text:
Talk:List of programs broadcast by Fox

216.83.121.194
All edits by 216.83.121.194 in the past several days are suspect. This is a repeat vandal who likes to add bogus information around a variety of places. In this case, a lot of extra WWE shows. I have no idea which, if any, are valid, and several people have made other edits since, making it difficult to just revert his changes. TexasAndroid 8 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)
 * I also noticed some odd data duplication going on. I deleted the duplicate data, and the links to WWE Experience.  I also disambiguated some links, while I was at it. — EagleOne\Talk July 9, 2005 04:13 (UTC)

Updating
Has this page been forgotten, the schedule really needs to be updated. -Supmypeeps -

anonymous comments
The links to The Visitor, Women In Prison and X-Men don't point to articles for Fox TV shows like they should.

Also, "The Wilton-North Report" is not listed under former shows.

Don't forget to list summer premieres!
Shouldn't Don't Forget the Lyrics be listed somewhere on this page? What about other shows premiering in the summer? Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Secret Millionaire?
Wasn't Secret Millionaire on Fox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.67.230 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, according to Secret Millionaire --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Animation Domination
Some year we need to give Animation Domination get its own pageTheSimpsonsRocks (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)TheSimpsonsRocks

I know, right? Somebody needs to do something abou it. 74.88.97.42 (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge
I propose to merge List of programs broadcast by Fox Kids with the List of programs broadcast by Fox. Fox Kids is a programming block, not a television network. The network is the Fox Broadcasting Company. All of the material here would be retained in the merger. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While a renaming of the other article might be warranted, a merge is inappropriate. While Fox Kids did air on Fox network stations, it (a) also aired on non-Fox stations and (b) was treated as a separate entity (neither contained advertising for the other, except during the rarest occassion). JPG-GR (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we have a reliable source for Fox Kids airing on non-Fox stations? According to List of programs broadcast by Fox Kids, Taz-Mania aired on Fox Kids, as did Bobby's World, Peter Pan and the Pirates]], etc. However, according to Alex McNeil (1996), Total Television, pp 108, 655, 820, etc, these were Fox series. McNeil, who is one of the authorities on U.S. television programs, makes no distinction between Fox and Fox Kids. And indeed, there's already a section for Fox Kids in this article. Why is it "inappropriate" to merge two articles together when the content is already the same? Firsfron of Ronchester  18:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable source? Not that comes to mind. But, as my local station, WKBD, airing Fox Kids from 1994 onward despite switching to UPN at that network's launch is enough evidence for me. As for why a merge is inappropriate, Fox Kids programming no more belongs in this article than syndicated shows that air on Fox network affiliates do. Fox Kids was a separate programming block available firstly to Fox stations and then offered to alternate local stations if the local Fox network wasn't interested (as was the case in Detroit). JPG-GR (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for a source. Reliable sources treat them as the same. "A handful of non-Fox stations aired Fox Kids, but I have no evidence to support the fact that they were separate" doesn't really work here, especially when the content at List of Fox Kids programs is already duplicated in this article. Give me a reliable source that treats them as completely separate; a book would be really good. BTW, there are all sorts of stations which air network programs that another station has refused or pre-empted. That doesn't mean that the program is a non-network series. Unless there is a source for the claim, it's speculation. Firsfron of Ronchester  06:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Show me this reliable source that treats them as the same. JPG-GR (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the list which is "duplicated" in this article is horrendously incomplete. An instance of main seems like the more appropriate solution here. JPG-GR (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already given you the source: McNeil, Alex (1996), Total Television, pp 108, 655, 820. New York: Penguin Books, 1996. ISBN 0-1402-4916-8 . Firsfron of Ronchester  19:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Link to a book I don't have access to aside, the use of main in this article seems like a more logical choice. JPG-GR (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we base our edits on reliable sources, not unsourced speculation. Firsfron of Ronchester  07:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Watch the language there - unsourced, perhaps. Speculation, my left foot. JPG-GR (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears this list and all similar lists may shortly be listed for deletion. It'd be nice to have some actual sources to back up the article. Firsfron of Ronchester  13:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for a merge, let alone the "merge" you are attempting to execute which does not include half of this list. JPG-GR (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. You blindly reverted my edits before I could move in any sourceable material from Fox Kids to Fox. Really poor form. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blank first, fix later? Sounds a little backwards to me... JPG-GR (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was in the process of sourcing the article, merging in any usable content from Fox Kids. Your revert actually caused a number of syndicated non-Fox/Kids series to now be listed as "Fox Kids" series. So much for reliable sources! Firsfron of Ronchester  05:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The only edits I made were to revert your conversion of the article to a redirect, essentially blanking the content. Paint the situation however you like - the page history tells the true story. Again, I propose the use of a main template on this article to link to the Fox Kids list. JPG-GR (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in support of the direction this is currently heading (sourcing stuff on this article, adding stuff from FK article as it is sourced, leaving FK article intact until process is complete). And, for the record - I never said Fox Kids was a network. JPG-GR (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't. As far as the process being complete, there will come a point when the Fox Kids article has no sourcable content to merge in here. I will leave a note here when that happens, but already several series listed there cannot reliably be moved here. Firsfron of Ronchester  17:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. JPG-GR (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Support It makes sense to merge the two together so that they can be adequately sourced, along with the fact that Fox Kids is not a network anyways. Silver  seren C 08:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I am working on sourcing this list; the post-2007 Fox series will be difficult to source because the most recent television book on my shelf was published in 2007. I have Brooks and Marsh's latest edition, McNeil's latest edition, and Erickson. Alternate sources are appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester  08:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose-- jcn John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Re-organize
Right now, this article, in my opinion, seems cluttered (especially the 'formerly broadcast'. We should really try to find a way to put it in a more organized way, taking into consideration that Fox has a lot of shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagn96 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's end this thing.
Let's put this thing to bed once and for all...

Should all the added background info be included in this article, or not

I say No. This article is merley a list of programs, there's a whole other article detailing the history of the Fox Network (Fox Broadcasting Company). Any and all info can go there.

Vjmlhds 16:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep per all background information, as per all of my edit summaries at the page. Let's all try to stay calm. This article is at FLC, and it is there per the FL criteria and WP:LEDE. Further information is again, in the edit summaries, and at my talk page. Thank you. TBrandley 16:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep: This is honestly ridiculous. The idea that a user can't develop an article to featured quality, without being spitefully reverted is ridiculous. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep: An article with no prose or no lead section is really boring, in my opinion. A little background information and some images to highlight some people associated to some of Fox's well-known series won't be detrimental to the quality of the article, as long as the images are in moderation. Davejohnsan (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I kinda know how User:Farine is gonna vote, so at that it's 3-2 keep.

I'll put the pictures and info back, but let me explain why I'm gonna put the pictures up I am, so there's no arguement.

Heading 1. Rupert Murdoch -- he owns the place

Current shows

2. Seth McFarlane -- has 3 shows during Animation Domination

3. Jane Lynch -- star of most popular scripted show

4. Gordon Ramsey -- numerous shows

5. Simon Cowell -- X Factor/Idol

6. Joe Buck -- lead announcer for MLB and NFL coverage

Former shows

7. Hank Hill -- long running show in primetime

8. Power Rangers -- decade long staple during the Fox Kids era

9. Joan Rivers -- "Late Show" was Fox's 1st foray into late night, and 1st daily program

10. John Walsh -- AMW lasted 20 years

11. Married...with Children --  the Fox Network's flagship show for many years

12. Tracy Ullman -- one of Fox's 1st sucessful shows, and was the spring board for The Simpsons, so there's some historical signifigance there.

Since this article pretains to both current and former shows, more pics can be included and not crowd it.

Vjmlhds 16:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

 * The article is called "List of programs by Fox", not "History of Fox". The article can certainly use a lead-in or a prose, as long as it's a concise one that deals with the current programming, not the history of the network. The current lead is way too long for such article.

 * As for the images, I ideally think they shouldn't be any because they distract from the purpose of the article which is the list. But if there must absolutely be some images, I think it should be limited to one and it should be about an actual show of the network, not some founder or executive.

