User talk:Dank/Archive 52

Stuff and things...
Dan, I'm off in a couple of months (once "my" last few articles are sorted and my tenure as an FLC delegate comes to an end). I know I have been a grumpy bastard from time to time and that has on one or two occasions been directed at you. Before I go I would like to apologise for that: I know that everything you do here is always done in good faith. I also think you are an excellent editor and the high quality work you do, particularly on the front page, is a model for all. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That means a lot, considering you're a better article writer than I will ever be. Do you have any plans to keep writing after you leave Wikipedia? - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably not this style – I write enough for work including, on occasion, for magazines or professional journals – and I think I'll stick to that for a while! Cheers – Gavin (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers mate. Visit often. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

WT:FAC
Hi Dank, I don't want to derail that discussion by replying to you there, especially as no one has mentioned anything that needs to be closed. But I want to make clear that I'd object to your closing any discussion related to that situation or to infoboxes, given your close of the Wikidata infobox RfC in June, particularly considering that you asked Gerda how to close it. I'm sorry to jump in with that so frankly, but you did ask, and I feel it's important to be clear about it early on. Perhaps you've forgotten that you said at the time: "I won't be participating in or closing any future discussions about infoboxes or Wikidata, if that helps." SarahSV (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No I hadn't forgotten ... I won't close any discussion on whether to keep infoboxes or not. One thing I like about you, Sarah, is that you won't keep quiet if something's bothering you ... if everyone did the same, it would be so much easier to get things done around here. By the way, I did worse (in your view, I guess) than ask Gerda her opinion ... I solicited opinions from several of the "wrong" people, because I didn't think I was up to speed on what they were thinking, but I already had a pretty good idea what FAC people thought. Heavier discussions have more landmines to avoid than easy RfCs, and I don't like to walk around the battlefield not knowing where the landmines are. Btw, what do you mean by "related" discussions? Would you mind if I close a discussion about, say, quote boxes? That seems to be depressing some people. - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You said you wouldn't participate in or close "any future discussions about infoboxes or Wikidata," so I hope you'll stick to that. And it's not a question of having asked the right or wrong people. It was that you were closing a contentious RfC, and you asked one of the most contentious people involved in that issue how to close it. Then you delivered a non-close that meant the whole thing had been a waste of time. But I don't want to go over it again. You asked whether anyone would object, so I replied. As for quote boxes, it depends on whether you can be neutral and sum up consensus, rather than deliver a supervote. SarahSV (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are going over it again, while saying you don't want to. I don't mind talking about it if you want to revisit that close. But to answer your question: I will never close a discussion about infoboxes or Wikidata. And I've never supervoted. - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm not concerned about you closing the quotebox discussion, despite "ties to FAC". Not everyone is interested in polarizing this as this camp versus that one (I put that kind of stuff in mocking "scare quotes" for a reason).  Unlike an admin who recently threat-ranted on my talk page, I trust you can distinguish between the root causes of FAC and other people being upset, and the policy issues raised in the RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I do try. Thanks kindly. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Dank, I see you've decided not to close the MoS RfC because you're involved. I want to thank you for making that decision, and also to make clear that I will object if you do try to close it. Again, I'm sorry to be so explicit about these objections, but I recall that you requested clarity. We need a closer with no involvement in these issues, who will simply sum up consensus. SarahSV (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On your point that I have a prior relationship with many of the people involved on either side, which would be viewed by some and not others as "involvement", you're right, which is why I asked in advance. I've don't remember giving any advice about quote boxes or block quotes before; in fact, my standard disclaimer when copyediting specifically exempts me from commenting on non-main-text items such as quote boxes, a disclaimer that no one else at FAC has ... and on top of that, I've always had a good working relationship with MOS regulars and FAC regulars, and I thought both those things made me a good choice as a closer (FWIW). I can't go along with the idea (if this is your point) that being a copyeditor in general means I can't close any discussion about copyediting ... if that were a rule, it would only lead to a string of terrible closes by people who don't know how to evaluate what they're hearing from both sides.
