User talk:Dank/Archive 70

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

Archive 75

Scheduling

Thanks to Cas's cooperation, we are up and running! Too late for me today, but I'll start tomorrow although unlikely to complete due to RL Friday commitments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday's TFA at ERRORS

In addition to the thread I have opened at Talk:ERRORS, I must challenge you over your final comments in yesterday's thread: "As I said, I'm not taking a position on the other comments. If you're asking about my first comment ... it was pretty straightforward, wasn't it? (1)There was no reason to panic. We had a likely consensus of (2)generally well-informed editors in favor of the existing language, so it didn't make sense to change it instantly because one person objected ... it made more sense to ask people to check things out. This turned out to be a good thing ... (3)the sources revealed surprising new information, but they didn't support the suggested "an exhibition hall" as the best way to identify the building. As to whether a change should have been made sometime today ... (4)I can't speak to that, since I helped write the blurb"

1 TFA appears on the main page for one day. Any correction on it is a matter of urgency, because the time available to present a correct version is diminishing all the time.

2 Generally well informed?? What evidence did you have for that? None of them gave any indication of having read the National Trust literature on the site. Are you trying to suggest that I was less informed than them?

3 How did the sources "not support the suggested 'an exhibition hall' as the best way to describe the building"? They called the building in question "Exhibition Hall"! The photo in the article has the words in block capitals above the door!

4 Someone who helped to write the blurb is going to be particularly well positioned to opine on proposed changes to the text. You are in a position to say whether the challenged phrasing was something that was carefully crafted after much discussion as a compromise, or a copy and paste with no real thought behind it; whether it was considered to be key to the subject matter, or a minor gloss. Kevin McE (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The urgency is all on you. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 20, 2019 was created 21 August 2019. That's a whole month that the blurb could have been looked over and revised. Instead, you waited until the last minute. There's a reason that TFAs are scheduled in advance, for the entire month, and it's so that we can avoid this "urgency" to revise while under the time crunch. Dank's a volunteer that works hard - they do ALL the blurbs for the main page - and it would be helpful if folks actually availed themselves of the time that the TFA coords give them to bring up issues without having to feel under a time crunch. Frankly, the way you're treating Dank, if I was them, I'd question why I kept doing this rather thankless job. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

ERRORS invites people to provide observations on that day's FA. If you don't think it should, raise that at the appropriate place. In the meantime, I'd like to hear what Dank has to say in defence of his/her post. Kevin McE (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Kevin, I've tried talking with you in the past and it didn't work, so I won't try again. You won't be shut out of any decision-making, of course, it's just not going to happen on my talk page. If yesterday was a one-off day, that's fine, no one has anything to be embarrassed about. I see you've made 3 complaints today ... I haven't read them yet, but if this becomes a pattern, then we'll need to arrive at some kind of understanding at ERRORS about how to move forward. - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

So you are not willing to defend what you wrote last night? Kevin McE (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

And trying to improve the main page by pointing out errors at ERRORS is now "complaining"? Kevin McE (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Kevin McE, you have long record of last-minute changes despite being told multiple times that the blurbs are typically available a month in advance. For the record, all of October is scheduled now with more than a week of September left. I think Dank is remarkably restrained given that you ignore al the work put in by the FA writers, Dank and the other TFA coordinators until a few hours before it's due to run, and then wonder why you get criticised for your last-minute unilateral changes. Even if you are sometimes correct, doing it this way isn't exactly the way to make friends and influence people Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Pointing out what you think are errors, at the ERRORS page, is fine. That's what it is there for. But continuing to flog the horse when there's no consensus for your suggestion, kicking up a fuss in multiple venues, and edit warring on the ERRORS page when you don't get your way is not fine, it's disruptive. I'm not sure how many people need to say that before you get that message. There's certainly a place for you in reviewing the main page content, Kevin, and much of what you write is sensible. But if what has happened here yesterday and today occurs repeatedly then you're likely to find yourself on a visit to WP:ANI.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I assume we all share the goal of having Wikipedia as accurate as possible, and the MP as representing the best of that. When the truth (that building is an exhibition hall which is one facility within a visitor centre) is plain, but misrepresented, I will continue to do what I can to get the accurate truth presented for our readers. There was no matter of opinion on the issue: it was a clear statement of truth. For as long as WP:ERRORS is the most accessible area made available for people to raise issues, expect it to be the place where issues are raised. And if WP:ERRORS only invites comment on today's and tomorrow's FAs, then those are the ones most likely to get commented upon.

But I still don't see what that has to do with the questions I have asked Dank about the comments at the end of yesterday's discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to answer your questions on this page, Kevin. I'll answer questions (for a while) in the thread you started at WT:ERRORS ... but even there, I'm not going to respond to everything all at once, that would be too wall-of-texty. I'm going to give everyone a chance to offer their questions and comments first. - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For all the hard work you do on the main page blurbs, despite the infrequent and often misplaced criticism. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

John's very happy to see this. Me too. It's been a long day. - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Well said, Gav -- seconded. Best to you and John, Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Which reminds me, it's been a while since I've given you a barnstar, Ian ... posted. - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Proteus (video game)