 * Also remember, that Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's not a question of which "side" wins the most votes. It's a question of finding a middle agreement that satisfy all editors. Farine (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid principal. List of Grey's Anatomy episodes is titled List of; does that mean there should be no introduction? I don't know if you've ever written a featured list, but a three-paragraph introduction and a line of images is the normality for them. While majority does not automatically grant consensus, four users (+Grapple X) who have all written featured lists agreeing on TBrandley's format should tell you something. You and Vjmlhds are the only dissenting voices. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Read again what I've said. I've never said that there shouldn't be any introduction. I said that the current one is too long and also that the intro should deal with the current list of programs, not the history of the network. Farine (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've said, three paragraphs is the normality for potential featured lists. While the lead is discussing the history, it is discussing the broadcast history, which is the point of the list. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of number pf paragraphs, can't we just eliminate the history and stick purely to the programs. And what about the images? Would it hurt if there was one only on the article ? Farine (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Providing context of the history of the network is not problematic. Readers should not be forced to navigate to a different article to learn brief historical information. As I said, a line of images is normal for FLs, because attractiveness is a goal. As an example, see Grammy Award for Best R&B Album. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to think that one image is not enough for the article, is there a maximum number of images you would suggest to prevent the articles from being bombarded with images? Farine (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When reviewing at FAC or FLC, I usually leave that option up to the nominator/developer as a courtesy. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

To propose that this list shouldn't be given a thorough and proper amount of content by editors who want to put the work in is bordering on spiteful. At no point is a solid lead going to detract from the actual list's function and navigability. The same goes for the images; their presence adds something but their removal does not, why not keep them? This is not a question of "finding a middle ground"; there is a right way to go about things (improving articles and fostering content creation and refinement) and a wrong way to go about it (to stifle growth for what can only be seen by this external watcher as selfish reasoning). The version that has been expanded is easily preferable. GRAPPLE  X  18:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally don't agree with you. But you have brought some good arguments so I'll go with the consensus as long as the images remain in moderation as Davejohnsan said above. Farine (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep the lede, images can be negotiated. Readers need context to properly understand an article; if you were to read Ruma Maida with no context or links to articles with context (i.e. all black text) would you understand it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2014
Please remove Almost Human (TV series) because it was cancelled.

Pa3k (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I haven't totally removed it - just moved it from Currently broadcast to Formerly broadcast. - Arjayay (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Arjayay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.133.18 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Son of Zorn genre
Wouldn't Son of Zorn be part of live-action sitcoms, because it's more live-action than animation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Weber02 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Charts
Could you make charts for Fox shows, including the current season column for current programming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.245.106 (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This was done recently but has since been removed... I feel like all current broadcast and cable networks began producing original programming before Netflix, and due to different editors editing different pages a table format was made for the Netflix page, with all other articles for new networks following suit (all new networks since have been streamers given the changing television landscape). I am in strong support of the table format, as it is far more informative and useful to readers. These articles haven't been changed to table format purely because editors just don't have the time. Someone put in a lot of time and effort to get this article to table format, and their work has since been reverted. Personally consistency isn't an issue, as I'm starting to see more and more articles of a similar nature being converted to a table format. Could we possibly come to a consensus on this? I feel like a discussion on whether these lists should be in a table format is long overdue. Apd9696 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of programs broadcast by Fox


text:
Qu'Appelle

Qu'Appelle may refer to:

Places

 * Rural Municipality of North Qu'Appelle No. 187, Saskatchewan, Canada
 * Fort Qu'Appelle, a town in Saskatchewan
 * Rural Municipality of South Qu'Appelle No. 157, Saskatchewan, Canada
 * Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, a town in Saskatchewan
 * Qu'Appelle River, a river in Saskatchewan and Manitoba
 * Qu'Appelle River Dam, a dam in Saskatchewan
 * Qu'Appelle Lakes, a chain of lakes in Saskatchewan
 * Diocese of Qu'Appelle, diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada
 * Chateau Qu'Appelle, hotel

Electoral districts

 * Regina—Qu'Appelle, federal electoral district in Saskatchewan
 * North Qu'Appelle, a former provincial electoral district in Saskatchewan
 * South Qu'Appelle, a former provincial electoral district in Saskatchewan
 * Qu'Appelle (territorial electoral district), a former territorial electoral district in the Northwest Territories, Canada

Ships

 * HMCS Qu'Appelle
 * HMCS Qu'Appelle (H69), World War II River-class destroyer

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Qu'Appelle


text:
Aquarium (Aqua album)

Aquarium is the debut studio album by Danish band Aqua, released on 26 March 1997. The album is best known for including the globally successful single "Barbie Girl", which went on to become a widely recognizable hit around the world, as well as the popular track “Lollipop (Candyman)”. The album also featured the songs "Doctor Jones" and "Turn Back Time". In early 1997, the release of Aquarium was initially preceded by the singles "Roses Are Red" and "My Oh My", which was released a second time in 1998.

The album's third (and most popular) single, "Barbie Girl", brought the group to international attention after reaching number one across Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, among other territories. The song later peaked at number 7 in the United States, at the end of 1997. Its success helped the album reach number one in both the group's home countries, and make the top 10 in the UK and US. While not selling as highly as "Barbie Girl", the album's fourth single, "Doctor Jones", was released in late 1997 and became a number one hit in Australia and the UK. "Turn Back Time" would later give the group their third consecutive number-one single in the UK, despite reaching only number 16 in their native Denmark. The record’s final single, "Good Morning Sunshine", was notably more low-key than the band’s previous dance-pop, uptempo releases; the song failed to chart highly, only being released in select regions and, like the earlier "Lollipop (Candyman)", was the group's third and final song to chart in the US. The album has sold 14 million copies worldwide.

Chart performance
Aquarium debuted at number one in Denmark. As of August 2001, the album had sold 430,000 copies in Denmark. It is the third best-selling album in Denmark to date, only beaten by Danish recording artist Kim Larsen's 1983 album Midt om natten and his 1986 album Forklædt som voksen. The album debuted at number 15 on the Billboard 200 in the United States, and later peaked at number seven. It would spend a total of 50 weeks on the album sales chart, and sold 1.7 million copies in 1997. On 4 March 1999, the album was certified three times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for sales of three million units, becoming the most successful Eurodance album in the US since Ace of Base's The Sign (1993). Aquarium has been certified four times platinum by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) for shipments of four million copies inside Europe.

Personnel

 * Per Adebratt – producer, arrangement, mixing
 * Bee – backing vocals
 * Marian Binderup – backing vocals
 * Mogens Binderup – backing vocals
 * Vivian Cardinal – backing vocals
 * Douglas Carr – guitar
 * Delgado – producer, vocal producer, arrangement, mixing
 * René Dif – songwriter, lead vocals
 * Tommy Ekman – producer, arrangement, mixing
 * Björn Engelmann – mastering

 * Peter Hartmann – songwriter, producer, arrangement, mixing
 * Claus Hvass – guitar
 * Johnny Jam – producer, vocal producer, arrangement, mixing
 * Kati – backing vocals
 * Jan Langhoff – songwriter, producer, arrangement, mixing, guitar
 * Claus Norreen – songwriter, producer, arrangement, mixing, instruments
 * Lene Nystrøm – songwriter, lead and backing vocals
 * Søren Rasted – songwriter, producer, arrangement, mixing, instruments, backing vocals
 * Anders Øland – songwriter

Credits adapted from album liner notes.

title: Aquarium (Aqua album)


text:
Dart (missile)

Darts are airborne ranged weapons. They are designed to fly such that a sharp, often weighted point will strike first. They can be distinguished from javelins by the presence of fletching (feathers on the tail) and a shaft that is shorter and/or more flexible. Darts can be propelled by hand or with the aid of a hand-held implement such as a blowgun. They can be distinguished from arrows because they are not used with a bow.

Darts have been used since pre-history. The plumbatae were lead-weighted darts thrown by infantrymen in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Darts can be propelled by a number of means. The atlatl uses leverage to increase the velocity of the dart, the kestros increases the range of propelled darts using a sling, and the exhalation of a person's breath through a blowgun propels small stone points or poisoned needles with pneumatic force.

In the modern era, darts have been used for recreation; in lawn darts and the game of darts.

Pre-history
Some of the earliest evidence of advanced tool use includes remnants of an early type of dart, which can be considered the ancestor of arrows as well as bows. Reconstructions of this system have a range of over one hundred metres (yards) and can penetrate several centimetres of oak. This technology was used worldwide from the Upper Palaeolithic (late Solutrean, c. 18,000–16,000 BC) until the development of archery made it obsolete.

The darts in question are much larger than arrows, but noticeably lighter than javelins. They have a weighted point, often of stone, on a removable foreshaft. This is held by friction onto a thin, flexible main shaft a few metres in length, with fletching and a (usually socket-like) nock at the opposite end. Since they are unlike anything in Western history, the term "dart" has been adopted after some debate. Some alternate terms for this missile have included the spear, but this term has fallen out of favour since in all other uses, spears are stiff enough to be used for stabbing. In its function, an atlatl dart is more like a combination between a bow and an arrow.

Its similarity to a bow may not be immediately obvious, but in fact both serve to accumulate energy by elasticity in a similar way. As throwing begins, a dart of this type is designed to flex in compression between the accelerating force at its nock and the inertia of its weighted point, storing energy. Late in this throw, as the point moves faster and so offers less resistance, the dart releases most of this energy by springing away from the thrower. Some energy may also be recovered by the fletching as the projectile "fishtails" through the air. However, this energy is far less than is commonly stated and only effectively increases accuracy by counteracting the downward force on the tail.

To maximize elastic energy storage and recovery, such darts should be held only by the nock and allowed to pivot as they are thrown. This requires a special tool called a spear-thrower. In Western culture these might be called atlatl borrowed from the Aztec,  or in Australia the Aboriginal word woomera is used.

Plumbatae or martiobarbuli
Plumbatae or martiobarbuli were lead-weighted darts carried by infantrymen in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. The first examples seem to have been carried by the Ancient Greeks from about 500 B.C. onwards, but the best-known users were from the Roman and Byzantine armies. The best written source for these tactical weapons is Vegetius's treatise known as De Re Militari (1.17):

Replacement by the arrow
In Europe, the spear-thrower was supplemented by the bow and arrow in the Epipaleolithic period. By the Iron Age, the amentum, a strap attached to the shaft, was the standard European mechanism for throwing lighter javelins. The amentum gives not only range, but also spin to the projectile.