 * I have one request, Sarah. As it happened, the total level of unfortunate posts (I'm not pointing a finger at anyone) increased, so I had to give up on my plan to close that RfC, and take a different direction (my last posts at WT:FAC). But before I gave up, I spent a lot of time researching pull quotes. What doesn't work for me is being told after I've sunk in some significant time on a project that someone doesn't want me to close, so if you see something you don't want me to close in the future, please tell me right away and we'll talk about it. I may or may not agree, but I trust that you only have Wikipedia's best interests at heart, and I'm always open to talk. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging Sarah to make sure you've seen this. - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * While I'd have no issue with you closing in this case, before I gave up, I spent a lot of time researching pull quotes is pretty much the archetype of a supervote—the whole point of the way Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes are (intentionally) set up is that the closer doesn't have any interest in the topic in question. &#8209; Iridescent 19:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. There's no problem with closers reading an RfC and following up on what's said there to see if it is or was an accurate portrayal of what is or was going on on Wikipedia. (Silly example: if someone says "Oppose, I can't stand the purple polkadots in quote boxes", and I find out they don't have purple polkadots, I want to know that before I close. Afterwards, it's too late.) Sometimes I need to follow links to even understand what people were saying, or trying to say. What almost never works is to talk about that research before it's time to close. I didn't do that. And FWIW, as it happens, I didn't find myself being fully convinced one way or the other as I researched. (That's not always true, but it was true this time.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Iridescent, on second thought, I was maybe a little harsh, and there's truth in what you're saying as well ... in the sense that, if every closer treated every RfC as something that required a lot of research and independent thought, the whole thing would quickly come crashing down in a heap. It's important to keep a strategic distance from the material, and ignoring the links can indeed help with that strategic distance ... and usually, you don't have that much time, it wouldn't affect the outcome, and it's not a big deal anyway. Personally, masochistically perhaps, I'm attracted to those RfCs where it looks like something might go really wrong and the consequences are potentially massive. For those, I don't want to go in blind. But I get what you're saying. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. As one of the people (along with Newyorkbrad and Floquenbeam, one of whom will probably end up having to wade through this particular cesspit now I'm involved) who've somehow ended up as Wikipedia's current de facto closers-of-last-resort for particularly tendentious cases (recent lowlights for me include the "religion in infoboxes" RFC and this trainwreck), I'm painfully aware that in this kind of case justice not only needs to be done, but needs to be seen to be done. If there's even a suggestion that you're not neutral on the topic, then the probability is approaching 100% that someone will complain so vocally about whatever the outcome is that the whole thing will need to be run again from scratch, only this time with tempers raised, whoever considers themselves the loser rallying all their friends to berate you, and the ANI peanut gallery piling in; that in turn will make the re-run RFC unworkable and the whole thing will eventually end up at Arbcom six months later, who will apply the "(a) sanction whoever is being most annoying, (b) wait a couple of days to see if the problem has stopped, (c) if it hasn't, repeat (a)" method of conflict resolution. You know how batshit crazy Wikipedia editors get about anything involving the addition or removal of boxes. &#8209; Iridescent 20:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's been my constant nightmare. Hasn't happened so far, knock on wood. But if I keep it up long enough, I'm sure the day is coming. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, I'm a what now? A "de facto closer-of-last-resort"? You over estimate my abilites, Iri (or, possibly, have me confused with someone else). I don't do much closing work on the content side.  I'm more comfortable cutting Gordian behavioral ANI-style knots, but Gordian content knots leave me baffled - particularly since this place would really work fine either way, if only the other side weren't so passionate. Everyone should just agree to settle it by coin flips.  Even if they didn't baffle me, I've got what I consider friends on one side of the debate, and people I still greatly respect (and have said so publicly) on the other.  So even though I have a well known agnosticism about infoboxes, I think any close I attempted to make would be objected to by one side or the other as biased. So I guess it's NYB's problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @Floquenbeam You are, whether you like it or not—something doesn't have to be a content dispute to be a difficult closure. (Or have you not stopped to wonder why you end up being the one to do the blocking or unblock review on so many cases nobody else wants to touch?) The other two obvious candidates would be Drmies and Bishonen, but I very much doubt either of them would like to participate in this particular Shit Bucket Challenge. &#8209; Iridescent 21:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, Floq. Sorry I had to pull out; it started out as a discussion, but it's grown beyond my skill set, and for this kind of fight, I'm too close to both sides. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

