User talk:Dank/Archive 54

TFA

I'm not going to get into a fight with you, but I don't agree with your reversion of my edit to the TfA. I made that change because I felt the sentence didn't scan as it was. And clearly doesn't match the FA as it was passed. We shouldn't say something is a genus without saying a genus of what, that is just natural. Please could you reinstate the text, or at least find some alternative, as it's not right at the moment. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinging FunkMonk and LittleJerry, who nominated the article at FAC. See the edit summaries on the last two edits of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 3, 2017. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: saber-toothed tiger: I have no objection to "a saber-toothed cat" if you guys prefer that. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Changed it to "Smilodon is an extinct genus of saber-toothed cats that lived ...", if that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Seasons

	Nollaig shona duit
	Better late than never. Ahem. Hope you had a good one. Ceoil (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You're not late, you're just in time to celebrate Perihelion with me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

TFA 2

Can you possibly give some opinions and help in a TFA nomination I am going to promote next month. I've linked it at User:KAVEBEAR/sandbox#Nom for now since TFA isn't accepting ones for February 27 yet. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't foresee any problems with a nomination. Add it to WP:TFAP, to let people know that you'd like to hold that date. - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

FAC reviewing barnstar

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the six FAC reviews you did during December. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, great program. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Gens

Think he belongs with the MilHist project? I can't decide... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep I like him for MilHist. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Keechaka Vadham/archive1

Hello, Dank, and Happy New Year to you. I plan to take this to FA. Do let me know if you wish to leave comments at the PR page by pinging me. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	We wish you a prosperous New Year 2017!
	Wishing you and yours a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ssven. - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Oct to Dec 16

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 29 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to ensure quality prose in Milhist articles is greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks AR. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 24, 2017

I've taken another crack at it, combining what you had with what I had. I'm okay with how it is now but not sure how you count characters, so you'll have to check to be sure I didn't go over. Thanks for being patient; it was a tricky article to write and I've never looked forward to either having to explain or write the blurb. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

1180, which is fine. Looks great. "American" is brilliant. - Dank (push to talk) 23:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: ERRORS/TFA

Hi Dank -- My online hours are very variable; currently mostly from 18.00 GMT to 06.00 GMT, but I occasionally make valiant efforts to get back into my timezone... I generally patrol errors intermittently whenever I'm online and am happy to try to fix problems reported at TFA, but there are vast areas of common TFAs (sport, US politics, anything military, hurricanes, Bollywood &c&c) where one cannot overestimate the depth of my ignorance. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Heh, WP makes us all feel stupid sometimes. The toolserver's edit counter was down; I tried to use it to determine what hours you're usually on but it didn't work. I'm sorry to hear that it sounds like you're away the same hours that I'm away. Oh well. Feel free to jump in at ERRORS/TFA any time, though. - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a natural thought given my apparent (and actual) Britishness. And, by the way, happy 2017! Espresso Addict (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Same to you. I'm celebrating seeing the end of 2016. - Dank (push to talk) 03:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Move protection for She Shoulda Said No!

Dan, I had a bit of back-and-forth in scheduling the January 25th TFA; I changed it twice, immediately after filling the slot, after realizing that there were problems with my first two choices. It looks like TFA Protector Bot has skipped it, so could you do the move protection? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure. On first glance, I'm going to have trouble coming up with 1025 characters for TFA text, but I'll give it a shot. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

books about writing

Hey Dank, have you been reading books about writing? Could you share favorite titles? 謝謝!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't tell anyone, but I'm only a copyeditor in the Wikipedian sense ... I can't recognize and improve on a wide variety of styles, which is the essence of the copyediting skill, I think. I have a sense of what will fly at FAC, and I have my own writing style, of course. To recommend a book, I need some context ... give me an example of the kind of prose problem you'd like to see a discussion of. - Dank (push to talk) 02:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a context. Weeks or months from now, when I add the remaining 40% or so of User:Lingzhi/sandbox that's still left blank, it would be wonderful if you could mention a book or two. [Right now the lede is rough, and a handful of entire sections are blank or just filled with quote snippets, but some sections are actually finished]. Thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help when it's trimmed a little ... the current text is much longer than the longest FA, Barack Obama. Can't something be spun off to a different article? - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ketuanan Melayu, Intelligent design.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I use User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js. Intelligent design has 56 kB "readable prose" and Ketuanan Melayu has 134 kB "wikitext". Your sandbox has 85 kB and 190 kB, respectively. I wouldn't oppose it, of course, but I do less copyediting than I used to, and I avoid long articles. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Chopping out entire sections would reduce the article to a ridiculous, sensationalized parody AND would increase the probability of molestation by POV warriors... I would clearly prefer skip FA entirely. Also, if it's too long, then of course I would not even bat an eye if you declined to copy edit. I strongly support editors' desires (rights, actually) to work within their preferred parameters for every attribute of an article (genre or topic domain, prose size, etc.)   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for your input; I'll try to cut out whatever I can. Much of that is not actual article text but huge snipe that I intended to remove eventually. Thanks again!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You know best what the article needs, but take WP:Article size into account. Splitting the article might be better than discarding things that you've obviously put a lot of work into. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Noticed you're pulling back from copy editing. Hope all is well!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Fine, just busy. - Dank (push to talk) 05:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 27, 2017

