised at the FAC a few moments ago. Graham Colm (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1
I sort of understand your reasoning behind closing Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1. However, once upon a time Raul654 (talk · contribs) and SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), would at times immediately restart a nomination that was getting muddled. In this case, we have a very special potential 50th anniversary WP:TFA on September 28th. I understand you have granted special exception for a one-week relisting. However, that still cuts things very close in terms of trying to achieve WP:FA in time. Is it possible to request immediate relisting or a much shorter window such as 48 hours. After over 350kb of discourse during the FAC, expecting a resolution on the talk page with no process to encourage people to come to a decision is a little much to ask. This article needs a FAC to force people to crystallize their opinions and this candidate needs to be relisted ASAP in hopes of achieving a 50th anniversary. This 350kb+ FAC is a very special case and should be given special consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)