Archery may be easier to learn and have a faster rate of fire, yet perhaps this system's greatest advantage over the spear-thrower is that ammunition is easier to make and transport. Since the dart must store almost all of the system's elastic energy, more care, planning, and weight of elastic material must be invested in its construction. In archery, the bulk of elastic energy is stored in the throwing device, rather than the projectile; arrow shafts can therefore be much smaller, and have looser tolerances for spring constant and weight distribution than spear-thrower darts. For example, stone dart points from the same set tend to vary in mass by no more than a few percent, and computer simulations show that this is necessary for efficient operation. Similar constraints exist for the length, diameter, and materials quality of the shaft. If the same amount of attention and material are instead invested into a bow, projectiles can be made lighter (by a factor of five or more) and to less exacting tolerances. This allowed for more forgiving flint knapping.

Greater mass becomes an advantage over archery when penetration is an overwhelming concern, as when harpooning sea mammals. This class of dart was used by aboriginal Arctic hunters such as the Aleut until fairly recently.

Reconstructions
Darts, plumbata and atlatls have been constructed by modern enthusiasts, either with ancient materials and methods or with high technology borrowed from modern archery. While some do this in the context of anthropology or mechanical engineering, many view the practice as a sport, and throw competitively for distance and/or for accuracy. Throws of almost 260 m have been recorded.

Types of traditional darts
The darts in use by the developers of the English language were used throughout Europe for much of its military history, though they were never a dominant weapons technology. They have also lent their name to quite a few weapons from other cultures.

Thrown darts
It is quite reasonable to speculate the darts used with atlatls were adapted from hand-thrown darts, which in turn were derived from light javelins. In Europe, short but heavy-pointed darts were sometimes used in warfare. These had a length of about 30 and 60 cm and resembled an arrow with a long head and short shaft.

The Roman model, the plumbata, was weighted with lead. In some legions, five of these were carried inside each soldier's shield; reconstructions show a range of 70 m or more when thrown overhand in the fashion of a German stick grenade.

Feathered darts
Feathered spears, often called darts or javelins, were used in medieval and Renaissance Europe, both as ceremonial objects and as weapons. It is possible no examples have survived, presumably due to their fragility or the deterioration of their fletching making them indistinguishable from spears, but they appear in multiple illustrations from the 15th and 16th century. As ceremonial items, they are shown held similar to scepters by military commanders and leaders such as Emperor Maximilian I. Many other illustrations show large darts being wielded as weapons, either on the battlefield or in smaller engagements such as judicial battles. Depictions show them as being four to seven feet long, with arrow-like feather fletching, barbed points and thick shafts comparable to conventional polearms, presumably able to serve for both throwing and hand-held striking. One such example has historically been depicted on French and English pattern playing cards, where the jack of clubs is armed with one.

Some later artistic depictions suggest they may have also been used for hunting.

Kestros
The kestrosphendone, or kestros, was a sling-launched dart, invented in 168 BC for the Third Macedonian War, probably similar to hand-thrown darts of the period. Casting one (according to surviving records) requires a specially designed sling with two unequal loops, though it is not clear whether this is a stave-sling or more closely resembles a shepherd's sling.

Blow darts
The blowgun can be used to fire darts, as well. Often, these are quite small, and do little harm by themselves; instead, they are effective due to poison spread onto their points, from (for example) dart frogs or curare.

Rope dart
This is a pointed weight attached at its blunt end to a length of rope or chain, which can be used to throw and retrieve it. It meets the definition above because it flies freely when no tension is applied to the rope, has a point and – in the form of a square of cloth – even has fletching. Shengbiao is a discipline of Wushu devoted to its use.

Swiss arrow
A Swiss arrow (also known as a Yorkshire arrow) is a dart thrown using a cord to make the dart go farther with the same power.

Modern darts
Of the darts still in widespread use, perhaps the closest to traditional thrown darts are lawn darts. These are large and heavy enough to be thrown by swinging, and to seriously wound a person when thrown.

An indoor game of darts has also been developed. For competitive purposes, a dart cannot weigh more than 50 g including the shaft and flight and cannot exceed a total length of 30 cm. They are designed to penetrate dart boards.

Tranquilizer darts are related to the darts for blowguns, but include a hypodermic needle and a hollow reservoir resembling a syringe, which is generally filled with sedatives or other drugs. These are launched from a dart gun using compressed gas, a tuft of fibers at the back of the missile serving as both fletching and wadding.

A type of dart still finds use in military engagements, in the form of flechettes. These are all-metal projectiles, often resembling nails that have had fletching (rather than nail heads) forged into them. They were used by American forces during the wars in Korea and Vietnam, but treaties have since been enacted to limit their use.

Large flechettes are used as kinetic energy penetrators in many gun-fired anti-armour projectiles.

title: Dart (missile)


text:
Poison Girls

The Poison Girls were an English anarcho-punk band from Brighton. The singer/guitarist, Vi Subversa, was a middle-aged mother of two at the band's inception, and wrote songs that explored sexuality and gender roles, often from an anarchist perspective. The original Poison Girls line-up also included: Lance D'Boyle (drums); Richard Famous (guitar/vocals); Nil (tapes/bass/electric violin); and Bernhardt Rebours (bass/synthesiser/piano).

History
Poison Girls formed in Brighton in 1976, before moving to Burleigh House in Essex, near to Dial House, the home of fellow anarchist band Crass, with whom they worked closely for a number of years, playing over 100 gigs with the band. In 1979 they contributed to the revival of the peace movement by playing a number of benefit gigs with Crass and paying for the production of the first CND badges since CND's heyday. Again in 1979, and again with Crass, they proved influential to the establishment of the short lived Wapping Autonomy Centre by contributing the track "Persons Unknown" to a split single with Crass (who contributed "Bloody Revolutions") and raising over £10,000. Their song "Bully Boys", an attack on violent machismo led to the band being attacked by members of the National Front. The band also set up the label X-N-Trix alongside a publishing arm for the Impossible Dream magazine and recording studios for other artists.

Though their last studio recording to date was in 1985, a number of Poison Girls compilations have since been released, and their songs frequently appear on punk anthologies.

Poison Girls were involved with the production of Aids — The Musical, through a company called The Lenya Hobnoobs Theatre Company. They did another show called Mother Russia was a Lesbian in 1992, and reunited for a show at the London Astoria II in 1995, celebrating the 60th birthday of Vi Subversa. Currently, Richard Famous works as a painter and decorator. The pair have performed as That Famous Subversa, until Subversa's death in February 2016.

Members

 * Vi Subversa - vocals/guitar
 * Richard Famous - guitar/vocals
 * Lance d’Boyle (Gary Lance Robins) - drums/backing vocals (1976–84)
 * Bella Donna - bass (1976–77)
 * Pete Fender - bass (1978, 1984)
 * Scott Barker - bass (1978)
 * Bernhardt Rebours - bass/synth/piano/backing vocals (1979–81)
 * Nil - tapes.(1979–1981), electric violin and Bass (1980–1995)
 * Chris Grace - bass (1982–83)
 * Mark Dunn - bass (1983–84)
 * Cynth Ethics (Sian Daniels) - synth/vocals (1983–85)
 * Martin Heath - bass (1984)
 * Max Vol - bass (1984–87)
 * Agent Orange - drums (1984–87)
 * Andy Demetriou - bass (1989-89)

Albums

 * (1979) Hex (EP - X-N-Trix Records, re-released in 1980 on Crass Records)
 * (1980) Chappaquiddick Bridge (plus "A Statement" flexi disc - Crass Records)
 * (1982) Where's the Pleasure? (X-N-Trix Records)
 * (1985) Songs of Praise (features cover artwork by Clifford Harper - X-N-Trix Records)

Live

 * (1981) Total Exposure (X-N-Trix Records)

Singles

 * (1979) "Closed Shop" / "Piano Lessons" (split 12" single with Fatal Microbes - X-N-Trix Records / Small Wonder Records)
 * (1980) "Persons Unknown" (joint single with Crass as a benefit to raise funds to start an Anarchist Centre - Crass Records)
 * (1980) "Bully Boys" / "Pretty Polly" (flexi disc free with fanzine In The City #15)
 * (1980) "All Systems Go!" (7" - Crass Records)
 * (1983) "Are You Happy Now?" / "White Cream Dream" (12" - Illuminated Records)
 * (1983) "One Good Reason" (7" - Illuminated Records)
 * (1984) "I'm Not A Real Woman" (12" - X-N-Trix Records)
 * (1985) "The Price of Grain and the Price of Blood" (12" - Upright Records)

Compilations

 * (1984) 7 Year Scratch (double compilation from previous releases plus live material - X-N-Trix Records)
 * (1984) Who? What? Why? When? Where? (song "The Offending Article" included on compilation by Conflict, Mortarhate Records). The album had little circulation on its initial release, but gained greater currency when re-released in 2003.
 * (1995) Statement - The Complete Recordings (4 CD boxed set with accompanying lyric and history booklets - Cooking Vinyl)
 * (1995) Real Woman (Cooking Vinyl Records)
 * (1997) Their Finest Moments (Nectar Masters Records)
 * (1998) Poisonous (Recall 2 cd Records)

title: Poison Girls


text:
SR-71 (band)

SR-71 was an American rock band formed in Baltimore, Maryland in 1998. They are best known for their 2000 single "Right Now", their 2002 single "Tomorrow", and as the original authors of Bowling for Soup's 2004 hit "1985" (which was released first on their album Here We Go Again). The name of the band came from SR-71 Blackbird, a supersonic surveillance aircraft of the United States Air Force. The band was originally known as Honor Among Thieves, and as was later the case with SR-71, lead singer Mitch Allan was the only constant member.