We can discuss about the pesentation at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 27, 2017. Lewismaster (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Civil war FAC

Hello, I was wondering if you could review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prince Romerson/archive1 another minor Civil War figure just like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. Kealoha/archive1. Thanks in advance.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I won't have the time for several months, sorry. I'm not brushing you off; see the notice at the bottom of this page. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Bobby Peel TFA

Hello! I was going to drop you a note, but got side-tracked. For the blurb, we really need something about the drunkenness and the urinating. That incident is the one thing for which he is even remotely remembered today. Some of the cricket stuff could go to allow this to be there. If we are now at the right length, I can have a tinker and see what we could lose (it might not be today). But we need the urination!! (And not just because it is one of my favourite stories of all time!) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

We're currently at 1215. I took it out, not because I'm opposed to talking about drunkenness or urination, but because if you're going to talk about it, you need to say enough to present a balanced, fair, clear picture ... and we often don't have that much room at TFA. But sure, I have no objection, as long as you can get to it within the next few days. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually ... I think I take that back. What I just said is the general rule ... I don't mind sordid details, provided there's solid support both for the facts and for the notion that they form an important part of the story ... and as long as all that can fit within an average of 1100 characters (bytes), without sacrificing anything important. In this case, I'm not sure how this would work. I guess the idea is that he urinated on the pitch out of spite ... but is this when he was so drunk that he was being ejected? How do we know he had full control of his bladder? Was there a witness who established what he did, why he did it, and whether he had any choice in the matter? - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I know you love your cricket (!)... Whenever stories come up about cricketers misbehaving, and the press do those "top ten" lists, the story of poor old Bobby comes out. If you did a search for Peel (and avoided the British Prime Minister of the same name!), there are always matches for Peel and this story. In short, it is all he is remembered for. The original story was that he appeared at the match drunk; details are vague, but that certainly happened. The urination story is the famous part, in the sense that he was so drunk, he just didn't see the problem. But the point is that it is very unlikely it ever happened, and it was a misinterpretation of an old story. I'm not absolutely wedded to having it in the blurb, for it's all in the article, but it seems a shame not to have it; he was a good cricketer, but hardly interesting for the general reader otherwise. At the very least, we need to say he liked a drink, for he (like many cricketers at the time) was notorious. I can have a go either later tonight or tomorrow. But I'll go along with your view, in any case; you will see it as most of our readers will see it, not as a cricket tragic sees it! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Forget the part about "we need to say he liked a drink". As it stands, I think "he was suspended for drunkenness" covers this admirably. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

PC2 question

I'm unaware of anyone expressing any preferences on the subject in the last year, aside from the discussion to which you're referring. Some of the discussions I mentioned seem to be the "Use of pending changes level 2" section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive787 and the "What is the appropriate level of protection for an article with the following characteristics ?" section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive781, and of course they're a few years old. Nyttend (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, very helpful, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Saltmarshes

I performed the edit (in Titchwell Marsh too) for consistency with the singular "saltmarsh", which is used in the article ten times (with no instances of the singular "salt marsh"). The singular "saltmarsh" appears as an alternative spelling in the lead of Salt marsh, with the plural "Saltmarshes" mentioned in the title of a Cambridge University Press publication cited as a source.

