Wikipedia

User talk:Gog the Mild/Blurbs/Archive 1

< User talk:Gog the Mild‎ | Blurbs
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Dank in topic Ichthyovenator

Comments for Dank

Latest comment: 4 years ago36 comments2 people in discussion

@Dank: Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz and the Battle of Leuthen done, above, in draft. I will let them ferment for a few days, then go over them a few times, checking for misplaced apostrophes etc  . If you would like me to also do A Wizard of Earthsea and Macedonia (ancient kingdom), let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Will do, but that won't be until John and I finish up the 4th quarter. - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@Dank: Fair enough. But I enjoyed that. If you think that I have done a passable job, and I know that there is room for improvement, then feel free to toss me another half a dozen; now, or whenever you like. No worries if you don't; I have plenty of content creation on my to do page, and a long list of reviews I would like to get round to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Ho Ho Ho

Gog, Santa's bringing you more MilHist blurbs to do, all from the 4th quarter 2017. If any of these turn out to be lumps of coal, feel free to hand them back. FWIW, my wikibreak starts on the 28th.

Thank you Santa. Clearly I have been tagged as the "military one". Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Btw, the last one is even more optional than the others ... Carcharoth would probably be happy to do it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, since you're asking for a half dozen and I gave you 4 (plus Mells) ... and since September has exactly 2 MilHist articles left ... you can take a look at them if you like:

Hi Dank I have finished one of those and got to final draft with another three. I will wrap up the last three when I can. I am moving all of the blurbs I have finished to the talk page to keep things clear in my mind and to give myself working space. I am treated the talk page as "yours", so do what you wish with the blurbs there. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Got it. I'll have a look when I finish up today's blurbs. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Not related to blurbs but: Iridescent raised the GOCE question again at WT:TFA, and I responded. I think that's probably all I need to say until January. - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  • McNair: [It looked like it was finished, so I grabbed it ... generally I'll wait till your blurbs hit the talk page before I grab them. But it's probably a good idea for all the edits to happen on one page, so I can give people a link where they can see how the blurb developed.] Looks great, except maybe for "chief of artillery training on the staff at the American Expeditionary Forces headquarters": If that's equivalent to what you wrote, then all's well. What I generally do in these cases is check the text below the lead. If there's nothing helpful there, then keeping the exact wording of titles is generally a good idea. I've posted your blurb (with one tweak) to the talk page of its FAC.
  • Getting sleepy. Back in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Btw, it's your call ... you can post your blurbs after I've looked at them, or I can post them and credit you below the blurb, or I can credit you in the history the way I credit John for his blurbs. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
It probably makes sense for me to post them direct. I have been a little hesitant to do so without them going through some sort of quality control system, but will take this as you giving me permission. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy with your work so far, but I've got several competing considerations ... don't post anything yet, I need more time to think. I might adjust my wikibreak. - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Assuming that my work is satisfactory, that seemed a quick and easy enough task. If you would like to put a month or a quarter's worth my way to work through in my own time, feel free.
Please feel under no obligation to respond to this, but your delaying of your Wikibreak seems a big deal. I am perturbed to think that anything I have done, or failed to do, may be contributing to this. If there is anything, feel free to least me know. Steps are already in hand to attempt to adjust the dial re TFA copy editing.
Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Heh, no, I was thinking of leaving sooner, but I don't think I'll need to. Okay, time to edit the blurbs on this talk page, and I'll post questions here I think (so that I can link to that page if I like and people won't see the discussion, just the edits). - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • For the moment, I won't be looking at the articles promoted before Sept 30 ... Leuten, RAAF and High Explosives. - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
McNair: only just spotted that. I wouldn't mess about with titles unless I was fairly sure of my ground, but I know what a staff is in US Army terms and broadly how the responsibilities work. But your larger point is taken. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Does it work for you to leave it as is? If not, I don't mind changing it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
No, no - it works fine. Or I would have said. I just wanted to be responsive to your comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Rossbach