Early years and Now You See Inside (1996–2001)
The band was formed in 1998, as a continuation project for frontman Mitch Allan after the demise of his previous band, Honor Among Thieves. The band chose the name "SR-71" because all the members' parents came from the United States Air Force. The band was quickly signed to RCA Records, where they recorded their debut album, entitled Now You See Inside which was released on June 20, 2000, and produced by David Bendeth (Underoath, Killswitch Engage), Gil Norton (Foo Fighters, Pixies) and John Shanks (Unwritten Law, Jane's Addiction). The album proved successful for the unknown band, and peaked at number 81 on the Billboard 200 and number 2 on the Billboard Heatseekers Chart. The album spawned the band's debut hit single, which remains the band's only hit single to date, "Right Now". Written by frontman Mitch Allan and songwriter Butch Walker from a raw script purchased for $1500 from a friend, it reached number 2 on the Modern Rock Tracks chart, number 102 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number 38 on the Mainstream Rock Tracks.

The band's original drummer, Dan Garvin, left the band soon after the supporting tour of the album, to join alternative rock outfit Nine Days while their drummer was unable to perform on the supporting tour for The Madding Crowd.

Tomorrow, drop from RCA Records and Reid departure and death (2002–2003)
All of 2002, the band recorded their follow-up to Now You See Inside. In the recording sessions for the album, they recorded a cover of the Grammy Award-winning funk rock song "Let It Whip", originally by the Dazz Band, for the soundtrack of the movie The New Guy.

Their second studio album, entitled Tomorrow, was released on October 22, 2002, and was produced by Neal Avron (Fall Out Boy, Yellowcard), Butch Walker (American Hi-Fi, Avril Lavigne), David Bendeth (Underoath, Breaking Benjamin) and frontman Mitch Allan himself. On this album, Mitch Allan contributed songwriting to all the songs in the album, with most of them written only by him, except a few, written along with Butch Walker, Kevin Kadish, and the other members of the band. It was the band's first album with new drummer John Allen.

The album was much darker, and proved to be less successful than its predecessor, and peaked only at number 138 on the Billboard 200. The first single "Tomorrow", reached only number 18 on the Modern Rock Tracks chart, which was far less successful than "Right Now's" number 2 peak. The song "My World" was later recorded for American Idol runner-up Bo Bice's debut album The Real Thing, where frontman Mitch Allan played guitar and bass on. The song "Goodbye" was used by WWE as the theme song for the 2004 edition of WWE No Way Out.

Despite the commercial failure, RCA still heavily promoted a supporting tour for the album from late 2002 until 2003. The tour also proved unsuccessful. Soon tensions began to arise in the band, resulting in the departure of guitarist Mark Beauchemin after the end of the tour in 2003. Bassist Jeff Reid also left at this time, due to lung cancer, which he died from the following year. Mark Beauchemin went on playing guitar for soft rock artist Vanessa Carlton.

The band was then joined by new members guitarist Pat DeMent and bassist Mike Ruocco, only to be dropped by their label, RCA Records, not long afterward.

Here We Go Again and decline in popularity (2003–2005)
Though without a label at the time, the band went on to record an album of new material by themselves, during mid to late 2003. All songwriting on the album was done by Mitch Allan, with the exception of two tracks co-written by drummer John Allen, and one old-penned hidden track co-written a year earlier by Kevin Kadish. All production, mixing and mastering was also done by Mitch Allan.

In 2004, the band finally found a new label, a Japanese label under the name Crown Japan, who released their third album Here We Go Again on May 21, 2004, in Japan only. The album was available outside Japan only through imports on the band's official website. The album gained little attention and entered no charts, proving to be, again, a commercial flop. Despite that, one song on the album, "1985", was then re-recorded by the band's close friends Bowling for Soup for their album A Hangover You Don't Deserve, released later in 2004. "1985" was released as a single and reached number 23 on the Billboard Hot 100. Frontman Mitch Allan and drummer John Allen were still credited for the song on the Bowling for Soup album and single, along with Bowling for Soup frontman Jaret Reddick. It was former SR-71 producer and collaborator Butch Walker who produced the album and single. Mitch Allan also had a cameo in BFS's music video for "1985".

The album's title track "Here We Go Again" was also re-recorded in 2006, by pop punk band JParis for their album Call It What You Want. Mitch Allan has produced the band's album and was credited as the writer of this song.

The first song on the album, "Axl Rose", was released as a single later, with "Here We Go Again" and "All American" as B-sides. The Peter Gabriel cover "In Your Eyes" was also released a single, and played frequently during the 2004–05 tour by the band.

Hiatus and cancelled Mitch Allan solo album (2006–2009)
Though the band still played some dates in 2005, it stayed inactive since, with Mitch Allan starting to play small solo club shows around 2006. At his solo shows, he played SR-71 songs, as well as some previously unreleased solo material, including a new fan favorite song called "Superman". Allan then announced that he started working on his first solo album. He said the album will be called Clawing My Way to the Middle and released in late 2007, with sessions commencing in Los Angeles and Baltimore in the spring of 2006 with record producer Ben Moody. Since it was announced the album would be released in late 2007, it was pushed back a few times in 2008 and 2009, and now it is unknown when or if the album will be released.

Allan kept playing solo club shows around the Hollywood area through 2007, when the band announced that they will be officially going into an indefinite hiatus after a one last show in Henderson, Nevada, on August 18, 2007, at the Sunset Station, along with Vertical Horizon, Nine Days and Marcy Playground.

While keeping a low profile on performances, Mitch Allan has worked as a songwriter and record producer with many artists including Lindsay Lohan, Lovehammers, Daughtry, Hilary Duff, Faith Hill, Backstreet Boys and more. In 2007, Allan received a Latin Grammy Award nomination for co-writing the song "Bella Traición" for Mexican teen sensation Belinda.

In January 2008, Mitch Allan released his debut single with a music video on his Myspace page. The song, titled "Make Me High" was a soft remake of an old SR-71 song called "My World", from their 2002 album Tomorrow. Allan has also said that the SR-71 song "Mosquito" from their 2004 album Here We Go Again will also be re-recorded for his solo album. Allan said he was working with his former SR-71 bandmates on his solo album. There has since been no news of the album's production since then.

In 2009, Allan launched a weekly event in Hollywood where he and other notable songwriters meet up and play covers and original tunes acoustically to small crowds. Allan was then involved, along with former Evanescence guitarist Ben Moody in a new contest for finding a teen singer sensation.

Also in 2009, drummer John Allen was involved as the lead singer of the new hard rock band Charm City Devils. The band toured as part of Mötley Crüe's Crüe Fest 2 tour in summer 2009. Their first album Let's Rock and Roll, included one song co-written and produced by Mitch Allan.

Reunion (2009–2010)
On July 25, 2009, the band reunited for a one-off performance at the Wicker Park Bucktown Arts and Music Festival in Chicago, playing a full set on the Center Stage.

On October 13, 2009, Mitch Allan announced on his Myspace page that SR-71 will be playing another one-off reunion show at the Bourbon Street in hometown Baltimore, Maryland on November 25, 2009. Alternative rock act Cinder Road supported them on this date. During the band's show, drummer John Allen stepped to the front and traded duties with frontman Mitch Allan, to sing "Best of the Worst", a song he co-wrote with Mitch Allan for his other band Charm City Devils, which members also got on stage to play the song.

On October 22, 2010, Allan, through his Twitter account, revealed that SR-71's third album, Here We Go Again, would finally be released in the United States. On Thanksgiving Day, 2010, the album was made available as a digital download. The original album tracks were remastered and three live bonus tracks were added. Following this, the band's status went inactive once again.

Musical style and influences
SR-71 has been described as punk rock, pop-punk, and alternative rock. SR-71 cites the Beatles, Queen, Sum 41, U2, the Clash, Sex Pistols, Third Eye Blind, Stone Temple Pilots, the Who, the Police, and Duran Duran as influences. The band's album Now You See Inside was described as pop punk and pop rock. SR-71's second album Tomorrow has been described as nu metal.

