User talk:Dank/Archive 50

William Howard Taft
Would you have some time to look at it, presently at FAC? It would be greatly appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've got 3 supports, and the article appears to be in good shape. Are there any particular sections you'd like for me to look for? - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * When I asked it had only two. "Never mind".  Thanks anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Roseanne Roseannadanna? - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, no, Emily_Litella. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

West Virginia barnstar

 * I've enjoyed all of your articles, keep 'em coming. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

FA queries
Hi. Since you're part of the TFA, would you mind answering some queries I have regarding the elusive FAR process? I'm also writing an essay about it. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * FAR has its own coordinators, and I haven't participated there much. I'd recommend talking with User:Casliber or User:Nikkimaria. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure ask away, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you Dank. Moving over to User talk:Casliber. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/June 11, 2016
Nice copy editing. Ceoil (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't say this a lot, but I liked the direction you went a lot more than the direction I went. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I swapped out one sentence. The heavy lifting of condensing a lead to a quarter of its size had already been done; an admirable feet, one that usually takes me about 20 edits. Ceoil (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I watch and lean from the better writers on this project. Ceoil (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Chickasaw Turnpike TFA
Looks good so far! Thanks for your work on it, I had completely forgotten about getting it as a TFA. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (We're talking about Today's featured article/June 18, 2016.) Anything you want to add (less than 100 characters)? - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Impact
That award is a great idea, and I think it's also a great idea to keep a list of the recipients. You're always making things better around here, Gerda. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It made me blush when I received it, - I made a secion "blushing" on my talk. I was so shocked when he died, - had to turn it into something positive. His "ignore ignore ignore" is truly the best advice to survive here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Amen, sister. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to close the RfC. Your "Arbcom basically threw up its hands the last time it wrestled with infoboxes." amused me. Why did arbcom wrestle? It could have been so simple: infobox opera was introduced, objected and reverted first, but not any more (look for "infobox opera made simple" on my user page, my favourite quote: "But otherwise no, it's bureaucratic and a bloody waste of time to start a talk page discussion before adding any infobox anywhere on Wikipedia."). I have no idea why the then-arbs didn't see that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I had reason today to look back at a discussion of 2013, better than many later ones, and even with ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Knighthoods and all that
I see you had a bit of confusion on the TFA talkpage about Paul McCartney's knighthood. Our quaint system of awarding honours confuses many; this is what I wrote some years ago on the Learie Constantine talkpage to a similarly perplexed transatlantic colleague:

"'Constantine was made a 'Knight bachelor', not a KBE. The MBE he received in 1945 was not superseded by the knighthood, nor by the subsequent life peerage. He kept it to his dying day. It would be OK to refer to him as 'Lord Constantine MBE', but as the MBE is a fairly low-level honour it is more usually omitted from the formal title. For what it's worth, there are lots of different types of knighthood in the British honours system. Baronets are not knights, although they carry the title 'Sir'; theirs is an hereditary honour, very rarely awarded these days. The main division among knights is between those appointed to orders of chivalry, and those not. The latter are the 'Knights bachelor', and they form the majority of knighthoods. The main orders of chivalry are the Order of the British Empire, the Order of St Michael and St George, the Order of the Bath, the Royal Victorian Order and some highly exclusive ones such as the Order of the Garter. Knights appointed to these become, respectively, KBE, KCMG, KCB, KCVO and KG. There are (naturally) a few variations, but that's it in a nutshell.'"