Neither am I. I assume that I edited it after moving it and forgot to update the word count. Can we put it down to a beginner's mistake? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to make sure we're not using duelling character counters.
  • Oh my ... Rossbach is really good. I'm just going to make one edit; see if you agree. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay. I prize clarity above every other virtue, so let me be clear: skimming your list of blurbs quickly, I can see that there are blurb-writing things you know how to do that can't be taught, and you've got solid experience with copyediting MilHist articles at FAC and A-class, and you're a MilHist coord (which is an important part of making this work). What we don't know yet is how MilHist writers will respond to your blurbs ... but I bet they'll like them (possibly more than they like mine!) I will attempt to lean the odds in your favor by making any edits I feel like making ... and it's likely that I'll be making edits of one kind or another on just about every blurb. But I'm not making any representation about what happens after today, not yet. You're just posting a bunch of blurbs after I review them, and I'll look at this whole issue again after I get back from my wikibreak. I'd prefer that you not write TFA blurbs while I'm away ... I'd like to keep an eye on what's happening in real-time. Sound good? - Dank (push to talk)
@Dank: I hope that I don't bring too much ego to Wikipedia - make whatever edits you wish. (Although after that praise from you I am going to have trouble getting my head out of the door.) I won't comment unless asked, eg see below. At the risk of being immodest, hopefully I will get a fair bit of slack from MilHist editors - eg if I make a mistake (hopefully not) or I edit out their favourite nuance (more likely). As and when you sign off on each blurb individually I will post them to the FAC talk pages as you suggest below. I will stay away from any further blurb writing unless and until you give me a green light.
  • This one (Rossbach) is good to go, that is, it's fine to post it to the talk page of its FAC if you like. (But let's stick to articles tagged for Milhist ... maybe a subset of the Milhist articles, it will depend on the response you get.) I have links to all these pages in my Sandbox/5 (except this one, since this is from Sept 30, just outside the last quarter I'm working on). I recommend the same language I've been using when you post ... "Auntieruth55 (and anyone else interested): thoughts and edits are welcome. This is the last batch of blurbs for older FACs for a while." Always ping all of the co-noms if any, and always check to make sure that at least one of the co-noms is still active on Wikipedia. (If not, let me know.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
OK - I like it, and it is accurate, but it contradicts the article. Which states that the French disengagement was solely due to Rossbach; your tweak makes it read as if it were Rossbach and Leuthen. According to my sources it was, but I didn't see it as a blurb writer's role to start resourcing a FA. Ditto the British support, which was actually increased due to both victories; while you have stayed with the article in this case and made it a result of just Rossbach.
All of that said, I am possibly dancing angels on a pinhead here; I am happy enough with your version, even if I would have made both the British and French responses dependant on either one or both battles.
Not sure if I am being clear here. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Sure. My change had nothing to do with what actually happened and everything to do with not injecting causality that wasn't supported by the existing language of the lead ... the lead didn't say that Rossbach was the cause of the French inaction, only that one thing that made the battle significant was that France didn't take action after Rossbach. I never change an "after" (or synonym) to "because" (or synonym), though I do occasionally make the change in the other direction. But ... if the language below the lead is clearer about causality, it's fine to reflect that in the blurb. Feel free to make the change if you like, or to ask Ruth for her opinion. (Much of the blurb-writing job, as you know, is letting the writers see their own language, and letting them know that we want their opinions on questions like these. Use your judgment, always.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I know and get on with Ruth, so will have an exchange with her over the whole issue, and then finalise the blurb. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Others

  • Seydlitz is good to go.
  • Groix: gtg. Some of the "Most historians" language comes from the article text (by which I mean, not the lead). I often grab article text when I'm not happy with the options the lead is giving me.
  • Inmate: gtg. maybe ask Nick-D which image he likes.
  • Mells: Go ahead and post this and ping HJ Mitchell and Carcharoth ... I'll take a look after they've had a chance to edit it.
@Dank: Why Carcharoth? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Alfred Shout: gtg. ERRORS people aren't wild about defining abbreviations that are only used once, so I reworded to avoid the abbreviations.
I’m not either. It is only only used once because you took out the second mention  
Ah. - Dank (push to talk) 11:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Done for today ... I'll look at the other two September articles tomorrow (i.e. not Leuthen). - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • About the wording when you post something ... sorry I didn't mean you have to use those exact words ... just let people know that their thoughts and edits are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 10:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding "subcontracting" (on Ruth's talk page): yes and no. I'm working with you. But I have no objection if MilHist subcontracts you, that is, if MilHist people decide they like your blurbs and want you to keep writing them. I'm sure you'll do fine. - Dank (push to talk) 10:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
That was meant in a jocular fashion for Ruth. That said, it helps me keep my head straight if I consider myself as working for you and to your standards. At least for now. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • High Explosive Research: gtg. - Dank (push to talk) 11:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Another oops: since the image isn't an image of High Explosive Research per se, the blurb requires "(pictured)". I added that and subtracted something else to get it under 1025. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dank I have noticed a little belatedly that this is part of a good (but not featured) topic. Should that be added to the end? It which case I will need to shorten it again - which I am happy to do. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • RAAF area commands: gtg. Oops, forgot about the Featured Topic, now it's over 1025. I'll shorten it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. Everything looks great. I'll look at Leuthen when/if I start posting blurbs for months earlier than September 2017. Let me know if you have questions. - Dank (push to talk) 11:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

First batch - summary

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Dank I have switched the conversation to the talk page and the "finished" blurbs to the main page. (D'oh!) To summarise:

  1. I have posted or am about to post all of the blurbs to the FAC review talk pages.
  2. I am waiting on Mells War Memorial for an answer as to why I am pinging Carcharoth in. I am, obviously, not bothered either way, but I am wondering what I missed.
  3. Note my query above about High Explosive Research being a GT.
  4. I have genereted an aide memoire for my future reference at User:Gog the Mild/Misc#TFA blurb checklist.
  5. I have observed with interest the diffs of your changes to my drafts. Very educational.
  6. I have thoroughly enjoyed the process. If you are thinking of setting me up to write blurbs for the MilHist (and, possibly, the history) FACs as they come through and to chip away at the backlog, I would be up for it.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Replied to 2 questions on your talk page.
  • "From 1758" (recently added): there's a lot to say about this, but it boils down to: AmEng needs a "to" after "From (date)", BrEng doesn't. AmEng has a variety of ways to reword it. In this case, I'll probably just delete the "From 1758".
  • I'll watchlist the Misc page.
  • "educational": Any edit I make, or anything I claim, is just based on a 12-year process of trial and error of editing for FAC people. They could well be wrong ... in which case, I'm wrong. But maybe everyone will stay happy if we're all wrong together :) Feel free to take any of my edits with more than a grain of salt.
  • "setting me up": The TFA coords (including me, I guess) take the position that we're never going to give anyone a special hat to do anything. But MilHist is an unstoppable force of nature ... and MilHist does believe in giving a special role to coords, so AFAIK, it's a completely reasonable goal to aim for the role of "MilHist blurb writer". That's up to them, of course, but I was a MilHist coord for 7.5 years, so I think I'm in a position to say: I think they'll love your work. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No one has ever objected (that I know of) to omitting Good Topics from blurbs. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Avoid all redirects": There's a small exception ... check with me if a redirect points to a section of a page rather than the whole page. It's a question of whether the hovertext would be more helpful with or without the redirect. - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Btw, there's an issue here of crediting my blurb edits ... it never bothers me one way or the other, but people have occasionally complained at WT:TFA that we need to be careful with attribution. The way I credit John's edits is simply to say "see (whatever page we worked on) for attribution" in the edit summary when I post the blurb ... then if people care, they can check the history for themselves to see who did what. I didn't bring it up till now because it's really not very important. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I had to think about that, but yes, good point. I am rubbish at remembering attribution. Added to my checklist. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Capture of Wakefield ... not expecting you to be working today! But if you like, you're welcome to watchlist FAC and do blurbs for any promoted Milhist articles ... I'm watchlisting this page, so I'll see them if you do them. Or not, I'm happy either way. Hope the holidays are treating you well. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Dank. I did a draft for Battle of Pontvallain as it was my co-nom. I have now "opened" it. I have done a draft blurb for Razing of Friesoythe - my nom - which seems to be stuck for some reason (it has had 3 supports, image and source reviews and 3 other supportive comments for a month) but hopefully will be promoted out one day; I am unsure what, if anything, I need to do about the image. I have done a blurb for Capture of Wakefield. I watchlist FAC anyway and will be happy to do draft blurbs, which I will flag up here for you to check. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I have been adding images for 2019 blurbs for not for 2017 blurbs ... your call. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Apologies. I meant that the image is of one of the involved Canadian units, in the town, the day after it was razed. Is this proximate enough to not need a "(pictured)"? If not, I am not sure that "(pictured)" is really applicable. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure. David Levy? (not urgent) - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Back-ish

Latest comment: 4 years ago27 comments2 people in discussion
  • I'm back from break, early. I've got a new project to work on, writing lists ... that's going to take some effort, so I'm putting off some of my usual chores for now ... I'm not watchlisting ERRORS or blurbs, or checking for newly promoted FACs. If you see a Milhist article promoted at FAC and want to write a blurb for it, feel free. I'd be a little more comfortable if you posted them here (i.e. at User:Gog the Mild/Blurbs) first so we can talk about them, but if you prefer to post them directly to the FAC talk pages and ping me, go ahead. For the moment, I'm spending all my free time on pre-2018 blurbs ... I'll be happy to point you to the Milhist ones if you want to work on them, but there's no rush on that. - Dank (push to talk) 11:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Welcome back. I am more than happy to post all future draft blurbs here for you approve or not and to either post to the FAC talk pages or tell me to. I am watching FAC and will pick up any new MilHist FAs as they come through. I am happy to plug away at pre-2018 MilHist blurbs, posting the drafts here. Should I just wade in, or would you prefer to provide me with a list? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Putting together the list now. For Prince Romerson, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 27, 2017 may be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I am a bit stumped for an image for Prince Romerson. Any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd go with an image from Buffalo Soldier. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • August 2017: John C. Breckinridge, Battle of Leuthen, SMS Deutschland (1904)
  • July: Donald Hardman
  • For the others, see User talk:Dank/Sandbox/4 ... I'm filling that in now. "Gog" means it's Milhist and not one of Wehwalt's noms (he likes to do his own). Key: "2" or "3" means the FAC talk page name will end in archive2 or archive3. "FT" is a featured topic (so, {{TFAFULL}} will take a second parameter, the name of the FT, and the sentence it generates will count towards the 1025 limit.) "renamed" means article name has been changed since it was promoted at FAC. (Done here for now.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It's turning out to be a lot. Of course, you can omit articles or whole subcategories of Milhist articles. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
No worries, I'll work through them. Some of the ships are members of two nesting good topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battleships of Germany/archive1. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
We always list the bigger FT, since it's more impressive and almost always includes the smaller one. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In general, I'll wait until you ask me to review stuff. (You're probably not done with the first two, since there are redirects to bypass ... I noticed Leopold Joseph von Daun and Hawaiian Kingdom.) - Dank (push to talk) 00:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Or ... I guess it's good to go if it's got a green checkmark? - Dank (push to talk) 02:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Good idea. Yes. From now on consider a green tick to mean that I have finished and consider it ready.Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Leuthen looks great. I'm not sure what to do about Romerson. Typically, I would take the "over 100 native and Hawaiian-born combatants" bit (or similar) and insert it into the "In 2010, he was commemorated with other "Hawaiʻi Sons of the Civil War" when a bronze plaque was erected" sentence. I'd do that because that's a specific event that specifies a specific number in a semi-official way. So, the first sentence would become something like "... was a Native Hawaiian who fought in the American Civil War at a time when the Kingdom of Hawaii was still an independent nation". (Note that I'm using "at a time when" ... that's a phrase that won't raise any eyebrows as a substitute for "while". "Despite", and other cause-and-effect words, will sometimes raise eyebrows, so if you add a cause-and-effect word that's not already present, I'll take it out, more often than not. Just sayin'.) But one problem with my suggestion is that it probably makes the blurb too short. So ... thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Ha. I struggled with this, running through a lot of iterations. Even importing facts in the sources but not the article to pad it out. I gave up a bit and passed it on to you! I have tweaked. What do you think?
Looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Of course, I don't want the list of things we need to think about to grow out of proportion ... still, I think the two things I just mentioned (don't add cause-and-effect words, and always place numbers in the context of events or facts rather than scholarly opinion, if possible) are probably worth adding to your Misc page. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Done.
I anticipate fun with Iéna, next one down, once it is promoted. Let me see what I can manage.
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I lumped "despite" in with the cause-and-effect words, but I've changed my mind, maybe this is clearer: "If cause-and-effect words (because, due to, so as to, in order to, therefore) aren't already present, don't add them. Same goes for contrast words (but, however, although, despite)." - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC) (I reserve the right to be inconsistent on this ... for instance, you just added "due to illness", and that seems fine in this context.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I was trying to be long winded. Which turns out to be more difficult than editing down. I think that I'm getting there. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
It's early days, but I'm very happy with what you're doing, I think we can accomplish a lot, and not just at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The redirect on "Silesia" is fine. The redirect rules will make more sense as we see more examples. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm getting ready to post all the non-Milhist blurbs for 2017, FWIW (but please take your time, and post yours whenever you're ready). In Weissenburg: "Imperial German Navy pre-dreadnought battleship" is really likely to get rewritten by one of the Main Page people to avoid 3 links in a row; they often intervene for just 2 links in a row. I don't really have a recommendation here; it may be that some negotiation is in order. - Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Everything wiht a checkmark is gtg. - Dank (push to talk) 22:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I was in the midst of working on some as you were writing that. Weissenburg tweaked to give no more than one link at a time. When you have approved them, do I post them to User talk:Dank/Sandbox/4? Or did you mean that I should post them to their FAC talk pages? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd say FAC talk pages, as long as people are okay with that. - Dank (push to talk) 23:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe RAAF Area Commands and everything below that have already been posted. - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Correct. As I post them, I am moving them to the bottom. Four more ready for you to look over. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 3 done. Excellent work. I believe "general" is more widely understood than "general officer" (to mean anything above brigadier), but there's an argument that "general officer" is more precise, if you want to revert that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Diffs