Members
Final lineup
 * Mitch Allan – lead vocals, rhythm guitar (1998–2010)
 * John Allen – drums, percussion, backing vocals (2001–2010)
 * Pat DeMent – lead guitar, backing vocals (2003–2010)
 * Mike Ruocco – bass, backing vocals (2003–2010)

Former members
 * Mark Beauchemin – lead guitar, keyboards, backing vocals (1998–2003)
 * Jeff Reid – bass, keyboards, backing vocals (1998–2003) (died 2004)
 * Dan Garvin – drums, percussion, backing vocals (1998–2001)

Compilation appearances
The song "Right Now" also appears in the PlayStation 2 game Splashdown.
 * Cool Traxx! 2 (2000) – "Last Man on the Moon"
 * Listen to What the Man Said (2001) – "My Brave Face"
 * Loser Soundtrack (2000) – "Right Now"
 * A Very Special Christmas 5 (2001) – "Christmas Is the Time to Say I Love You"
 * Splashdown Soundtrack (2001) – "Right Now"
 * Crossing All Over Vol. 13 (2001) – "Right Now"
 * The New Guy Soundtrack (2002) – "Let It Whip"
 * Slap Her... She's French (2002) – "Right Now"

Singles

 * Notes
 * A. "Right Now" peaked outside of the top 100 in the US Billboard Hot 100, therefore they are listed on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles.

title: SR-71 (band)


text:
User talk:Justanobody

Image:Me!.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Me!.JPG, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 04:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Justanobody
I've added the "" template to your user page (User:Justanobody), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy).

Please note that the purpose of a user page is not as personal homepage or used as a general webhosting service, but as way for active editors of Wikipedia to introduce themselves to other editors. If you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues here or on my user talk page. You may remove the deletion notice, and the page will not be deleted for the moment, but note that it may still be sent to Miscellany for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Calton | Talk 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Justanobody


text: Category:Elementary schools in Illinois

title: Category:Elementary schools in Illinois


text:
User talk:Sparkit/Archive 2

Keodrah
Hello Sparkit,

My name is Keodrah and I am wanting to write about Neo-gothism and post goth culture. I wanted to bring to your attention a movement that is happening in Denver Colorado with a figure named Dimitri Spanoa. His writings are rather progressive talking about the future of musical generas...I feel like he would be a great subject to cover in Neo-Gothism because he falls along the lines of Tim Burton and C.S. Lewis and the Chronicles of Narnia. He has also created a few bands with a dark fantasy model that introduces the bands as fiction, but release real world products. It is very exciting because they are now working on a music video and plan to have a film company. All of this falls under the writings of Dimiti-The Blacklight Chronicles. Would you be interested in helping me write an article- that his works are enjoyed by more people? Also by drawing inspiration from this subject, I have written an article called 'Post Goth and the evolution of subcultures'. This article will be published in Dark Culture Magazine in a few days. Thank you so much! I enjoyed reading this article. here is a link to one of his sites http://www.myspace.com/darkmoth -Dimitri is also a graphic illustrator.

-Keodrah

Han Hoogerbrugge
I'm not sure I understand the reason behind your recent editing of Han Hoogerbrugge? Why did you remove him from the catagories of Dutch people, Dutch artists and Cartoonists? I don't really see what the point was but before I revert your edits I thought I should ask why you did it.

oops forgot to ad my sig, i'll ad it now--Jimmyjrg 11:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The remaining categories are sub-categories of those removed, and generally having both a sub-category and the category above it in the category structure is considered redundant. Happy editing! >>sparkit|TALK<< 13:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Guernica
You added wikify to Guernica (painting). Doesn't look unwikified to me. What's the problem? - Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * User:Sibahi added the wikify tag last week. It looks plenty wikified to me. >>sparkit|TALK<< 05:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

& other things

 * P.S. I see you are here in the Emerald City, too!

 * Yes. But I don't think we've met. You haven't been at any of the meetups, have you? (I live in Wedgwood and currently am working downtown.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * We've not met. I haven't been to a meetup, but I'll keep an eye out for the next one. I live near Northgate and tomorrow I finish a contract job downtown. >>sparkit|TALK<< 05:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * We just had one 2 weeks ago (Meetup/Seattle3); you might want to watchlist Meetup/Seattle4 for when we start to plan the next one.

 * I see you work on a lot on art topics. Do I have any hope of recruiting you to flesh out the article on Jacob Lawrence and maybe even start one on Gwendolyn Knight? They've long been on my list, but I've never gotten to them. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It might be awhile, but I'll see what I can do. >>sparkit|TALK<< 00:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Saatchi Gallery
Hi, I wonder if you can help out. I have posted extra information on the Saatchi Gallery and it's been deleted 6 times by two new users whose only contributions have been on the gallery. They remove valid information about the history of the gallery, and seem to want to make it an announcement board for current gallery activities! Tyrenius 23:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi Tyrenius! I'll look it over and see what's happening. >>sparkit|TALK<< 03:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for input on Saatchi Gallery Talk page, and helping to defuse things.

 * Tyrenius 00:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

References for Caravaggio
Hi. I thought I'd reply to your offer to help with the Caravaggio cites here rather than oin the Caravaggio page, just in case you never go look there :). I've now added citations for almost all the direct quotes - a few are still blank, and if I can't find the sources I'll simply edit round them somehow. Apart from that, you could just look through the article and mark anything you feel needs a citation - just add  or something, with a matching blank in the Footnotes section. Then I can come back and try to find a good reference. I have Lambert (contains lots of secondary quotes that I haven't found elsewhere), Robb (use with caution but very readable and actually quite a lot of scholarship behind him), Puglisi (scholarly but slightly outdated), Langdon (same as for Puglisi), and Gash (pretty damn good). Should be able to find something from that lot. Plus I guess I could always go visit a library :). PiCo 12:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm glad to do that. I suppose I could go to the library, too. ;>) >>sparkit|TALK<< 18:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi again! Here's what I added (wikipedia doesn't make this easy, eh?)

 * note|Minniti - something general about relationship with Minniti
 * note|Cardsharps - new theme, attracting attention of Francesco Maria Del Monte, popularity
 * note|homoerotic - The opinion that his images are homoerotic. (or is it in the eyes of the 21st century viewer?)
 * note|vulgar - citation of perception of vulgarity, as well as appreciation
 * note|Ceccho - something general about Ceccho
 * note|Syracuse_to_Messina_to_Polermo - citiation about the trip
 * note|bizarre_behavior - attribution
 * note|Naples - persued by enemies, on to Naples
 * note|David_to_Borghese - giving David painting to Borghese
 * note|death_uncertainties - stories of his death
 * note|models - the prostitues - maybe Minniti and Checcho could go here, too
 * note|himself_as_model - who first says he used himself for a model

>>sparkit|TALK<< 15:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

At last I finished the footnotes to Caravaggio. I don't know if it's what you had in mind, but the footnotes now must be the longest for any article on Wikipedia! My problem is I could go on writing forever. Just have to force myself to stop. Any comments? PiCo 13:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you, PiCo. I don't know that it has a record number of footnotes but it's up there. ;) And they certainly cover enough of the article to ensure "credibility." I'll proofread it again. Would you like to submit it again for a featured article? Again, thanks for writing so much about an artist I so enjoy. >>sparkit|TALK<< 05:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately I'll be out of touch for the next two months. I'd like it to go to FA, but I think a peer review might be a good first step. Would youlike to handle that? PiCo 05:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry
Greetings, editor! Your name appears on List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct: Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 02:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
 * 2) If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
 * 3) Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Image Tagging Image:ENcleanup.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:ENcleanup.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 14:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:ENdelete.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:ENdelete.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 14:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:ENednotice.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:ENednotice.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 14:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Sparkit From A Wheaty Wikinewbie
I hope it's okay that I'm communicating with you this way Sparkit. I spent a little time looking at your contributions and subpages. I'm impressed! I was wondering, if I have some quick questions for you as I learn my way around wikiland (particularly with templates which I haven't used yet) would it be alright if I ask them here? I completely understand if you'd rather I not ask them here though - just say the word. All this wiki stuff has been pretty exciting to learn over the last 2 days. And thanks again for your response on the WWR article (which I resonded to). Oh, one more thing since you're the only person I know on Wikipedia ... if I do something stupid or non-wikilike, please let me know. Thanks! Jimkloss 14:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * LOL! Of course it's OK. Thanks for the compliment. I've learned a lot about editing and writing here, and it's been like a self-taught course in art history for me. As well as fascinating observation of people interaction in internet interfaces.

 * Ask anything you'd like to here, Jim, or on the WWRwiki. I'll likely be more candid on WWRwiki.

 * Templates are easy. Just enclose them in – . I just learned the other day about WP:SUBST templates.