Additional examples of UK usage:

• Environment Agency
• Joint Nature Conservation Committee
• Scottish Natural Heritage
• Natural Environment Research Council
• National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty
• Norfolk Wildlife Trust (other regional Wildlife Trusts omitted for brevity)
• Healthy Life Essex
• University of St Andrews
• BBC
• The Telegraph
• The Courier
• Amateur Photographer UK
• International Business Times UK

—David Levy 04:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks much for the research, I reverted my edit. - Dank (push to talk) 04:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

FAC reviewing barnstar

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the fifteen FAC reviews you did during January. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. - Dank (push to talk) 04:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. Ceoil (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Nova

Thanks for the heads up. I made a mistake here, and followed the wrong procedure. All I wanted to do was give the article a gold star. I will try to do better next. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Léal Souvenir

Thanks for the blurb c/e - I watch and learn. Ceoil (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Johnboddie will be very happy to hear this ... I only did this and this, he did the rest. But yours are some of the best leads we get, Ceoil, we're mainly trimming rather than copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

My better half's father was a journalist and editor. The more I see of the craft the more I appreciate the skill. Even trimming is an art of itself. Ceoil (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for appreciating what I do. I try not to promote my own work here ... almost all of my value to Wikipedia is that I've figured out my role, how I fit into the fabric of the community. That's hard to do, but then, thousands of other Wikipedians have figured out how to do it too, so it's nothing special. Locally, I've been working on software that reflects some of what I've learned as a copyeditor, and I hope to publish some of that soonish. Maybe something good will come from that, you never know. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You are steady, trusted, and helpful. That's almost as important as your not inconsiderable skill set. Unsung, Dan. Ceoil (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You're very kind, Ceoil. Speaking of skill sets:

	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★
	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★

- Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

"Some of what I've learned as a copyeditor" - It very exciting to hear that you might share insights, my feeling is I know good writing when I see it, but fall into the same traps. I very much consider you good writing (see above). Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

That's great, I hope you'll participate. The best introduction to the general subject is Pinker's short but dense The Sense of Style. Most of Chapter 1 isn't particularly relevant to Wikipedia, but the rest of it is. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a quick introduction to the topics by Pinker, in the Guardian. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. One problem I've always had, having been educated in Ireland in the 70s & 80s by republican Christian Brothers, they didn't think much of the English language, so I always struggle when people talk about grammar, passive voice etc. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The opinions I'm looking for will generally be of the form "Does this or that sound better to you?" Not much grammar needed. - Dank (push to talk) 23:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Ceoil (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Urgently need your help / advice in an editing dispute

Dear Dank, - Six years ago, you helped me bring the Mark Satin article up to FA status. Now, I urgently need your advice (maybe even help) on an editing dispute I've been having with an enormously accomplished Wikipedia editor, Midnightblueowl ("M"). I am sure you are familiar with him or her.

To make a long story short: From 23-28 June 2013,I was the principal person who helped the New Age movement article retain its GA status. Over the last year, M. has changed that article, in four ways: (1) by systematically excluding non-academic reliable sources (and favoring selected scholars of religion), nonsensical in an article about a many-sided contemporary movement; (2) reverting my "Movement" sub-section from the "Definition" section, thereby narrowing the definition of the N.A. movement to that favored by certain religious scholars; (3) reverting and now once again preparing to revert the Politics section of the article, despite the fact that many academic and non-academic reliable sources treat political ideas and practices as part of that movement; and (4) reverting most of my restructuring of the article, which would have made it easier to follow.

I have thoroughly and, I think, civilly explained my differences with M. in my Sandbox, User:Babel41/sandbox ("Four items that need resolving ASAP," third item down). I have not posted it yet. First of all, I am terrified that it will upset M. and lead to consequences for my other work on Wikipedia. If you get a chance, will you let him/her know I am a good and caring person? Second, I do not know to whom to direct my "Four items" statement. The items need to be adjudicated by an objective entity or parties, and M. is probably known to everyone and compared to him or her I am a neophyte, with only one FA to my credit (though several other solid contributions over the years).

Please tell me what to do / where to go - or take me there, if you have the time and inclination. The options on the RfC page bewilder me, and my "Four issues" statement deserves to be read in full - the issues raised there are vitally important to the quality of our article and to Wikipedia itself as it moves forward. Thanks! Best, - Babel41 (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I remembered as soon as I saw your username, welcome back. I can get to this later today. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I left a message on the article's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 26, 2017

Hello. What's the chances of swapping this for another footy topic? Is this date-specific and/or would shifting it upset anyone? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