Latest comment: 4 years ago36 comments2 people in discussion
  • Ouch! I have just been going through the diffs of your changes. Clearly still a lot for me to learn.
    • Please don't feel pressured ... my edits are meant as guesses about what kind of pushback we're most likely to get. Feel free to discuss or revert. - Dank (push to talk)
  • General officer: I was using it to include brigadier general and, as you suggest, suspected that 'general' would be read as meaning "anything above brigadier".
  • I am assuming that part of the job is watch listing all of the pages created and responding to comments. Especially re changes or proposed changes which go outside 925–1,025 characters?
    • That's my assumption. - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I've finished posting the blurbs John and I did for 2017 (except January). User:Dank/Sandbox/5 is my page for links to all the blurb-review blurbs. Regarding some of the edits that we're getting to posted blurbs: I'm fine with all of them so far. (I don't always agree of course but I generally don't push back unless I think it's likely to turn into a problem.) If I do see an edit to one of your blurbs that I don't like, I'll discuss with you first before making an edit to the page where the blurb is posted. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Caveat: I'm a lot happier when I don't think about images, so I haven't been. I just noticed that I get "{{{2}}}" when I hover over the Silesian War image, which probably means that it needs another "|". But in general, I won't catch that, or the lack of (pictured) (if needed), or anything else. - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I wondered what those did. I shall ensure that they are present. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Clare Stevenson: We haven't been using postnominals. I don't have a strong position on this, but in general, my instinct is not to rock the boat. Maybe this is another one where the rule will change after some discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC) (Typically, I've been writing out that the person received [highest honor received] in the text.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
OK.
  • "As such, she was described in 2001 as "the most significant woman in the history of the Air Force".": Another point that may or may not require discussion. WP:INTEXT appears to require attribution here, such as "described by historian Alan Stephens" (if that's who said it). I've followed INTEXT for 12 years at FAC and TFA and it hasn't been a problem so far; some other people interpret it more loosely. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Personally I'd want in line attribution. (It has a cite in the lead.) But it got through FAC without it (clearly I didn't review it), so I didn't want to mess it around. I am more than happy to insert attribution/delete the assertion in future cases if you would like me to. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No redirects. I had "Group Captain", so you changed it. Fair enough. But the article title is "Group captain" and you changed it to "group captain". I'm confused. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What I do is click on every link; if I see the "(Redirected from ...) message at the top of the page, then I know that Main Page people will change it if I don't. (If clicking takes me to a section rather than to the top of the page, sometimes that's okay.) So, this was your version ... click on the link in question, and you see "(Redirected from Group Captain)", because that page is Group captain, not Group Captain. (Capitalization on the first letter doesn't matter.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I put a checkmark on Clare Stevenson because I don't have anything to add, but some things probably need some edits or discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Redirects: got it. Neat tip. In which case 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement and Peter Badcoe are ready for your beady eye. No rush. Neither are promoted yet. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • You may have seen my comment at WT:TFA that John and I have started on 2016 ... I don't mean to imply that you're not doing Milhist blurbs for 2016, I just didn't want to speak for you. Take your time. - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm chipping away at them. I'm not going to manage my 15 FA promotions this year if I spend all my time on blurbs. Any thoughts on what to use as an image for Tube Alloys? I am a bit stuck. Three more finished for you to look over. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely, there's no obligation at all. Generally when I have a blurb about a project and I can't find an image, I'll try to come up with an excuse to mention and picture a person prominent in the project. - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It works fine for me, and seems to be set up correctly. What result are you getting when you click on it? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I explained there: the article title (before the pipe if there is one) needs to be the first link. Btw, the last time I checked, that even applies to the image caption: no links there either, or it will confuse the bot. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
There's a larger discussion to be had about promotional words: people have a tendency to think (and therefore to imply) that the thing they're writing about is more significant or better than the rest (which is sometimes the reason they're writing about it, after all), so they use words like "major" and "most notably". In this case, I would delete "major" and change "most notably" to "including". In general, these judgment calls can be hard, but in this case, the words "invasion" and "far larger" imply "major", so "major" can be deleted just on the grounds that it's redundant. "Most notably" is also mostly redundant; the reader will already get that sense from the fact that its "fall was celebrated by the Caliph's propaganda", and just from the fact that we're mentioning that particular victory and not singling out any other. FWIW, I checked the links and they're not redirects. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not going to be clear to the scheduling coord which of the 3 versions to use. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • French battleship Iéna: It's easier for people to figure out whether they're on board with your changes if you make your changes to what they wrote, so that they can use a diff to see the changes, rather than creating an extra copy of the text. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Tube Alloys: it's a Good Topic, not Featured. - Dank (push to talk) 03:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    Hi Dank: I asked above, but rereading, think that I misunderstood your reply. So could you confirm that we don't indicate Good Topics at the end of blurbs, but do indicate Featured Topics; using the Featured Topic Project's criteria of "At least one half (50%) of the [article]s are featured class"? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    Exactly right. - Dank (push to talk) 11:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Am I supposed to be looking at the ones with a green check, or do I wait for them to be moved into the top section? - Dank (push to talk) 11:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    Probably best to wait. I did them in bed last night on my phone and am now feeling that I would like to give them another skim. They certainly all need the character counts revising. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It's entirely your call how thorough I am ... my only goal here is to support your petition to Milhist to be their blurb person. Let me know if you'd like for me to scale back anything I'm doing here. - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    Hi Dank. From where I sit, you are reversing things. I am entirely happy writing the MilHist blurbs. I anticipate minimum push back. If I get any I will handle it on its merits. So far as I am concerned you are "the boss". I do what you say and you check and amend my suggestions as much or as little as you wish. As and when you are happy to back off on the oversight - a little or a lot - then I am sure that you will, but I don't see that I can judge my own progress on this.
    Am I to take it that you feel that I should formally put in a request to MilHist to become their blurb writer? Or that I should at least inform them that I will be preparing draft blurbs for nominators to do with what they will?
    PS Note that I nominated Prince Romerson on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests at the explicit request of the article's main editor. I assume that this is OK?
    Thanks
    Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    Absolutely, it's fine to add things to TFAP. My suggestion FWIW is that we finesse things ... rather than saying "This is Gog's blurb, with some fiddling by Dank", we just tell people (if asked) that we both looked at them. Regarding asking MilHist about all this: it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. I don't see any reason not to just go ahead and work through blurbs, until and unless someone asks us to stop. (At the moment, I'm planning to cover all the blurbs back to 1 October 2015 1 January 2016.) After we've done that, we can ask people if they're happy and if they want you to keep doing that. So far, I haven't been shy at all about changing something if I think the change will deflect potential criticism, but I'm going to do less and less on your blurbs as time goes by. - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
That all sounds good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Great. Of course, you're welcome to pick your blurbs and pick your cutoff date ... I'm just letting you know that my Sandbox/5 page, which is what the coords use when they're looking for pre-done blurbs, will be covering back to October 1 2015, for the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 00:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I have pasted all of those allocated to me from 2017 in your Sandbox/4 to my In Progress list and will work on them in between keeping on top of MilHist articles coming through FAC. I can't find your list of Oct-Dec 2016 FAs needing blurbs. Is there one? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Dank/Sandbox/5#Blurbs from 2016 FACs, not scheduled has the whole year, including at least 2 in the 4th qtr. Those sections are all in chronological order. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
There are 4 MilHist ones in the 4th qtr, all marked "Gog" at the end, starting with HMS Alceste (1806). (On an earlier copyediting point ... I just wrote "from the 4th qtr" and changed it to "in the 4th qtr", because I'm aware that "from" means something different to Brits ... this really is a point where Americans and Brits misread each other on a regular basis. Keep an eye out.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Got them. Thanks.
Will do. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Clifford was not always successful in this, and his actions were not always popular; but his royal service was extremely profitable.": I don't think a semicolon in front of a "but" will survive. I wouldn't lose the "but", so I changed the punctuation to a comma. If the sense of the semicolon is to alert the reader that the sentence has an unexpected ending, one way to do that is to start with "although". - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ships