 * You are learning wikis quite rapidly. I'm not going to follow you around and read your edits, but if you step into some muck give me a shout. >>sparkit|TALK<< 17:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar time
For oh so long now, I've noticed you actively running around categorising art related articles, fixing them up, adding pictures where possible, removing them when they are inappropriate or copyvios, and generally improving Wikipedia's coverage of the arts. That seems worth a Tireless Contributor Barnstar to me. Thanks for all your efforts. -- Solipsist 00:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Many thanks, Solipsist! I'm taking everything I've learned here and using it with a new wiki, Whole Wheat Radio. You'll find me there with the same name as here, and if you like folk music, blues, and the like, tune-in to the stream. Which means I won't be doing much wikipedia for awhile, but I'm having a ball with the WWR wiki! >>sparkit|TALK<< 15:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Great work!
Thanks for working on the art articles, especially cleaning up my work! For great justice. 16:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Bakatcha! Thanks for your work on the articles. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Astronaut
re the Fallen Astronaut article (which I substantially rewrote today), I was wondering - why did you put it in the category of "Outdoor sculpture in the United States" ? The Moon isn't in the United States. DS 04:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I did not read the article carefully enough. Thanks for catching that. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 04:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:AlfredJarry.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AlfredJarry.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Feedback request for proposed move
I'm considering moving the content within "Wavicles" to a new article "Wavicle", and then creating a redirect from the old to the new. I can then also include other references to the term "wavicle" on the new page. I think it is better to have one page containing all of the different references, rather than having two pages which can make things confusing. Feedback is requested on this proposed action on an existing discussion topic on the Talk:Wavicles page. (Any reply posted here will not be reviewed by me.) --Amit 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sending this out to wikiart folks everywhere,
so please don't feel picked on. Here's my thing. I've been watching list of sculptors recently and have been weeding out the entries in red on the theory that this is an index of sculptors in wikipedia. However i have been reluctant to remove artists that I know or discover to be real, wikipedia worthy people, so am trying to decide if i should just do a stub - maybe a lot of stubs - of these folks or leave them on the list [I HATE lists with too much red - check out the List of Frank Lloyd Wright works for example.

For example, i checked out one, François-Joseph Duret (1804 - 1865) and discovered that there are at least two sculptors with that name, (1732 - 1816) and (1804 - 1865)- this one is the son -  and both probably could comfortably be in wikipedia. I did have a rather bad moment recently when someone DELETED my article on Connor Barrett about an hour [maybe less] after I first posted it, on the theory that he was not wikiworthy [or something] and a lot of these fairly remote (in time and place from me) artists are a lot more obscure than Barrett. So, i would like to know that i have the support of the wikipedia art history community before doing this. Drop me a line, if you wish to sit down and be counted. Life is good, Carptrash 04:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)  P.S. although i do mostly American art i have contributed to lots on non-American articles including Aleijadinho, Ásmundur Sveinsson, Einar Jonsson, Gunnfrídur Jónsdóttir, Henry Moore,  Ivan Meštrović, Ørnulf Bast, Rayner Hoff, and probably some others. I say this because most of the stubs I'm proposing would be Europeans.

page blanking on Dada
Can you please place a warning on the talk page for 208.108.138.93? This is a persistent vandal, who just returned from a 24 hour block, and received another level 3 warning. One more warning, and he will be blocked again. Thanks. ---Charles 23:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Printmaking Categorization
Hi, Have you seen the discussion on this at [] ? Not many have I suppose; your views would be very welcome. Cheers Johnbod 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi John!

 * What you've proposed sounds fine to me. thanks for taking it on. I read through some of the discussion. The etchers and engravers categories could easily be added to the printmakers category - it's either an oversight that they are not, or someone has removed them from it (seems to me they were subcats of printmaking at one time).

 * I guess I didn't read that "Obverse and reverse" article well enough when I categorized it. A "Visual arts terms" category would be useful, there are articles spread all over that would fit into it.

>>sparkit|TALK<< 17:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Visual arts How to Help
Hi Sparkit. Definitely liked your improvements to the How to Help section. I've been working on a restructuring of the same area in my sandbox and was wondering if you thought I was heading a good direction or not. It's clearly a work in progress and I'd like to incorporate the type of broad headings that you introduced. I just want to know if it's worth continued effort or not. Thanks. Planetneutral 17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi Planetneutral! I like what you're doing with the "how to help" thing in your sandbox! This morning I started out updating this, WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style, but got distracted by the "how to help" section of the visual arts project page and decided to clean it up. I think what you're doing and what I've done could easily be combined, and I encourage you to go for it on the project page. What do you think about a little template for editors with links to the help/howto articles relevant to editing visual arts pages? Something to put on one's user page or sandbox? >>sparkit|TALK<< 17:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the positive feedback. I agree that combining the approaches is very much possible. I think the template you mentioned has potential. My concern is that we haven't really developed the underlying project-specific resources that would be great to include (the Art Manual of Style is a perfect example). That said, I'm all for promoting this project and enabling participation in whatever way possible. Planetneutral 18:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Good point! :) I may revisit that art manual of style some more. Most all the style information is scattered about in other help/howto articles, and I think pointers to them might be the way to go. >>sparkit|TALK<< 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mind taking a look at the attempted merger, before I move it to the live page? Cheers. Planetneutral 19:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Oooooooo! I like where this is going! Is it OK with you if I edit in your sandbox? Many thanks! >>sparkit|TALK<< 19:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Absolutely. I appreciate the enthusiasm. Planetneutral 19:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I added a link for the portal's "did you know" section, and made some minor edits. Go for it, my friend! >>sparkit|TALK<< 19:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help! Now I need to think about what to do with that larger projects section. Just doesn't do it for me as is. Any thoughts? Planetneutral 20:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * You betcha, thank you!

 * Probably "Sub-projects" would be a more descriptive title. The categorizing thing has been a scattered effort, and seems to working OK at the moment. Moving images to commons was just a fleeting idea I had one day. I'd much rather see all the artists whose work is on commons with the commons link on their pages - a monumental task.

 * Anyhow, at the moment I'm thinking about chunking things down into sub-projects like:

 * Manual of style
 * Templatizing
 * Categories - if it's still appropriate
 * Portal maintenance
 * Open tasks maintenance

 * that sort of thing. Though, only manual of style and templatizing seem viable at the moment, the others are just examples of could-be.

>>sparkit|TALK<< 20:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Christian Art
Hi, I have been trying to clear out this cluttered category, in particular moving stuff to "Christian iconography". Ithink there should be a new sub-cat called something like "Christian art in modern media" for the likes of the Flannelgraph or Minnesota Cuke and the Search for Samson's Hairbrush. I think there might be resistance though. Any thoughts? Cheers Johnbod 22:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Seeing how Christian art is a giagantic field some sort of breakdown is categories seems needed. I like the idea of an iconography category. As to the modern stuff like flannelgraph and Minnesota Cuke... hmmmmmm... The Cuke seems like it belongs in a "Christian films" category (or "Children's Christian films" - there's probably a gazillion of them). Flannelgraph is a medium, in the sense of communication. But in any case,  "Christian art in modern media", or "Modern Christian art", or anything along those lines. In what manner do you expect resistance?

 * After not having done much categorizing in almost a year, today I'm scratching my head about having countries/nationalities art articles in two different categories -- Arts by country and Art by nationality. I would expect they'd all be in one or the other. It's almost like they started to move from nationalities to country then stopped about half-way through. (I remember some discussions about it long ago.) [>> sparkit| TALK<<]  23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

replied on mine- cheers Johnbod 01:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Western art
"Western art" is an extremely broad catch - any category of that name should be composed almost entirely of sub-categories. For example I see you are adding very specific articles such as Ottonian art, which is already a sub-cat of Medieval art, which should then be a sub-cat of western art. -- Stbalbach 05:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Yeah. I'm work my way to that. Thanks for keeping an eye on things! [>> sparkit| TALK<<]  05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, I see where you are going, but at the moment the cat is a sub of "Western culture" & "art by region" & includes various musical sub-cats (Groupe des Six, 2nd viennese school, neoclassicism) plus general ones like "Enlightenment". Might it not be better to have a cat just for the Visual arts?

Also, there is a bit of a categorisation rumpus on at [] on illuminated manuscripts - any input welcome. Cheers  Johnbod 13:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - that made me laugh! Do you know where the wiki-gizmo for showing trees/hierarchies lives, or where there's an example I can copy? Johnbod 16:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 * :) No, I don't know where that is at. I've seen it, but I was looking for it yesterday and didn't find it. [>> sparkit| TALK<<]  17:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 * :) No, I don't know where that is at. I've seen it, but I was looking for it yesterday and didn't find it. Let me know if you do. [>> sparkit| TALK<<]  17:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I found a complicated but smart looking one at Medici - too complicated for me! Johnbod 17:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The one I was thinking of was Category Tree browser at the Toolserver; javascript category browser, but it's been rolled into wikipedia. For discussion, I just do something simple like this...

 * Illuminated manuscripts
 * Biblical manuscripts
 * Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts
 * Gospel Books
 * Illuminated Bibles
 * Psalters
 * Illuminated manuscripts
 * Illuminated manuscript images
 * Illuminated manuscript stubs
 * Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts
 * Gospel Books
 * Illuminated Bibles
 * Psalters
 * Mesoamerican codices
 * Borgia Group

 * Hope this helps. [>> sparkit| TALK<<]  18:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Visual arts template
Hi Sparkit. I saw that you shrunk the image on the WPVA template. It's awfully small. Makes ir pretty difficult to even tell what it is. Might we meet somewhere in the middle?

If we're going to shrink the image, I'd suggest we also shrink the text size, so they are in better balance. This would also serve the purpose of making the template smaller, which I imagine was at least part of your intention by shrinking the image.