I hope that doesn't muddle you further! Brianboulton (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yikes, it's more complicated than I thought. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hutton TFA
Thanks for the copy-edit, but I realised I missed out an important date which messes things up slightly. If I'm over the limit now, the whole part about the Ashes in 1953 could go, although it would be a shame! Failing that, the arm injury part could go. Open to suggestions! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, what you've done is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Coinage act image
I don't have a strong view on the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks much. I just made a small tweak, too. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz
Hi, a community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, which you edited. The reassessment page can be found here, if you would like to comment on whether the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 11:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata RfC
Hi Dank, the Wikidata RfC needs to be closed with a conclusion. The other thing is just a discussion and shouldn't hold anything up. If you prefer not to close it, should we ask other admins to take a look? SarahSV (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah, thanks for putting in serious work on this one. I see you've posted at WP:AN, I'll reply there. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Covent Garden
I will get around to dealing with your specific concern shortly. I am looking first at addressing the concerns raised by the FAR opened by User:Scott: Featured article review/Covent Garden/archive1. This may be difficult as his concerns are vague, and he is unwilling to expand or clarify. I have asked all those involved in the FAC in 2011 (Featured article candidates/Covent Garden/archive1) to look at the review and provide some guidance or input as to how we should proceed.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am struggling with the word "estate". It means land owned and developed by one person or group or organisation. We don't appear to have an article which exactly matches that. We have the various articles at Estate, though none of them appear to exactly match. Estate (law) applies to all a person's possessions, not just land. Estate in land is a legal term - that article has links to various other forms of related estates, such as Real estate and Leasehold estate, which again are not quite it. Estate (land) refers to the grounds attached to a large property. Housing estate is close, but again not quite it. As there is no direct link, the two next solutions are to change the word for another, or to explain the word within the article. However, while looking at our "estate" articles I noted that the use of estate in all of them implies that the term of estate meaning a defined area of land is understood by a wide range of people, including Americans. Would we be trying to explain a term that is already widely understood? Would the sentence "The centrepiece of the project was the large square, the concept of which was new to London, and this had a significant influence on modern town planning as the metropolis grew, acting as the prototype for the laying-out of new estates (defined areas of land owned by one individual or group)" be too awkward? If someone is really unsure of the meaning of the word, they could do an internet search, and the answer would be clear, but not intrude on the article. Linking to Wictionary wouldn't help, as the meaning is lost in a long list (it's number 7 on the list). I'm thinking of replacement words, but estate is the exact word, and is the one widely used. Ah! Perhaps I can give an example of a couple of estates, and that would help explain it..... Hang on.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I've used two estates as examples, and those are two estates which are mentioned in the source I use, so it ties in neatly.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that solves the problem nicely. - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One question: I'd prefer to have a specific year, like so: "In 1631 the 4th Earl of Bedford commissioned Inigo Jones to design the Italianate arcaded square, something new to London, and it served as a prototype for the laying-out of new estates as London grew." But Francis Russell, 4th Earl of Bedford says "About 1631", and another article says the square was laid out in 1630. Do we know the year? - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've revisited my sources. Both dates are true, because what is being said is that Jones was commissioned, made the design, and the square was laid out in 1630, but the first buildings (including the church) did not start going up until 1631. I have adjusted the wording to make that clearer.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Frontpage
Hi Dank,

Firstly, I very much appreciate the comments in helping to get the 38th article up to shape. I note that the TFA is only for articles that are already FA status. As a TFA coordinator, can you provide guidance on if penciling in prospective FA articles is possible pending their success at being nominated?

If possible, I would request that the 7th or 10th would be ideal dates for the article to be penciled in due to the 100th anniversary of the division's actions of the Somme.

Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It can take a while to get through FAC, but I'll ping Brian just in case. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have alraedy scheduled 7th July, on the basis of an earlier request at TFAR. For the 10th I'll try to find a placeholder for that date which can give way if the 38th is promoted before, say, 8th July (beyond that any change is not really practical). Brianboulton (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

July 6 TFA
Hi Dank. I found some time to work on the blurb just now, and did the best I could to make it the proper length. See how it looks now. Hopefully, the article won't be butchered during its time on the Main Page. I admit to being a little concerned about the prospect, as this is a topic that is more well-known to a general American audience than most of what runs at TFA. I guess we'll see how it goes. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 20:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your work looks good. Yeah, Main Page day is going to be harder on this article than most ... just shout if you need another batter on deck. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