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
  • We can usually eliminate pronouns from ship blurbs in a natural-sounding way by combining sentences and using the ship's name along with "ship", "battleship", "vessel", etc. That's probably not a solution for anything other than a blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 16:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
No doubt. Not referring to ships as "she" just reads very clunkily to me. I simply need to apply the rule, like some of the wackier (to me) USEngvar formulations when I am copy editing. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
There are issues here of: what's above my pay grade, what's going to get me in trouble. I have to admit that I've typically used "she" for battleships until now ... the recent RfC at WT:MOS convinced me that it's time to be more careful. And it's really not hard to write something as short as a blurb without pronouns ... just combine sentences so that we don't need to repeat the subject quite so often, and use "vessel" and "ship" and repeat the name as needed. Still ... if you want to do something different, fine. If we get pushback, we should ask for advice at WT:MIL, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
No. I don't anticipate difficulty in implementing the 'rule'. (I do anticipate difficulty in remembering to implement it.) In some ways it adds to the fun, like writing an article that doesn't contain the letter "e". By all means let us not get into trouble. I wonder how long I can do this before the regular ship FACers twig and ask me why? Let's see. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • St Vincent-class battleship: whenever articles show up at TFA that mention a (nonfictional) place but don't say what country the place is in, we get some complaints; I think the issue is that they think that Americans and Brits (usually Americans and Brits) are trying to arrogantly assert that everyone should just know that we're talking about the U.S. or Britain. OTOH, if we insert "British" before "Royal Navy", some ships people will complain. 95% of the time, there's a natural-sounding place to insert "British" in these ship articles. I'm not sure if there's a natural place for it in this one. Maybe this deserves some discussion and negotiation, I don't know. I don't have a specific recommendation with this one. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
OK. Point taken and I will have a look at this one. I have had a stab, see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's reasonable. - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Levant: We have to bypass the redirect in [[Ship commissioning#Ship decommissioning|decommissioned]] because "decommissioned" isn't identical to the redirect text. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I need to get on top of the redirects. I will try harder..
  • "from 1759": This is hard. If this were AmEng, it would always require a "to". Even in BrEng, it's important to be aware that a significant portion of half your readers will misunderstand. In cases like these, I haven't gotten pushback changing "from" to "in", but let me know if that doesn't work (for you or for anyone else). - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course, in BritEng, that "to" suggests the opposite of what we want it to mean. In is fine, other than giving eight cases of "in 17xx" in the blurb. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear ... I meant, in AmEng, "from 1759" needs to be "from 1759 to" something. Brits often don't understand that half of the world isn't quite sure what "from 1759" (without a following "to") means, and if forced to guess, many Americans hear it as "something that came from the year 1759" (if the context allows that interpretation) ... i.e., just 1759, not after. Agreed that repetition of "in 17xx" is a potential issue, but it's not one that anyone has mentioned to me yet. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser: My edit took it down to 915. You've been making excellent decisions about what to keep, so it's your call how to proceed. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC) Wait, I thought of something ... good to go. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Random section