First thought: I seem to remember that one of the early March TFAs has an anniversary on Feb 26, is that what prompted the question? - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah ... the one I'm thinking of is the March 2 TFA, a video game. Does York FC need some work before we run it? - Dank (push to talk) 16:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm sure it's fine. It's just that Casliber and I finally finished fixing up History of Norwich City F.C. last week, and Feb 26 this year is a big deal in Norwich. See Old Farm derby. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Am I being slow? I don't get a hit on 26 Feb in either of those articles. Is it a date I'm supposed to know? - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just being obscure. The next occurrence of the Norwich-Ipswich derby match is on Feb 26. It seemed serendipity that a football article is currently scheduled and the NCFC history article has just finished being touched up... --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay. @WP:TFA coordinators thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I declined the Norwich article at TFAR, but at first glance it looks much better now. I'm not totally convinced that a local derby is a notable date, but I'd be interested to see what others think. If the consensus is that Norwich gets the slot, perhaps Crisco 1492 could schedule York for late March? Conversely, if others share my opinion of the date link, Norwich could run then. I'll probably be unable to edit for about 24 hours, but we have a bit of time with this. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Frankly, I don't think the derby is enough for a rescheduling. But if there's a consensus to reschedule, late March would be fine for York.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• If you guys end up resolving that coinciding with the local derby doesn't warrant messing with the schedule, I'm fine with that. As a Norwich fan, it's a hugely significant date in the calendar (local media started stoking things about a fortnight ago in preparation and the vandalism of some related articles by both sets of fans began a few days ago!) but I recognize that I'm not impartial. I'll leave it with you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  Rescheduling for something not visible in the article (i.e. to other readers) doesn't quite seem worth it, but I don't see any reason why it couldn't be requested for the next derby, this autumn or next spring. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully, there will never be another derby because Norwich will be in the Premier League and Ipswich won't ;-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

2/27 FAC

Do you mind my changes to the 2/27 FAC? Generally in the sources I've been reading; the researchers emphasized their own surprise of an independent Hawaii fighting in an American War, so I like to keep that part in the blurb. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"while the Kingdom of Hawaii was still an independent nation" implies that the Kingdom of Hawaii wasn't an independent nation later. That doesn't sound right to me. You could say "while Hawaii was still an independent kingdom". - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

God of War II TFA

In regards to this edit, how does it make it too long? It's not that much more. It's also not inaccurate. And the link for "PlayStation 2 era" is what defines the era in relation to the platform (era could also be changed to platform). --JDC808 ♫ 23:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The current length of the blurb is 1122 characters, which is about right. There's a lot of effort put into keeping the two sides of the Main Page even, over at WP:ERRORS. Although the absolute limit for a blurb is 1200, the blurbs haven't been close to that for a while now. A separate issue is how dense the writing should be, how many different ideas we cram into the blurb, or into individual sentences. There isn't a formula for that; it comes down to a matter of judgment. Yes, the readers could find out what the PlayStation 2 era is by following the link ... but many Main Page readers got to the Main Page by accident, and casual readers are less likely to follow links. Nevertheless, we try to write in a style that appeals to them as well as to experts. Did that answer the question? Is the current text ("Regarded as one of the last and best") ambiguous or wrong? - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that basically answered the question. In regards to the text, it's actually kind of wrong (the "last" part that is). This game came out in 2007, but there were games released for the PlayStation 2 all the way up through 2013 (from 2007 to 2013, it got less and less every year; 2013 had four games for the platform, according to the list here on WP). However, this game was the last big exclusive game on the PlayStation 2 because the PlayStation 3 had come out in November 2006 and developers began shifting their focus to the newer platform. The majority of the games that came out after God of War II that were on the PlayStation 2 were also on the PlayStation 3 and/or other platforms. What if we remove "last" and at the end it said, "and is considered the PlayStation 2's swan song."? That would keep it under 1200. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Swan song isn't a great metaphor here. Who's the swan? - Dank (push to talk) 13:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The PlayStation 2 (hints the possessive in the suggestion). "swan song" was what a couple of highly recognized video game websites referred to it as. --JDC808 ♫ 16:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Bottom line: no. The typical blurb has well south of 1200 characters these days, and it's better to be consistent on the size of the blurb if possible, to make things easier for the guys who work at WP:ERRORS. In addition to the character limit, there's a readability limit on how much information we try to cram into the blurb, and how easy it is to parse that information, without having to follow links to decode the meaning. So, no. I'll change the first sentence from "... released on March 13, 2007." to "... released on March 13, 2007, days before the final [or worldwide] release of the Playstation 3". - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The new addition doesn't properly communicate what should be said, and is incorrect (and the "s" is always capitalized in PlayStation for future reference). I really don't see why getting close to that 1200 character limit (without going over) is such a big deal. So it makes the guys at ERRORS do a little extra work. That's their job anyways right? --JDC808 ♫ 17:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed spelling, and changed it to "release ... in Europe and Australia". - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay....but mentioning the PlayStation 3's release in those countries doesn't say why this game's release on PlayStation 2 is significant. --JDC808 ♫ 17:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I made this edit, which I believe should work. --JDC808 ♫ 17:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)