FAC reviewing barnstar

 * This is a great new service, Mike, thanks for getting it started. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That quotebox poll
Today (or yesterday, depending on time zone) someone canvassed all of WT:FAC. While the wording is neutral, the party in question clearly (see my talk page, etc.) knows that the participants on that page would bloc-vote in one direction, and they did so, predictably and en masse. I think the entire RfC should be shut down as a hopeless trainwreck, and we can do it again some calmer time. This is intimately tied to the "FA people versus infobox people" war, presently at WP:ARCA for discretionary sanctions, among other connections to presently high-strung conflicts (e.g. CITEVAR battles that are also tied directly to FAC stuff, and also being termed a "lame style dispute" for which MoS is being blamed even though it's a totally different guideline. The sensible way to approach this whole issue is probably to see whether the default block quotation style can be tweaked so that "block quotes vs decorative quotes" just become a mostly moot point.  And I wouldn't even raise that for months, not until this ArbCom stuff blows over. It's all being fought on way too many fields at once (even MfD - see attempts to delete some page Gerda put up with consensus closure stats) by too many people who see it as a battle.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for coming and talking with me about this, that was a good call. But I want to make sure everyone sees my response, so I'll reply in the last thread at WT:FAC, WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Moved here from WP:ERRORS
This is about Today's featured article/September 7, 2016. [begin quote from WP:ERRORS] The word "whirlwind" is POV and hard to justify in association with "four day", which doesn't feel very "whirlwind" to me - a four hour visit might be easier to justify as "whirlwind", but even then, without a source it'd only improve from POV to WP:PEACOCK. It appears in the article lead, unsourced and not in the body copy. Appreciate that the text in the article may need fixing, which isn't our job, but we could just lose it from our summary without losing any useful information. Suggest we chop it. Views? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, chopped. Stephen 09:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just got up ... I'm going to restore it, only in the interest of preserving "no change" while we figure this out, and because AHD says " A tumultuous, confused rush" and M-W says " something that involves many quickly changing events, feelings, etc." That would make it seem like a very apt metaphor. Wikipedia tends to avoid metaphors, and I'm on board with that ... but advice on good writing tends to be pro-metaphor, if you can find a good one, and I'm on board with that too. I'm not trying to establish a second-mover advantage here ... any admin can revert if you've got a reason to. - Dank (push to talk) 11:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

[end quote]

General principles that come to mind:
 * 1. The FAC nominator is long gone, otherwise I'd be going to him first. (Fortunately, this is a Milhist article, so I posted at the Milhist talk page, asking for eyes on the article. I didn't get a response in this case, but it's very likely someone read this and didn't have a problem with it.)
 * 2. The article text says: "In a four-day trip, the two men traveled throughout Vietnam before returning to Washington to file their reports. Krulak visited 10 locations in all four Corps zones of the ARVN ... Mendenhall went to Saigon, Huế, Da Nang and several other provincial cities ... [they had to] 'travel twenty-four thousand miles and assess a situation as complex as Vietnam and return in just four days.' ... Mecklin and Krulak became embroiled in a dispute during the return flight." That sounds like a tumultuous rush with quickly changing events and feelings to me, which fits the dictionary definitions.
 * 3. Dictionaries are much better in 2016 than they've ever been, particularly ahdictionary.com and m-w.com. I had a slight concern about POV-ness or flamboyance with the word "whirlwind" when I saw it, and looked it up to check.
 * 4. Metaphors on Wikipedia are an interesting question in general, and we could talk about that.
 * 5. One the one hand, I have absolutely no objection to anything said recently at ERRORS about TFA. On the other hand, a few months ago, I had an objection to what looked like one editor's dogged opposition (and not always reasonable opposition) to what was going on at TFA, day after day ... and I think what we decided in that case was to make a kind of blanket announcement that anyone who's really interested in TFA is expected to give their feedback before the page gets protected.
 * 6. Heartfelt thanks to Dweller for keeping an eye on things. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Phooey, I'm just a pedant lurking around Main Page, too lazy to look ahead in the queue. The FAC and Main Page processes are far more impressive, so keep your praise for yourself and them. It's not a biggy, but when writing for FAC, reviewers have always kept me honest around the linked areas of POV/PEACOCK/WEASEL. It's clearly not an objective term and without a source using it, I don't think we should have it on main page, or in the FA. That said, I'm not going to get on my Spiderman suit over it. After all, I'm too scared of heights to go climbing buildings. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for that, you get three more bullet points :)