Hi Dank! I'm considering bringing Proteus (video game) back around to FAC for the 4th time. In the last FAC it was suggested to get a fresh pair of eyes on the prose, and your name came up. Is there any chance you have the time to give it a scan and advise on the prose quality? I'm not necessarily asking for you to actually go in and copyedit, I just want to get a sense of whether going to FAC any time soon will be worthwhile. There's been quite a lot of copyediting since the last review so the notes there may not be entirely accurate now. Thanks! Sam Walton (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been spending so much time reading leads and writing blurbs that I find myself making mistakes when I try to edit non-leads. But sure, I'm happy to look at the lead for you:

• To my ear, an "exploration game" doesn't sound like the same thing as an "adventure game".
• "procedurally-generated" (which shouldn't have a hyphen per WP:HYPHEN) feels jargony to me; that is, I don't think it will make much sense except to the people who already know what it is.
• "under game designer Ed Key. Key first conceived": That's 3 times in the first 4 sentences that you say or imply that he designed the game; you could leave out ""under game designer Ed Key".
• "The PlayStation 3 and Vita versions": I agree with your decision not to mention that these are a console and a handheld console in the first sentence ... that would have been too much ... but it would be helpful to say it at the second mention.
• "a number of features": When I first heard Wikipedians complaining loudly about "a number of", I thought they couldn't be right ... but they're right. Different Wikipedians think it means different things ... so it's inherently ambiguous.
• "Indiecade": not wrong, but the best I can tell, IndieCade is better.
• I'm not a fan of the last sentence, but I'm not sure what's wrong with it.
• "Both its original and PlayStation releases were well received by critics, who praised the use of audio in particular. Some reviewers, however, responded negatively to the game's brevity and limited replayability." I have heard bad reactions from a fair number of (note: not "a number of"!) people to redundant praise for any retail product, including video games. That is, you don't need both "well received" and "praised". (Not everyone at WP:VG agrees, and the problem isn't fatal at FAC ... it's just a generally good idea to reduce the number of praise-words where you can do it without harm to the prose.)
• "however": I think some of the complaints I hear about "however" miss the mark ... the problem is that a full stop or period signals a break, but the "however" (in this case) signals that the sentence before that one wasn't something that can stand on its own. And possibly, we can leave out "Both its original and PlayStation releases", if readers are likely to assume that anyway. So, maybe something like this: "Critics generally praised the game, especially for its audio features, but some responded negatively to its brevity and limited replayability." If "praised" is too much, you can dial it down.
• Hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 23:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Super appreciated, thanks for taking the time. Sam Walton (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

About the featured article request

I am very sorry about what happened with The Battle of Tudela, I am very inexperienced with feature articles, I am very, very sorry, i'll try and get it featured by using the method you linked me

thanks, and sorry

--Great Mercian (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about. Also see the nomination process for Good Articles. - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Things

Noticing your comment on Fowler's talk...hope I speak for a lot of nominators in saying you are doing a great job at calming troubled waters. Its a mostly thankless job I know, but from the trenches...appreciated. Sometimes you just need to let people...wash over you and keep on keeping on. Ceoil (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Beautifully put. Poetic, even. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 09:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

October

... with thanks from QAI

Well said, Ceoil, should put it somewhere as a reminder to self! Thanks to you, Dan, also pictured, first in October ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I think Dank plays a key role in the quality control/review aspect of the project, and has over the years earned significant trust. Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Very kind, thanks guys. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• meh - he's ok I guess. :-P Hey Dank, how you doin these days? — Ched (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Ched! I haven't seen you in a coon's age (except here and there during Framgate ... much appreciated). I'm fine. What have you been up to? - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It has been a while hasn't it my friend. Yes - the whole WP:FRAM thing was one of the worst attacks I think I've ever seen on wiki. Certainly one of the most drama filled if nothing else. I've been sort of sticking around after I said my 2 cents worth, but trying to stay in article space as much as possible. I have no desire to get pulled back into all the other Arbcom/WP:AN/any other drama anymore. That age thing keeps sneaking up on me every time I turn around - but I suppose that happens to everyone.

I see that WP:UPDATE has finally taken a toll. I'll never be sure how you managed to handle so much for so long - amazing. It is great to see that you're still out and about though. I certainly hope you and all your friends and family are doing well. Great to touch base with you again. All my best. — Ched (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

We are ... you too, bud. - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. This article is too long, need to omit some unnecessary paragraphs, help summarize this article (copy edit and add source). Thanks you. 117.4.107.199 (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to send you for help with this. - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

There has been a lot of sock puppet activity regarding this article. Best to ignore it. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

TFA schedule

Hi Dank! I've been trying to check potential need for copy editing on articles listed at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending. It seems like a lot of other articles just got added to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2019. This doesn't always give me a lot of lead time to check the articles (between various other tasks) or for other editors to address any issues found. Am I missing some other forum where these are discussed or assembled? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The other 3 TFA coords are responsible for scheduling; they take turns, and generally schedule a whole month at a time. Their selections largely come from TFAR, TFAP and articles that have blurb reviews (which are listed at User:Dank/Sandbox/5, in several sections in chronological order). - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Reidgreg, you can also watchlist my Sandbox/3 if you like, which fills up once per month with upcoming blurbs, but it's only a tentative list. - Dank (push to talk) 00:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I've watchlisted your sandboxes 3 and 5. I've checked scheduled TFAs to around Nov 20, will try to at least look at as many others as I can before the end of the month, when I'll have to get back to some other tasks. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)