So glad to see someone interested in the template! Cheers. Planetneutral 15:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Yep, my intent was to reduce the vertical size. The image definitely doesn't have enough contrast at that small size. A little bigger would work better for recognizing that image. When I did it I started wondering if we had another more iconic image we could use for that. Maybe the same one as the Visual arts portal? Though that's so painting oriented, and visual arts isn't just about painting. [>> sparkit| TALK<<]  18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 * That's funny, 'cause just last night I was thinking of how much I disliked the image on the Visual arts portal and was thinking of changing it to the sunflowers. I'm certainly open to change on both fronts. Planetneutral 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Maybe we could discuss on the portal or project page? The palette icon doesn't work very well for me either. How's about an image of an eyeball? Artfully done, of course. It would lend an implication of "visual". [>> sparkit| TALK<<]  19:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

AMA case on Classicjupiter2/Surrealism
Hi Sparkit, did you know you've been listed as a party to this case?

Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/TextureSavant

I'm listed too, but I haven't been involved in this situation other than a few comments recently. Do you understand what's happening on the Surrealism page? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi Akhilleus! I did know I was named in that, but I don't know what being a party in such a case means, or what participation is expected or available to me. I do understand what's happening on the Surrealism page. Thanks! [>> sparkit| TALK<<]  18:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Sparkit, I don't understand what's happening on the Surrealism page--by which I mean, there seems to be a long-running dispute here, but I don't really understand what it's about, or what the various parties actually want. It doesn't seem to be just about adding a link to an external website...anyway, if you understand what's happening, could you explain it to me? Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh, I did misunderstand. I'll compose a brief recap of my understanding of the conflicts. Hopefully by this evening. [>> sparkit| TALK<<]  18:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My read on the conflicts on Surrealism related pages centers on several core questions:

 * What is "real" Surrealism? To Andre Breton and the original surrealists, surrealism was a change in thought processes, priorities and the like in an effort to revolutionize society. There's a political aspect to what at first blush is a visual arts or literature movement. It's my understanding that the original movement wasn't about creating works, but changing society and the works were a side effect, an artefact. Thus, part of what we're dealing with here is the differences in the definition of the term "surrealism" – originally surrealism was a process (and still is to many people) not the product, but the product has become known as surrealism. That's why there's a phrase in the article, " In more mundane terms, the word "surreal" is often used colloquially to describe unexpected juxtapositions or use of non-sequiturs in art or dialogue."
 * Closely parallel to "what is 'real' surrealism" contentions is who is or isn't a "real" surrealist. Some contend that surrealists are only those who adhere to the original tenets. To confuse the matter, much visionary art and the like looks very similar to the work of the original surrealists, and thus the visionary art is called surrealism. There's some clamoring of individuals and groups to be recognized as surrealists.
 * What's happened with Surrealism since Breton's death? Some say the movement died with him. Yet other groups, besides the original Paris-based group have formed.

So, inclusion of links, mention of various individuals, works and the like, IMO, are reflections of the contentions above. Disruptive tactics and ad hominem arguments make it difficult to sort out the problems.

I hope this helps. [>> sparkit| TALK<<] 19:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sparkit, thanks, that's very helpful. But this isn't an abstract thing for some of these editors, right? Some of them believe that they are real surrealists and that other editors aren't real surrealists. And in the process, it seems like what the article says about surrealism has strayed from a conventional art historical understanding of surrealism. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 * As far as I can tell, it is very real to the participants.

 * The main article (Surrealism) as it stands now basically just covers the philosophy/thought aspect. At one time it contained the history and art aspects, too. But in Oct. 2006 HappyCamper branched the history section (History of surrealism) into a separate article and Surreal-one broke the art part (Surrealism in the arts) into another article.

 * After having left the scene for a number of months, and coming back and finding that an art article had been created, but material duplicated in the main article, I deleted the art stuff from the main article as a way to avoid maintaining the info on both pages.

 * I've been hoping that once the smoke clears we can join the main, history and art articles back into one. Then proceed to present the info in NPOV fashion by presenting the multiple sides of the story. [>> sparkit| TALK<<]  01:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The VA portal
Thanks for the kind words and encouragement! I've been looking at the featured portals and the comments that were made during their candidacies (that is, who succeeded and why). I kept coming across the rotating content issue and mentions of the randomizer, so I thought it sounded perfect for the anemic level of maintenance that our portal currently suffers through. I'm definitely thinking of shooting for featured portal and have appreciated your interest and involvement. Onward and upward... Planetneutral 23:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?
No problems talking about it here or the article talk page. My main interest in editing the article came through Pop art and a general interest in keeping things balanced. I may or may not be doing that (it's hard to see these things sometimes when you're caught up in it all), but my main concern was a specific agenda being bullied through without any balanced sources or discussion. I have no problem with new ideas being introduced into art history, nor do I have problems with any rethinking of the "canon". On the contrary, I believe that is crucial and should be welcomed. However, I'm not convinced that is what's happening here. When I first started on wiki in the fall of '06, I noticed an edit war on this article, attempted a few reverts, was shouted down and basically gave up. Since then it seems to have remained dormant and I was hoping to fix things up, but the other editor Ottex was quick to jump in with reverts and comments which were insulting. I realize it's always best to step away from edit wars and mudslinging--I even posted a message indicating my desire to do so and focus on the editing. Aside from my response today, I've done that, mainly just reverting the reverts. If it's necessary to the process, I don't mind backing off, but not to leave it to Ottex to push through his agenda which is clearly something personal. But if other editors such as yourself are going to be working on it, I can at least be assured there's actually going to be a proper edit.

I'm not sure where you are in the world, but here it's 11:38 so I'm off to bed, and I may not respond to anything for a while. Thanks for the note (and the chance to explain my edits). Freshacconci 04:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Keeping things balanced, and understandable is my concern, too. Frankly, I never figured you were opposed to presenting the controversy, only in the way it was presented. The mudslinging and edit warring just makes it difficult to do so. Maybe the RFC will help us all make a great article of it.

 * I'm in Seattle, where it's not quite time to hit the pillows yet. Sweet dreams! --sparkit TALK 05:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

D'oh!
Gosh, I would have sworn that I'd gone through and changed all four rotating sections footers to match. Must have just previewed and forgot to save. I do that WAY too often. Thanks for cleaning up my messes. Planetneutral 14:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm certain that you did! I changed a bit of the code and decided to match the sections. :) Again, I love what you've done with this portal - a few more tweaks and some more rotating content and it'll be featured... no doubt. The quotation section - well, I'm not fond of yet another box within all the boxes and the small type. Not a big deal, but I'm playing with some ideas here, User:Sparkit/sandbox/templates. Not what I'm after yet but maybe more play on it later.

 * Keep this up and you'll get hit with some barnstars! --sparkit TALK 15:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh, OK, I guess I'm not quite as crazy as I'd thought. Good to know. I'm definitely open to different displays for the selected quotation, so I'll keep an eye on your sandbox page. Nice to have someone with an artistic eye involved! Planetneutral 15:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, this templating stuff is certainly crazy-making! I boldly went ahead an implemented my quote layout idea, and added a Duchamp quote. Thanks! --sparkit TALK 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Strangely, running IE7 on Vista, the More selected quotations link is white and therefore invisible on the main portal page. Doesn't happen on Firefox. Wonder why that would be? Can't really dig into it now, but I'll look tonight. Planetneutral 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I may have fixed that by adding style="background-color:transparent;". The text had a white background on Firefox/Mac, but the text itself was blue/purple, but now it's the same as the background. --sparkit TALK 18:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Sadly, it didn't fix it. Planetneutral 18:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Display problem
Something about the changes made today has resulted in a break of the portal's display in IE6, such that the right column is pushed down below the end of the left column. It was working as of the end of last night. Too much was done today beyond my limited understanding to have any hope of fixing it, so I'm hoping you can. Cheers, Planetneutral 02:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Ugh. I'll roll 'em back and let you know the specific problems in firefox/mac. the code will be more familiar to you that way. I don't have Windoze to look at the probs. --sparkit TALK 02:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I tried some 'rolling back' in an isolated fashion, but it may be that all three sections now share some attribute that's flummoxing the whole deal. I check IE every once in a while for exactly this reason. Hope it solves the issue.

 * I'm working on some of the other suggested tweaks. While I hesitate to sacrifice originality and style for the sake of consistency (and really recoil at the use of quote in place of quotation), I'm pretty sure we'll lose those fights at the FPC level anyway. And really, the goal is to draw attention to visual arts on Wikipedia, so I want that FP status badly. Major increase in the number of eyes on the portal. Planetneutral 02:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I rolled them back to last night. It'll be easier that way I think. As far as the FPC thing goes, how's about submitting it the way you, or we, like it, and if a case can't be made for the originality, then change it? --sparkit TALK 02:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Dang, that didn't fix the issue. I must be delusional. I'm gonna play around a bit and see if I come up with the problem. Probably will be able to put your edits back in. Sorry to send you on that goose chase. Re: FPC, yeah, could do that. Some of the same folks will be voting though, so you might just be stalling the inevitable. Some compromise will be necessary. Planetneutral 03:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I got it!!!!!!!! Something about moving the Did you know section into the right column (or moving the things you can do to the bottom) broke it. Switch 'em back and presto. Kind of a bummer as I liked it better the other way, but I'd rather have it working. Planetneutral 04:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Wow! that's really weird, but I've seen bugs like this before. I'm suspicious of the div tags and floating... seems I recall reading that IE doesn't handle them the same as mozilla.