Latest comment: 4 years ago22 comments3 people in discussion
@Dank: I have had a stab at Raynolds and it is at User:Gog the Mild/Blurbs waiting for you to check. I threw in some thoughts re WT:Featured article candidates/First Battle of Dernancourt/archive1, but I have no particular objection to the blurb as it stands. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Gog, Wehwalt, Ceoil: change of plans. I'm not comfortable with the linkage being made at WT:TFA between the blurb-writing project and the randomization proposals. The best way to proceed, I think, would be to aim for closure on blurbs for FACs promoted from 2016 to 2019, sooner rather than later, so we can move that into the past tense. (Search for your usernames at User:Dank/Sandbox/5 to see which ones I thought you guys might want to do.) Thoughts, objections? John and I will be happy to do any or all of these. - Dank (push to talk) 17:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@Dank: I don't see any in your sandbox 5 with my name next to them that I haven't either done or have already put into my work space. There are 13 outstanding, most of which are close to finished. I will try to get them wrapped up over the next few days. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
You're a mensch. - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Repinging Wehwalt, Ceoil: Gog and I are about done ... please let me within, say, a week, if you don't want me to do the missing blurbs that have your usernames on them at User:Dank/Sandbox/5. - Dank (push to talk) 11:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dank: Your edits on Battle of Goodenough Island dropped it below 925 characters (913), which I noticed just as I was finishing posting it. So I have added a little on the actual battle to top it up, but you will probably want to check it - Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Battle of Goodenough Island/archive1. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure, thanks for catching that. - Dank (push to talk) 00:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I have limited time for Wiki right now and I'd rather devote it to reviewing and such so if you want to go ahead with mine, please do and thanks. I will look at them and polish.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree, that's more important. I'll give it a shot ... feel free to edit. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dank: As you have no doubt noticed, I have wrapped up the last three, ready for your inspection. What's next boss? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Working on them now. Glad you asked. Up to the RfC voters, mostly. I have big plans, but it's a secret for the moment (in case I fail dramatically). - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
But Wait...There's More!: Search on my Sandbox/5 for "Gog?". There were 3 ships that were never done, if you want them. There was one memorial where we talked through what to do but never actually did it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Your dedication and breadth of interests are gratifying and impressive. About the ones that haven't been promoted yet: as you can see from my post at WT:FAC, I'm a little disheartened about the state of the RfC conversations, and I don't know what to expect. I think I'm done looking at blurbs for upcoming promotions until it's clear there won't be an RfC or it's clear that the RfC won't make significant changes to my workload. I'll get back to you about my next project within the week. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
But feel free to ask questions any time, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course. Other than "What's the secret mission?" Grasshopper labours on in blissful ignorance. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Operation Infinite Reach: "was the codename", "controversial", "allegedly", "however" ... meh, meh, meh, meh. I just can't get enthusiastic about this one tonight ... I'll look at it again after the RfC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. You will note that it got left to the very last. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Btw, if you prefer to rewrite it from scratch, I think that would be fine in this case. But I'm also fine just letting it lie there until after the RfC. Also, just to be clear, if you want to write and post Milhist blurbs, be my guest. Personally, I want to get a better idea what's coming for TFA before I go back to doing blurbs. - Dank (push to talk) 15:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Quick summary of the secret mission: blurbs aren't just blurbs. They also reflect a long series of conversations about what FA writers and reviewers consider to be the most essential parts of leads, for a broad (Main Page) readership. But whenever we condense a bunch of articles into a list, some version of that information is exactly what we need to figure out how to write the list. (Or rather, that's exactly what I'm looking for as a writer ... others construct lists differently, which is fine.) The trouble is ... if I just jump in and create a list of, say, battleships, and claim that I'm using my knowledge of battleship blurbs, I'm going to make the battleship writers nervous ... they've got their own preferences, and they know I'm not up to speed ... they're happy to get help, but it might feel more like being pushy than helping. I recently figured out that I should drop the goal of working on lists that are directly relevent to the blurbs I've been writing ... I should look more for parallel projects, articles and lists that have a few things in common with what I've seen at FAC and GAN. Then if other writers like my approach, they're welcome to collaborate, and if people find some small part of what I'm doing useful in their own efforts, then great, mission accomplished. Wait, that wasn't a quick summary. Oh well. First up: I really like, for instance, this list, and I'm hunting up sources to do something similar for North Carolina parks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I may leave OIR for now; I may continue with blurbs for MilHist, at least for now. That's one of Dudley's, a fine, fine editor. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yugoslav monitor Drava