TFA 12th July 2016
Hi, I notice that you are preparing the TFA for 12th July. Let me note that Matsumoto Natsuki and Tsugata Nobuyuki did not come to the conclusion that "Katsudô shashin" was made between 1907 and 1911. Matsumoto, who is much more important in this case than Tsugata, came to the conclusion that it was likely made at the end of the Meiji era (-1912). The date "1907", actually "ca. 1907" comes from my research (Litten2014:14 and footnote 43 on 15). If I had to give a range, I would probably say 1905 to 1912. Also, I wonder whether the claim that movie theaters were rare in Japan at the time can be sourced. (And what does it have to do with film strips that were anyway made for home use?) Moreover, Matsumoto thinks that such film strips would also have been sold to travelling showmen. Finally, wouldn't it make sense already to mention in the teaser that "Katsudô shashin" was very likely modelled on German filmstrips? Especially as those would have been the first displays of Western animation in Japan, just not in cinemas. 2003:63:C5D:CA79:207A:4766:EAFA:2172 (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC) F.S. Litten
 * Pinging User:Curly Turkey. - Dank (push to talk) 11:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The dates are cited to López 2012 p. 584, which cites it to "Matsumoto, Natsuki: private communication (2012)". The article is online. I'm on my phone right now and am having difficulty copy-pasting the URL. The bit about movie theatres is sourced to the Asahi; I won't comment on whether a newspaper article has its facts straight. If Mr Litten disputes it, I see no problem removing it. Re: German filmstrips---you were looking to beef up the blurb, weren't you, Dan? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll get rid of the movie theaters and check the character count. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I know López's publication, but he also claims that Katsudô shashin was hand-painted. Moreover, the 2006 publication by Matsumoto and Tsugata comes to the conclusion "late Meiji", so if Tsugata is mentioned, this can only refer to this specific publication. And in 2011, Matsumoto again writes about "late Meiji" without giving a date range. Re movie theaters: I just don't think it is relevant to this Wikipedia entry. 2003:63:C5D:CA79:ED38:DDC9:2C4B:5019 (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC) F.S. Litten
 * I could add "Imports of German cinematographs appeared in Japan at least as early as 1904", but I'm not sure where to add it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We could change it to "late Meiji" with a short explanation, I suppose, but I should put out that "between 1907 and 1911" is presented as a direct quote from Matsumoto. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr Litten, could you give me a page reference for "late Meiji" so I don't have to run down to the library? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Matsumoto/Tsugata(2006):101 "明治末期"; same words in Matsumoto(2011):115. And by the way: why is the film strip found in the projector at the beginning of the article, but later simply (and correctly) in the collection? And how could Matsumoto and Tsugata come to a conclusion via the manufacturing dates of the projectors in 2005, when Matsumoto only in 2011 correctly identified the relevant projector as a Carette model? (And they don't have dates on them, either.) 2003:63:C5D:CA79:ED38:DDC9:2C4B:5019 (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC) F.S. Litten
 * Thanks for the cites. I'm sorry, but the article doesn't say the dates were determined in 2005---the source cited is from 2012. Nor does the article say the models had dates on them, but that the dating was "Based on evidence such as the manufacture dates of the projectors".  Is that not the case?  You seem to be saying as much above. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The tfa teaser or blurb (not the article) says: "Natsuki Matsumoto, an expert in iconography at the Osaka University of Arts, and animation historian Nobuyuki Tsugata determined in 2005 that the film was most likely made between 1907 and 1911, possibly predating the earliest displays of Western animation in Japan." That's wrong: They, or rather Matsumoto, came to the conclusion that the film was likely made at the end of the Meiji era. As to the manufacturing dates, yes, here I was conflating teaser and article. Sorry. There remain problems with this, but I'll let them slide now. But I still think it is incorrect to claim that Katsudô shashin might predate the earliest displays of Western animation, when it is very likely based on German animation filmstrips shown in Japan (and was found together with some of them). It would be correct to write that KS might predate the earliest theatrical release of Western animation films in Japan (especially the first proven one of 2D animation which was only in 1912) which is a different kettle of fish. 2003:63:C5D:CAF0:4C48:3280:F675:EB2 (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC) F.S. Litten
 * Thanks, changing it to "Western animated films". (No one calls a 3-second strip of film a "film"). Did it "possibly" predate them, or definitely predate them? - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If no one calls a 3-second strip of film a "film", then why do the tfa blurb and the article call KS a film? And, by the way, KS is not a fragment, it is a complete film, a so-called loop film. (The name "Matsumoto fragment" was concocted by some of the same people who claim that it was hand-painted. Highly reliable sources, those ...) Re predating: No one can say, as we don't know the exact date when KS was made, nor whether any Western animation films were shown in Japanes theaters before 1912. Personally, I think it is quite likely that such films were shown before 1912 (Blackton's "Humorous Phases ..." is a good candidate), but we're still lacking any proof. 2003:63:C5D:CAF0:AC83:AB89:2C1B:8273 (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC) F.S. Litten
 * Good points. Changed one "the film" to "it", and I'll change "film fragment" to "loop of film". - Dank (push to talk) 12:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My final three cents: I'd think "loop film" or "strip of film" or "film strip" would be better than "loop of film". Also, you still have to change that "1907-1911" range. I just received an e-mail from Mr Matsumoto and he denies that he told López that specific range. "End of Meiji era" was his opinion. Moreover, I still think that it would not be necessary to mention Tsugata in the blurb, while it would make sense to refer to the German loop films as highly likely having been the inspiration for Katsudô shashin. 2003:63:C4F:8C97:E9D7:C81F:68B9:B19D (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC) F.S. Litten