 * I've been thinking about visual art content... I just don't remember coming across very many articles that are "GA" status. And I glanced at the bureaucracy surrounding that today. Ugh! --sparkit TALK 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Yup, having the same problem. Many of the GA articles are unimpressive. Bios are no problem.

 * I added a suggestion area for each of the rotating sections. I'm working on DYK right now. Of course, I should be heading off to bed... Planetneutral 04:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Is there a way that you can introduce a line of white space between the bottom of the and the footer material in the rotating sections? I can't figure it out and my brain is fading fast~ Thanks for the help. Planetneutral 05:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * break tags are the easiest. I did it for the Portal:Visual arts/Selected article/Layout. See if that's what you're after. And get some rest! :)

 * I'd like to see a little more white space at the above the items, like right about the first line, but I won't fiddle with that now. --sparkit TALK 05:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * That might be too far in the opposite direction ('cause I'm not at all picky). Maybe a single break tag is enough? Planetneutral 05:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * OK. Let's try one. :) I made the change. --sparkit TALK 05:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It's strange how two is too much, but one doesn't really seem to do anything at all. The space created also seems to be dependent on where the text ends. How are other portals solving this issue? We may as well look since it's been suggested in peer review and will just come up again in FPC. Planetneutral 11:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Glancing at a couple other portals, they're not addressing the problem. I think a "line-height:1em" in styles for those lines will do the trick. If 1 em is too much, we could try .75em. I made the change on most of the templates and the intro.

 * I also moved the portal icon to the right side to relieve the clutter in the upper left corner.

 * I may also try something with bullets which introduce a color into a grayscale design... Watch User:Sparkit/sandbox/templates. :) --sparkit TALK 13:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It's true that a number of them aren't addressing it. Here's some that seem to: Portal:Dogs, Portal:Electronics and Portal:Literature. I'm not seeing any difference on the basis of that line height attribute in Firefox or IE.

 * I'm OK with moving the picture, although it does make it pretty rigid and boxy on the left. Seems to work on the whole. Planetneutral 14:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The dog portal is using a common box footer template, placed on the portal main page. I tried it with visual arts just now and it messed up he page layout. Didn't save it. --sparkit TALK 14:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Are you sure? That's not what I'm seeing for the random components (which is where the issue is, right?). It looks like they are using the layout that I started with.

 * Is there a compelling reason not to just use that? Planetneutral 15:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Yep, that's what it looks like now that I look closer that box-footer is included in the rotating template. The most compelling reason not to use that is that "...archive" and "...read more" links using the div tags will overlap tall images on the archive pages. --sparkit TALK 15:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Also, the undefined uses undefined which is not adjustable by us unless we want to change all the wikiportals that use it. Which explains why we see a difference in the components we're using that don't use the random thing (DYK). Dunno where to go on this from here. --sparkit TALK 15:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I had to do some pretty drastic things, but I have everything working, including eliminating the white quotations link in IE7. Did not like having to 'undo' so much tweaking, but things are about as they should be now across browsers. In an ideal world, getting rid of the white space under the footer links would be desirable, but I really don't want to play and have to do this all again, as it's been a real energy drain/distraction from focusing on the content of the page. So I recommend we be pretty cautious (not dormant, just careful) from here as far as box format tweaking is concerned. Planetneutral 18:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for doing that. The problem with the "more" links overlapping some of the images in the article and bio archives has returned. If you're not seeing it in firefox/win, it must be a firefox/mac-specific problem.

 * The whole exercise has been a drain/distraction to me as well, but I must say that I know alot more now about the arcane bits of portal code. --sparkit TALK 19:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I found one example of what you were talking about with the archive display of Selected Article 1. I solved the issue on my end by adding enough text to push the More link below the image. See if it worked for you. Incidentally, I watch your talk page, so you can feel free to only respond here. I'll see it. Planetneutral 22:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, I made some more changes that I think complete the responses to peer review, except for the number of articles/quotes, which I'll keep working on. I've, at least for the moment, reverted to caps on the main page. I hate to (again) undermine positive contributions that you made and I didn't do it lightly, but I also don't really think it's worth taking an iconoclastic stand about style at this point. I want to make the transition to FP as smooth as possible. Arguing endlessly about capitalization, which, in looking at previous CFPs, is inevitable, just sounds like another energy drain waiting to happen.

 * I'm very excited about moving to formal candidacy and want to thank you so much for your efforts toward that end. I believe you've earned a cookie. :-)  Planetneutral 01:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Oooooooo! Thanks for the cookie! Yum.

 * But you! I think you need a barnstar for driving the whole project!

 * I'm sorry to see that label/title/header style go. Something to think about later, perhaps. --sparkit TALK 01:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Too kind, too kind. I can certainly see us revisiting stylistic innovation later on down the line. Cheers! Planetneutral 01:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Portal maintenance
Hey, thanks for chiming in on the portal candidacy. You should know that I listed you as one of the portal maintainers on Portal/Directory. I don't think the gig pays, so if you don't want to be listed there, feel free to remove your name. Planetneutral 06:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

 * You betcha, you're welcome! Another non-paying gig? :) cool! --sparkit TALK 14:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

JamesHAndrews
Hi Sparkit, thanks for categorizing my article! (I wrote only one -- the one on Northwest Coast Art.) I noticed today that someone has done some kind of erroneous edit to it... actually it looks like some kind of keyboard/mouse accident rather than a genuine attempt to edit it (see the sections on Cultural Appropriateness and the References).

Newbie alert -- sorry if these questions are naive. Is it possible to revert the article? If so, do you have the power/ability to revert it? ElaraGirl was the one that did the most improvements to it (adding references and pictures, for instance) but she seems to have withdrawn from Wikipedia. I would really appreciate it if you could do it or tell me how to do it.

By the way, I'm a big fan of Marcel Duchamp and I will be checking out your pages on him.

thanks --Jamie. User:JamesHAndrews

 * Hi Jamie!

 * I reverted it, which is really quite easy to do. See Help:Reverting. Newbie questions are cool, it means someone wants to learn. :)

 * I enjoyed reading the article, and was delighted to see it here on wikipedia... being a native northwesterner... well, I grew up here, of European ancestry.

 * Let me know what you think of the Duchamp article. I've been picking away at it for a very long time, and I think it's still very choppy. Tompkins biography about him is wonderful. I highly recommend it.

 * --sparkit TALK 04:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested...
...to know that an editor reversed your page move of Constantin_Br%C3%A2ncu%C5%9Fi without providing a counter-logic for doing so. Planetneutral talk  19:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I saw it when it happened and chose not to fight that battle. :) The edit summary of the move, to the spelling that no one will search for, said "not a policy". As it turns out the page I though was policy was a proposed-but-failed policy and no one had marked it as such (it's now marked). However, it confuses me in light of all the other naming convention pages which prescribe "use English." I guess all the libraries and museums in the English speaking world have been spelling it wrong for decades. It's confusing other folks, too. See the bottom of Talk: Constantin_Br%C3%A2ncu%C5%9Fi. --sparkit TALK 00:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Chinese art
Neat elephant. Interesting. Just wanted to drop by and thank you for your help with the Southern School stuff. Meanwhile, if you're interested, I've created Category:Lacquerware and Ryukyuan lacquerware with a number of red links just waiting to be filled. If that's not your thing, that's fine. No pressure, of course. Thanks again. Cheers. LordAmeth 21:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 * You're most welcome! I don't know much about Eastern art, so I'm learning as I go. :) I made a stub for lacquerware and will add to it as I find info, time and interest permitting. Did all the redirects, too, like laquerware. (That elephant just tickles my fancy.) --sparkit TALK 21:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding any edit war
I need your help and I really don't know who else to talk to. Its about the Surrealism article. I am trying to find notable reference and source material on these current surrealist groups, and all I am getting is blogs. I really suggest that the article sticks to historical fact.Worldeater 17:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't have info on whether any particular contemporary group is notable or non-notable. What is notable is that they exist almost 40 years after Breton's death. --sparkit TALK 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Kinetic
I'm looking it up right now in a book I have. A lot of interesting stuff. It's all surprisingly interrelated. Yes, Op art is said to simulate movement, or at least to create the illusion of movement. Interestingly, the term Op art was coined by a Kinetic artist, George Rickey! It is said that the first Kinetic sculpture was Marcel Duchamp's Bicycle Wheel of 1913. Anyway, Op art and Kinetic art (or sculpture) are separate things. I don't see any indication of any overlap. Bus stop 23:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Neat! I'd read that about Bicycle but hadn't added to any of the articles. I, too, think of only the actual moving stuff as kinetic, but because op art is sometimes referred to as kinetic some mention is warranted, but like I said on the kinetic art talk page, dunno if a whole section is needed. --sparkit TALK 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping in Painting
Thanks for helping out with the categories in the Painting article. If you have any info or more details that might help me when I deal with these sections, I'd love to hear of them. Artypants 07:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sparkit/Archive 2