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Your c/e took this one to 1029 characters. (I have no idea of how much or little that matters.) It also seemed to me to be a little clunky. So I have tweaked it. Want to have a look before I post is? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Another random section

Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
  • Onward and upward with the secret mission. I just got some praise from RexxS at User talk:Reywas92#WT:FLC#User:Dank/Tables for User:Dank/Tables ... that overcomes what I saw as the main technical hurdle to succeeding with blurb-y lists at FLC (since my vision isn't great). I've been getting up to speed with reviewing at FLC. So far so good.
  • In other news, I haven't heard anything about a randomization RfC for 10 days now, so it might be safe to go back in the water. If you feel like doing blurbs as they get promoted, I'll be happy to take a look. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
To my, admittedly inexperienced, eye, the idea never looked like getting off the ground. There has been a bit of an hiatus in FAC promotions, and I have seven waiting or nearly done. I'll wrap up the two nearly dones for you to review, and see what else is in the pipeline.
I can see that your double row tables could allow for a hefty bit of prose, if you wanted to. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Great, and you may or may not want to search on my Sandbox/5 for "Gog?". - Dank (push to talk) 19:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Already done all of those marked Gog in your SB5, bar the three under "In progress". I'll get them wrapped up. Feel free to allocate me some more. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • For Brown, "VC ... that can be awarded". For Leak, "that could be awarded at that time". Can both be right? - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I see no problem in either logic or semantics in both being true. (So far as I am aware both are true.) What is the issue?
    • I'm confused. If the statement "Gog is English" is true, then might also be true that "Gog was English at that time" ... but is that something we'd ever say if Gog is still English? And Australia is still in the Commonwealth (unless they've been naughty and no one told me). - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah ha. The Australian armed forces replaced the Victoria Cross with the Victoria Cross for Australia; New Zealand with the Victoria Cross for New Zealand. So one could, pedantically argue that the first ("VC ... that can be awarded") is wrong. And anyway, the point is the award's status then, not now. So I will standardise on "that could be awarded at that time" if you are ok with that. Nicely picked up.
Sure, and good to know, I've wondered about that before. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Ready and waiting, plus two others

. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Neptune: Is "she" intentional? - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
No. Thanks. Changed. As I wrote above I don't anticipate difficulty in implementing the 'rule'. (I do anticipate difficulty in remembering to implement it. In some ways it adds to the fun, like writing an article that doesn't contain the letter "e"." To me it is a bizarre and random convention, but I am getting used to remembering it for (only) blurb writing.
  • Salamis: consider converting "14-inch guns". Some people expect it; others treat that as the name of the gun.
I am already on 1,024 characters, so I was going with option b. (Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship, further down, got a conversion, as I had the characters.


- Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Seven Days

Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion
  • You might want to sit down for this one (if you're one of those people with a standing desk, or you check your posts while you jog). How would it impact your blurb work if, theoretically, I go for many months without editing any blurb more than 7 days after it's been posted for review? What problems would that cause? - Dank (push to talk) 22:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I suspect that I am not or mis-understanding you. Do you mean: I write a blurb, as currently; you review, tweak and correct it, as currently, over the next seven days; I post them to the FAC talk page, as currently; it is then up to me to deal with any responses, issues, discussions or complaints arising at any future stage? If so, and so long as you mean MilHist blurbs, I don't foresee any issues. Now; what am I missing? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
That answered my question ... thanks. I would be available (if pinged, for Milhist blurbs) for up to 7 days after you post the blurb on the FAC nomination's talk page. I wouldn't generally be involved at or before the ERRORS stage of a blurb's lifespan. (Who would be involved is something TBD.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
WT:TFA#Sabbatical. My post can be faulted (and eventually probably will be faulted) for all the things I didn't say, but if it were any longer, some people wouldn't read it at all. In particular, I didn't mention your work ... but we can bring that to people's attention after the initial responses. Happy to answer any questions you might have. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I have a general preference for operating with a low profile, so don't worry about it. And don't worry that if I had/have any questions you won't/wouldn't be the second person to know all about them. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Always a pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
So, regarding the 3 you just finished, I need to look closely enough to constitute "vetting" in some sense, but less closely than before, to correspond to my expectation that things will change to some extent in my absence (and that's fine). I'll continue to add a second checkmark. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 
  • The April TFAs are up early at my Sandbox/3. The only Milhist one not done yet is German battleship Tirpitz. I see one FAC reviewer named "Dank" made some interesting comments about ngrams and foreign proper nouns. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
User talk:Dank/Sandbox/3 is empty, so I am spared the opinions of this "Dank" person. I shall set to work on Tirpitz, and perhaps they will wander by. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Now at WP:Today's featured article/April 1, 2020; that's the place to post your blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Dank. I note that the version there has {{TFATOPIC|Battleships of Germany}} {{TFAFULL|German battleship Tirpitz}} at the end, while I have normally used {{TFAFULL|German battleship Tirpitz|Battleships of Germany|battleships of Germany}}. Is one of them "correct", or does it not matter? Also, should there always be a space immediately before {{TFAFULL|German battleship Tirpitz}} or not? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Always TFAFULL, always a space. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Not a fan of "bombs bombed" ... since Tallboys are bombs, and since the context probably makes it clear, "... "Tallboys" bombed ..." might work. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Apologies Dank, I was unclear. {{TFATOPIC|Battleships of Germany}} before {{TFAFULL|German battleship Tirpitz}} or {{TFAFULL|German battleship Tirpitz|Battleships of Germany|battleships of Germany}} all as one, to indicate a member of a featured topic?
Tirpitz blurb now ready for checking, either on my blurb page or the 1 April TFA page. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I checked on (and checked off) Tirpitz. TFATOPIC is deprecated. {{TFAFULL|German battleship Tirpitz|Battleships of Germany}} is good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary-style lists