 * "train wreck" instead of "whirlwind" wouldn't work, because that doesn't even get a nod as slang at AHD or MW; it hasn't entered the language yet as a metaphor suitable for encyclopedic text. "Whirlwind" has, and we know that because an entire industry of lexicographers says it has. The English language is stuffed full of words that lie on a spectrum between "new, POV, inaccurate metaphor" and "precise description". Should we outlaw the word "grasp" to mean understand, because it literally means doing something with your hand instead of your mind? No ... it used to mean that, but the original meanings have been extended. The dictionaries tell me that the same thing has already happened with the word "whirlwind", and those guys are smarter than I am (and much better paid).
 * Perfection is easy when you're not summarizing. When you're condensing a couple of sentences into one word, sometimes the results aren't perfect, and metaphors and images can be quite handy to give the gist of a situation.
 * I personally wouldn't have chosen the word "whirlwind" (although I'm starting to think I should have!) But I'm acting as a copyeditor here and not as a writer. As a copyeditor, I can't just pick the word I like, I always have to be ready to explain why I thought a change was needed. If I can't do that, I generally leave things alone. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Dank, dude, I genuflect and leave it to your excellent common sense. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies. John and I have been working on a (narrowly focused) style guide and software for a while now, and it's a bit lonely not talking about what we've discovered so far on Wikipedia. You just managed to hit the right buttons :) We'll get something out soon. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Jessica Chastain
Thanks for your copy-edits to the Zeta-Jones TFA. Much appreciated. :) I was wondering if you'd like to review Ms. Chastain's FAC which has been open for over a month but hasn't received much of a feedback. Cheers! -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 07:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work on the Zeta-Jones TFA; I just shortened it to get it under the 1200 character cap. Bad news: I'm working on 3 big projects and I'm still not taking requests. Good news: that article shows up on the FAC Urgents list, and I always help with those when I can. No promises, but I might have time today. - Dank (push to talk) 12:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be awesome if you could, but no trouble otherwise. :) Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 13:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Chastain is unique in being a Hollywood actress who overcame ageism to become a leading lady in her 30s.": It's not the truth or falsehood of the sentence; the problem is that every actor/actress is interested in portraying themselves as a lead actor/actress, and quite a few of them didn't get started (as they would prefer to frame it) until their 30s, so saying that she's the only one is likely to invite endless drama. I'm not saying you need to take it out, but I can't work on the article as long as it's there. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I had simply included that bit because the magazine article said so. But no no worries, I've removed it now. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 16:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Re funding
Hey Dank, creating a chapter is a huge undertaking that I'm not sure you'd really want to go through. However, you could work through the Triangle Wikipedians user group and APG... :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm just a mouthpiece here; I was talking with a couple of local professors who thought the research page in this week's Signpost looked cool, and wondered how they might get involved (and funded) in similar research. They don't seem as interested now, but I'll keep the Triangle Wikipedians in mind. - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS, Sept 14
[copied] The current FA is Thunder (mascot). This mixes up Arabic and Roman numerals in the same context "Thunder III appeared in XLVIII and Super Bowl 50". Such Roman numerals are considered baffling as most Americans don't understand Roman numerals. Perhaps we should number the superbowls consistently in Arabic numerals for clarity?