 * Thoughts, Curly Turkey? - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was confused as I didn't realize you were talking about the blurb. How does it look now?  And is there anything else in the article you'd alter?
 * Oh, and Dank, I wasn't joking about an animated .gif—would that be allowed? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the WMF have blocked animated GIFs from the main page in the past because of server load (they're always served to the reader at full-scale and rescaled by the reader's browser, which adds up when multiplied by 18 million readers). You probably want to ask one of the Community Liaison people if this prohibition still stands, given that the servers are presumably considerably better than they used to be. &#8209; Iridescent 20:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not important enough to warrant begging for permission. Just thought it'd be neat-o. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The blurb looks much better now in my opinion. As to the article: You might specify that "The Nipper's Transformation" is the first Western 2D animation that we are certain that, and when, it was shown in Japanese theatres. If you want to, you can also add that I published, in Litten(2014), my reasoned opinion that KS was probably made around 1907. 2003:63:C4F:8CDC:34B1:AAF3:690C:A6A4 (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC) F.S. Litten
 * Doesn't the article already more-or-less say that about Nipper? I'm going to add in your "c. 1907", but looking at your resumé I'm not sure how to describe you—not as "film historian", I suppose. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The point re Nipper is that it is highly likely that other Western 2D animation films were shown in Japan earlier, and that stop-motion films were shown earlier. Moreover, if we stay in the same category of filmstrips, the German ones were seen in Japan before KS. And you could describe me as a "historian". You don't call Tsugata a "landscape planner" as far as I see: http://www.intellectbooks.co.uk/journals/view-Contributor,a=T/view-Contact-Page,id=30150/ 2003:63:C4F:8CDC:D9FB:22B5:A877:E4D4 (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC) F.S. Litten
 * "日本のアニメーション研究者" is what the Japanese Wikipedia article calls Tsuguta. I'm not sure why you're emphasizing 2D animation—surely you're not contrasting with 3D animation?  Anyway, does "The earliest display of foreign animation in Japan that can be dated with certainty is of ..." capture what you're trying to say? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I am contrasting 2D animation (drawn animation, but also cut-out etc.) with 3D animation, the latter also being known as "object animation", among other things. After all, Tsugata presents "Le Mobilier fidèle" by Cohl in a list of animation shown in Japan as being shown before "Nipper's Transformations". And the earliest "displays" of foreign animation quite certainly were the German filmstrips; you have to specify "displays in Japanese cinemas" if you want to introduce "Nipper's Transformations" and the like. But why would you want to relate a filmstrip made for home cinema to films made for cinema, but ignore the German filmstrips made for home cinema? 2003:63:C07:1C15:A0AE:702B:E807:4FE5 (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC) F.S. Litten
 * Are they being ignored? It is briefly mentioned—how much detail would you add?   I'm worried about how much detail the article should go into.
 * How is the wording "The earliest display of foreign animation in Japanese theatres that can be dated with certainty is of ...", by the way?Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As it stands now, it is ok. However, don't you think it misleading that you don't mention the likely German (foreign) background of KS at the beginning, but do relate KS to a quite different kind of animation experience there. Moreover, that KS would predate Western theatrical animation in Japan would highly likely only be true if it was made ca. 1907, as I argue. (Though that is not the reason why I argue for ca. 1907.) 2003:63:C07:1C15:A468:B74F:901C:4D88 (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC) F.S. Litten
 * I see what you're saying. I've reversed the two paragraphs of the "Background" section.  Do you think that's an improvement? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd think interlacing those two paragraphs would make more sense, as cinematographs would be part of "projected film technology", but anyway ... Yet, if I just read the beginning of the article I get the impression that somehow KS might have been a Japanese idea, - and that would be definitely wrong. And even in the other sections no real connection is made between the German filmstrips and KS, e.g. that Matsumoto also found German filmstrips together with KS or that both are "printed animation". Here the blurb for tfa is much better, in my opinion. BTW: There is no real evidence that KS was made for the Carette projector, and I don't remember claiming it. 2003:63:C07:1C15:A468:B74F:901C:4D88 (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC) F.S. Litten
 * Didn't you say above that "in 2011 [Matsumoto] correctly identified the relevant projector as a Carette model"? That and "Just like A Good Drop and the other Carette film strips, Katsudō shashin was ..." (p. 14) I interpreted as meaning KD was also one of the Carette strips. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've commented out the Carette stuff for the moment and added a remark about the likely influence of German/Western filmstrips. I want to thank you for going over the article with such a careful eye, by the way—we want the article to be as accurate (yet readable) as it can be, and I wouldn't claim expertise in any of this (I did the article on request). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * KS was found in a box with the Carette projector, several filmstrips that I identified subsequently as sold by Carette, but also at least two glass slides that were not meant for the Carette projector. It is possible that KS was made by the Japanese seller of the Carette projector, but there is no reason to assume that it was specifically made for this model, as it could have played on Bing and Plank cinematographs as well. I'll try to make that clear in my forthcoming German publication on the beginnings of animation film in Japan, so going over the article has been useful for me, too. Now let's have Dank his page again ... 2003:63:C07:1C15:4815:D9D2:2FF5:AF37 (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC) F.S. Litten