User talk:Dank/Archive 66

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

→

Archive 70

Goya

Dude, I see you took more heat on my behalf. For what is worth I though the main page talk stuff was nick picky and trivial. The talk page stuff less so, but seems resolved now. The whole thing gave an insight into the burden ye guys have; and although I never though of myself as high maintenance, I dont edit mid week and was unaware until the day after - might ask that in future if I have another article scheduled for main page, it appears on the weekend. But anyways, liked the moment in the sun, and was happy with the blurb; thanks once again Dan. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, you're quite welcome as always. - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@TFA coordinators Note Ceoil's request to run his articles on weekends. I think I can remember to check each month. - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm?

Care to explain what you mean by this? Kevin McE (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll explain it there. - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

TFA blurbs?

Dan, do I gather from that ping that you're thinking of using FAC talk pages for blurb discussions? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, actually doing it, for now, so that we can gauge the response. I was thinking of asking at WT:TFA in a week or two whether people think the experiment is a success, and where they'd prefer to have the discussions. I'm doing this immediately after the FACs are promoted, so that everyone who has the page watchlisted will see it. That may help to deflect the potential criticism that it's some kind of secret discussion, only visible to the noms and supporters. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not my area, but I would have thought this approach has disadvantages. There's a notification to both the FAC nominator(s) and at the article talk page with the existing system, and the nominator notification certainly makes it clear where the blurb is and that it can be collaboratively edited. So it seems there would be little benefit there. I don't watchlist all my old FACs, and I'm sure that's true for others, which may make a difference; one can't not watch one's talk page. And it's not really a FAC discussion; it's a TFA discussion -- it relates to the article's status as an FA, but not to its candidacy, so the FAC talk page seems the wrong place on organizational grounds. The established approach seems fine to me, but if people are complaining about lack of notifications it might be better to see if that can be fixed with more notifications in some way. I might be a bit biased since I read old FACS for statistical data and have found it annoying to have to go to the talk page, so that no doubt influences my opinion. However, as someone who gets these notifications I don't think I'd care much either way, so if those involved at TFA think this is better I wouldn't oppose the change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Over the last couple of months, the atmosphere at ERRORS has changed a lot from what it's been the previous 4 years, and I've tried notifications everywhere I can think of to get people involved ... no luck, so far. Maybe this will work, maybe it won't. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

For what it is worth Dank, I never see TFA discussions (I do not seek them out), and I saw one for the first time because of your strategy and provided input that I never would have otherwise. Kees08 (Talk) 19:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

- Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Where?

If I find a problem with next week's TFA, you apparently want me to post at "(the nomination pages, not the articles)." I give up, where's that? For January 27, for instance? Art LaPella (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Nothing has changed, so far, except for those 5 articles that just passed FAC, and they won't show up at TFA until March and April. When that happens, there will be lots of notice directing people to the discussions. Check the history of the FAC page to see which articles are getting promoted. - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Following up, Art ... the March TFAs have been scheduled. I've done the first half of March so far, and I put a link to the vetting discussions in the page history of the blurb pages. This is all new to me ... I don't know, or care, where discussions will happen, as long as people are happy with the result. (And ERRORS/TFA has been pretty quiet lately, so I'm assuming people are happy for now.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that means that you want me to post discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/[article name]/archive 1, the link you put on the history pages of March 2, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 21, 22, 23, 27, and 31, although March 19 and 28 don't fit that pattern. The place where discussions happen often affects my happiness with the result. In particular, see several of my unanswered objections at Template talk:POTD, and a lulu at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list#Tuesday's list. Art LaPella (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm saying that I don't know where people want to talk in the present if issues come up, but I'm sure people will point to the discussions that already happened. I get that if you post a question and no one answers (such as at Template talk:POTD), then that's not doing anyone any good. I'm basically saying that I don't have any answers yet. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Siege of Aiguillon

Hi Dank. I listed this under Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending. You kindly put together a blurb. The TFA requests page for April is now open. I was about to create a request there, inserting your blurb, but thought that it would be best to first check with you that I have correctly understood the process. Should I continue and publish the specific date nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog. You're doing a great job at Milhist, btw. The 3 TFA coords who do the scheduling are happy to see requests any time at WP:TFAP or WP:TFAR or both (unless the requested day has been scheduled already; you can see from WP:TFAA that Wehwalt has scheduled March, but Jim hasn't scheduled April yet). I'm writing a suggested blurb these days for every article that's promoted at FAC, and putting it on the talk page of the FAC nomination. If you suspect there will be competition for a particular day, then it's a good idea to add your suggestion to TFAR ... or you can add it if you just want to see how people will respond. Otherwise, it's not necessary to go to the trouble of a TFAR nom ... simply listing something at TFAP almost always works to secure that day for your article. If you do list it at TFAR, then yes, use whatever blurb we're currently working on. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Dank. I have listed it on the main requests page using the blurb you wrote. Writing a blurb for every FA as it passes sounds like a brilliant idea, it also sounds like a lot of work for you. Especially given how high quality they are. And thanks for the kind words re MilHist. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a lot of work now because I also have the monthly blurbs to do and other jobs, but it's not any more work in the long run ... I'd have to do them sooner or later. People seem to be happier participating when I do them right after the FAC nom. So, thanks for the compliment, although I guess I wasn't so brilliant during the previous four years when I hadn't figured this out :) - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, this is Wikipedia. Why hadn't several thousand other editors figured it out and suggested it? Why hadn't every editor of a FA who found themselves editing the blurb months or years down the road figured it out? You seem as busy as a three legged dog with two fleas, but so long as you are happy to do it I am grateful. Gog the Mild (talk)

Inadequete, but all we have

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		It gives me great pleasure to present this totally inadequate token of appreciation on behalf of the Wikipedia community for truly tireless contributions to the common weal. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. "weal" is a funny word. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't help it. It comes of doing too much work at GOCE. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Proximity of military-related TFAs in April

Hi Dan, you will see from the pending TFA list that I was thinking of nominating a military-related TFA on 2, 6 and 13 April. They are an Australian bio, a Yugoslav aircraft and a German bio, but I just wanted to check whether they have any chance of being accepted first before I put together the blurbs for the latter two. There is also a military-related TFA nominated for 1 April, which is a battle. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi PM. Pinging Jim. - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

(Jim's traveling so it may be a few days.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Jim, I just noticed I've got Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer) in my Sandbox/1 ... we don't have to run it, but it's there ... I've got a vague memory that Ian was waiting for more information before we ran it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Dan, Peacemaker67 I just got back from Seville last night, so it will take me a day or two to get up to speed. I often run more than one MH as long as they aren't too similar, so no problem in principle, but I can't be more definitive until I'm back up to speed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. No issue, as I can knock something together at relatively short notice if you think it will fly. Let me know? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, it's only recently that we have allowed two FAs by one author in a single month, and there is another date-linked military biography too, so I'm only likely to run Jensen and the plane in April Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance, Jim, I wasn't aware of the articles per month restriction. April is a busy time for Yugoslavia in WWII, my main area of interest, so it'll take a few years to get through the FAs I already have that fit best into April. I'll do a blurb for the plane. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)