It also took me a while to understand the naming of the horses. When skimming the blurb initially, I got the impression that Thunder was a different horse from other horses listed like Winter Solstyce. The main article clarifies this from the outset by starting "Thunder is the stage name for the horse..." The blurb drops the mention of stage name which may then cause this confusion.

Andrew D. (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Super Bowls are always numbered with Roman numerals, and Super Bowl 50 is always an exception (see Super Bowl 50). User:Dank wants to be pinged. Art LaPella (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should make the sentence confusing for the sake of the NFL's now-finished marketing campaign. I'd like to suggest further changes too, because it sounds like all horses have been somehow ongoing in the role, when in fact the first they have held the role in succession. We can't say that Judge has ridden and Magness-Blake has owned all three horses for two decades for the same reason:
 * Three gray purebred Arabians named JB Kobask, Winter Solstyce, and Me N Myshadow have held this role in succession since 1993; each horse's coat had turned white with age when they commenced the role. Ann Judge has been the rider and trainer for almost two decades, and Sharon Magness-Blake has owned each of the horses.'
 * I think this would make the paragraph clearer. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On a final point: is it necessary to say "for almost two decades"? The article says "since 1998" which gives more certainty to the sentence. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * In tomorrow's featured article (No. 38 Squadron), I think there should be a (pictured) after de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou as the FA is about the squadron, not the aircraft. —Bruce1eetalk 11:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea - I've just made this change does this look OK? Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

[end of copied material]

First, we seem to have a working consensus that perceived problems of style at TFA should be moved to my talk page (unless they can be dealt with quickly and without fuss, and this morning, there seems to be a lot of fussing at TFA). There are basically three reasons for this: archiving may turn out to be important (and WP:ERRORS doesn't get archived), style questions are routinely dismissed (by others, not me) as "not an error" at ERRORS, and ERRORS is a difficult place to work, in part because the realities of the Main Page are different than the realities of normal editing. There's an ongoing Arbcom case as well, just to make things a little more difficult. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging David Levy for one of the points above. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, some replies:
 * "Formed in 1943, the squadron ferried supplies and personnel between Australia and combat zones in New Guinea and Borneo during World War II, using Douglas Dakota aircraft.": I reverted this change to tomorrow's TFA, which means I moved "World War II" back to where it was, before "between". Either a reader needs to be told that 1943 means WWII or they don't. If they don't, it doesn't matter where we see it. If they do, then for them, the date 1943 raises the question "Why was it formed in 1943? What was going on?" The sooner they get the answer, the sooner they can put that question to rest and go about digesting the rest of the sentence. FWIW, I generally put some thought into placement of adverbial phrases at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Next up, Andrew. (And FWIW, I'm not going to treat Andrew like a delicate flower, but I'm not going to get angry either. People who know the history understand what's going on here.) Andrew, Super Bowl 50 is Super Bowl 50, and all the rest use roman numerals. It doesn't matter whether this is unfortunate; it's carved in stone, and we can't change it. (And almost everyone who actually cares about Super Bowls knows this already, btw, and people would raise hell if we tried to change it.) Also, the idea that we should change Super Bowl XLVIII to Super Bowl 48 because Americans are more used to the latter will get a chuckle from just about any American sports fan. Next: just about everyone already knows that mascots have names and that horses have names too. On top of that, the second sentence says "Three gray purebred Arabians ... have held this role ... named ..." (emphasizing that the mascot is a role that the three horses play). If you can find someone who's confused by the wording, then I'll come back to this. As to the point that the article uses the phrase "stage name" which makes things clearer: TFA is a summary, and summaries never have the same luxury that articles do of infinite space available to explain every little thing. Whenever a point is already sufficiently clear, that's good enough for TFA. Also, saying "X is the name [or stage name] for the Y" when "X is the Y" is unambiguous is something that style guides generally object to. FAC standards are inconsistent in the sense that you'll see plenty of the former at FAC, but in general, when people talk about it at FAC, and when style considerations and succinctness are more important (such as at TFA), FA writers and reviewers are generally on board with getting rid of "is the name for". - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Next, a parenthetical comment. I'm working behind the scenes on big project intended to recruit editors. The less time I spend on wiki-chores, the better. But it's probably a good idea to reply to Andrew's points in detail, because he has a habit of commenting at ERRORS/TFA on style points. WT:MOS and related pages (and for these purposes, WP:ERRORS is a related page) are under discretionary sanctions, and it may be necessary for an admin to take action at some point ... that's one of the reasons that it's a good idea to archive these discussions rather than just letting them disappear into the ether. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Athomeinkobe: "in succession" is a very nice touch, and I've added it. I don't care for the other suggestions. I'm short on time today. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Taylor Swift
This is very late but I just saw this and thought to stop by to thank you and ask you for a request. Would you be interested in taking a look at this? - FrB.TG (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I always do the TFAs; I rarely do pop culture FACs, unless the FAC coords add them to the Urgents list. We occasionally get knock-down drag-out fights over issues of what pop culture BLPs at FAC should and shouldn't include, and it would be a good idea to get some resolution on those issues, so I'll add this to my watchlist, just in case something comes up that I can help with. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Jarrow march TFA
I've drafted the blurb but you should still look at it. I'll be doing some work on the main article text before the TFA date. Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. It's 1205 characters, so I'll go looking for something to chop. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!
In recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, I hereby present you with these co-ord stars. I wish you luck in the coming year. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your work, Tom. - Dank (push to talk) 01:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Closing RfC: What (if anything) to do about quotations, and the quotation templates?
Asking (pleading actually) for closure for RfC: What (if anything) to do about quotations, and the quotation templates? The discussion is rather long and sprawling, but there are some action items that have rough consensus and can resolved, and it would be a waste if all that effort from so many people didn't result in anything. You earlier expressed some desire to close the discussion, but then pulled out? I wonder if you would reconsider? Or if not you, can you get someone else to do it? please please pretty please, with sugar on top? LK (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lawrence. Since I've had positive experiences with a lot of people who wound up on both sides of the issue, I had every expectation at first that we could all sit down, agree on some of the major points, and use the opportunity to get some insight into how our different Wikipedia jobs put different demands on how the MOS gets used in practice. But it soon became clear that the RfC doesn't reflect a "work-it-out" atmosphere. My skill set isn't relevant for this kind of RfC, I wouldn't be seen as neutral, and there's a chance I'd be seen as arrogant. I don't think you'll have to wait too long before this one is closed. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Help!
Hi Dank: I m interested in trying to upgrade an article titled United States Marine Corps Women’s Reserve, but I hesitate to go forward because the title does not square well with the contents. The article actually describes two distinct subjects, women who served in the women’s active reserve in WW II (by an act of Congress) and women who served in World War I (by edict of the Secretary of the Navy in 1917). The women’s reserve was not authorized by Congress until1942; no such reserve seems to have existed prior to this.

Question: should both periods be woven into one story, or should the story be about the US Marine Corps Women’s Reserve to the exclusion of the women who served in WW I. I appreciate any help you can provide. Thanks! Pendright (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Pendright, good to hear from you. I've copied your question to WT:MIL, and I'll keep an eye on the responses there. - Dank (push to talk) 01:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thans! Pendright (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The WT:MIL responses, so far, to my question seem to favor splitting the article into two articles. I think this is the right solution. Now what? Pendright (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you'd rather not work on both articles, then just work on one of them. The parts of the text that are more suited for another article can be moved to the article talk page, and you can ask there (or at WT:MIL) for someone to use that text to start a new article. - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Eventually, I expect to work both subjects into separate articles, starting with the WWII reserve story. I’ll move the WWI text to the talk page and indicate my future intentions. To support splitting the subjects, how much of the chain of events do you suppose should be posted on the talk page? As always, I appreciate your help. Pendright (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I bet there's a talk page stalker around who wants to work on this. - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, Thanks! Pendright (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please explain
I didn't get the idea behind from your edit summary. The bells are the climax, - perhaps not even mention the others, but the pizzicato that does it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a slight preference for parallelism; since it didn't work for you, I've reverted. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "didn't work", just try to understand, may just be that I don't know what "parallelism" means here. English isn't my first language ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

FAC reviewing barnstar

 * Thanks Mike. - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Help!
Today's featured article/requests/Bud Dunn. I can't figure out how to link to the main article or check the length requirements of the blurb, and somebody is opposing because of that. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A character counter is here. (I recently added that link to the TFAR instructions.) I just added a bolded link to the article. Feel free to lengthen the TFA text, or I can do that. - Dank (push to talk) 20:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. I've expanded and think it's now right at 1200 characters, but feel free to add if you think I left out anything relevant.  White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Jul to Sep 16

 * Thanks to you as well, AR. - Dank (push to talk) 11:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Hastings
Pinging Ealdgyth and Favonian, to help resolve a discussion currently at WP:ERRORS. In today's TFA (redundancy intentional) on the Norman conquest of England, I borrowed the word culminated (actually culmination) from Battle of Hastings, which says "... Hastings effectively marked the culmination of William's conquest of England." Don't put a lot of energy into this, but if you remember off the top of your heads: did the historians say culmination, or did they use some synonym? - Dank (push to talk) 11:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll just point out that the phrase is "invasion culminated" not "conquest culminated". There was no more invasion after Hastings, the battle basically solved the problem of invasions. I'd have more sympathy for the errors report if it said "conquest culminated"... but since there were no other big battles during the invasion phase, I can't see how you can possibly argue with this (And I'm not about to do a survey of all the historians writing on the topic ... ). There were no more foreign troops brought in as invasions - William faced some native rebellions, but after Hastings, some of William's forces went back to the continent. If we take the generally accepted numbers - William brought about 10,000 troops to Hastings, but the best estimate of actual continental settlers in England is 8000 (and that would include family members). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and "The Bounder has a point. Hastings wasn't the culmination because another Saxon was immediately crowned King so William had to defeat him too." - no, there was no other crowning between Hastings and William's coronation. Edgar the Aetheling was put forward as a candidate for king, but wasn't chosen even by the entirety of the English nobles, much less crowned. (And they weren't Saxons at this point in time, they were English... (sighs). William never fought Edgar the Aetheling, in fact, Billy seems to have treated Edgar rather leniently - supported him for a while, and allowed him at his court at times.  Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

[Moved from WP:ERRORS]

Did the conquest "culminate" in the Battle of Hastings? I would have thought that the conquest culminated in a century of Norman rule, the replacement of the English aristocracy, rule of law and system of government, among other things. Surely the battle at Battle was just a military step toward the full conquest? – The Bounder (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The definition of "culminate" at dictionary.com says "to reach the highest point, summit, or highest development". I'd agree with you that the conquest did not end with the Battle of Hastings, but I think describing it as the highest point of the conquest is not wrong. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The aim of a conquest is not simply to take part in one battle: it is to take over all aspects of a country's government. So I think that yes, I'd say it is wrong in to context. – The Bounder (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But the takeover was the downhill run after victory at the highest point (Hastings). That's when the king was killed and, according to the article, there was mainly submission and surrender after that.
 * Take the second example in the linked definition: The argument culminated in a fistfight. The fistfight probably wasn't the end of the story; there may have been a trip to the hospital, an apology, renewed friendship or lingering resentment afterwards. But the fight was the climactic point. The same came be said for Hastings. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But the trip to hospital etc is the fluff of post-fight: it wasn't the aim of the original argument. The aim of the conquest was to take over the country, which they did. The battle was one step on the route to the highest achievement: a century of Norman rule and the removal of the Anglo-Saxon government and all it entailed. I'm happy to let others comment on this, as I'm not sure we are going to convince each other to change our views with these lines of argument. – The Bounder (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Bounder has a point. Hastings wasn't the culmination because another Saxon was immediately crowned King so William had to defeat him too.  The culmination from William's point of view would be when he himself was crowned in Westminster Abbey.  But note that "culmination" is not neutral because it is implicitly taking the side of William.  The word "resulted" would be better, i.e. "The invasion resulted in the Battle of Hastings on ...". Andrew D. (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Three problems here: 1. We're never going to have satisfying style discussions at ERRORS because of the constant pushback here against style discussions. I'll be moving this to my talk page at some point, per past consensus. 2. Please check the edit history at the TFA; it will sometimes have the answer to questions people bring up later at ERRORS. As I noted, "culminated" wasn't my word; it was borrowed from another featured article, Battle of Hastings, where it seems to be a historical assessment. It's not our job to second-guess the historians, but I don't mind at all if you want to discuss the wording with with the main editors of that article; I have pinged them on my talk page. 3. One problem here is that in the current TFA, it's not the conquest that's said to have "culminated", it's the invasion. Look up the word "invasion", or just think about it in the context of the Normandy Invasion almost 900 years later (payback!) The taking of Berlin wasn't part of the Normandy Invasion just because it logically followed from it; "invasion" refers to the early stages of a conquest, especially when it's paired with other words that are broader in scope, such as "conquest". - Dank (push to talk) 10:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

[end of moved text]

Style errors
Do you only deal with TFA or all MP style issues? Primergrey (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've studied TFA and FAC style but not ITN or DYK style ... but I'll help if I can help, what's the question? - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

In OTD "Columbian President..." ought to be president, no? Primergrey (talk)|~
 * We're talking about "Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos is awarded", right? I'm not great with orthography, but I can tell you that it commonly appears both ways at FAC, and it seems reasonable to me to allow either, since it's normally uppercased in "President Juan Manuel Santos" but lowercased in "the Colombian president". - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. "President Xyz" is a title of office "Columbian president Xyz" is a descriptor. Further, if it commonly appears both ways, then it would seem to fall in the "unnecessary caps" range. Primergrey (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Page protection
Is your email enabled? There's a page that needs urgent protection but advertising it here or elsewhere would be a BEANS issue, and I can't log into my admin a/c at work. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 17:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, I get email from time to time from this account. - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * YGM, as they say. Thanks. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 17:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Replying in your thread at ANI. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

FAC
Hello, I'm. Ike Altgens is a Featured article candidate. I hope you have a few moments to check this article against the criteria so I may address any concerns and see this nomination through. My thanks in advance. — ATS &#128406;  talk  21:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Potential TFA request
You removed my entry Mughal-e-Azam for November 12. Does it have a chance if I put together a blurb in the next day or so? Bollyjeff &#124;  talk  13:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be scheduling it for the day you requested. Let me know what you think of the TFA text. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we add a picture? I know we cannot do the film poster, but what about something like this: Prince Salim and Anarkali which seems to be public domain? Bollyjeff  &#124;  talk  23:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging David Levy to make sure, but my understanding is that it won't work at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the image is unsuitable, given its tangential relevance to the film. —David Levy 01:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

TFA scheduling
May I suggest that you copy into your userspace the set of instructions found in User:Brianboulton/Sandbox? These give a simple step-by-step guide to scheduling. Please let me know via my talkpage if you need any help in interpreting these instructions. You are of course welcome to adopt any of my TFA workpages (e.g sandboxes 16 and 17) for your own purposes.

At some stage we'll need to discuss methods of calculating target totals for each of the subject areas, but that can wait until the new year. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Be happy to, and thanks for all the helpful guidelines! Check your mail, btw, I'd like to try something special on the 9th, if you guys think it will work. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

MP FA syle issue
"Jet-assisted take-off" should not be capped, per the article. Primergrey (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, I made the change. For anyone interested: capitalization isn't set in stone; new concepts like this one are sometimes capitalized at first and then get lowercased as they become more common, so whether you think it should be capitalized sometimes depends on which sources you're reading. But yes, best evidence AFAICT is in favor of lowercasing this one. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * IFAIK we don't source for style. Primergrey (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)