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm pretty sure now that things have slowed down at FAC. Also, we don't have any more blurbs to do from previous years, and I'm on a semi-sabbatical. So, the workload seems to be decreasing, a lot. The only thing I've got that's new at the moment is an idea about collaborating on summary-style lists. (Given the state of my knowledge and ignorance, for me, that would probably mean following the same instincts that I use to create blurbs to help me write short summaries of related articles, and then string them together to form a list. I've been participating at WP:FLC lately, so what I'm learning there would also go into the mix.) Even Wikipedians who feel flummoxed over the rules for writing lists can't avoid them entirely, if they're active writers; for one thing, lists are sometimes needed to finish up Good and Featured Topics. You've mentioned a few times that you're looking for more to do ... if that's still the case, and if you've got similar ideas of your own that you'd like to pursue, I'll be happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

May blurbs

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The 16th and the 19th at User:Dank/Sandbox/3 are pre-2016 Milhist FACs. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


George Washington and slavery, etc.

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion

I'll pass ... do what you like with this one. Note that the first link has to be bold and has to give the exact title of the Featured Article (before the pipe, if any). Also, ERRORS people will intervene if the text (i.e., after the pipe) doesn't seem to them to accurately represent the topic of the article. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Dank, d'oh! Will do.
Re Third Silesian War, you are quite right. I wasn't really happy with the bracketed addition from the original lead, but couldn't squeeze a more felicitous phrase out. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, I have to find something to complain about, or I'm not doing my job. The only other thing: "blood and treasure" might draw a complaint that it's too poetic. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
It's a common expression, even in formal language. Eg, see how often it crops up in Google Scholar.

Done. Great work as always (yours, not mine!) - Dank (push to talk) 02:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Flatterer.
I see Ealdgyth has written a blurb for Juan Davis Bradburn ... I wasn't expecting that, I'll ask her in late July what she plans to do for August. If you see any problems with the blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 16, 2020, please let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Ditto for Peresvet, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 19, 2020. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Bouvet: I'll pass; do what you like. - Dank (push to talk) 04:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll hold fire on my drafts, watchlist these and report back to you, here, if anything rings alarm bells. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Should I look at "In progress, awaiting promotion"? I don't think I've looked at that section before. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
No thanks. Ones in "in progress" are, well, in progress. The tick from me is just a reminder for myself that I have checked all of the links. When I think that they are ready for you to check I will move them to one of the two "Done" sections, with "done" in the edit summary. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay thx, I didn't understand what the tick meant. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I assume that you mean once you have checked and ticked them. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

French battleship Bouvet

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Dank, I have only just noticed the "?" against French battleship Bouvet. What's the issue? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No issue. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


Ichthyovenator

Latest comment: 3 years ago21 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks much. I fiddled with several little things; tag-teaming extinct animal blurbs may or may not be a good way to deal with them. A lot of Brits (and some British dictionaries) have told me that "likely" isn't quite acceptable yet as "probably", though "very likely" works as "very probably". The reason we keep seeing it is that it is more or less accepted in North America now. Any thoughts on my suggested changes? I don't mind leaving some things alone that I might tinker with in other blurbs, so feel free to revert. We've had people complain at TFAR that "dinosaurs" would be better in the first sentence of similar blurbs, and I'd prefer that, but I won't make the change unless that's your preference too. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. If you'd like to post the blurb, feel free. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"likely": I am used to it now and can translate, but still when I see it it looks like a non-native speaker grasping for a vaguely appropriate word to get their general meaning across. We Brits are encouraged to not use normal UKEng words like "whilst" and "amongst" as they don't, I am told, cross the Atlantic well. Personally I would apply the same rule to "likely", but I don't get to make them, and try not to work my personal preferences into Wikipedia unless it is in my "own" articles.
Your changes: they are all clear improvements, bar the duplication of "to have" which I am fairly neutral on.
"dinosaurs": feel free to make the change. I can see its technical accuracy now it is pointed out. (I just went with the existing lead.)
Tag-teaming seems to me to be an efficient approach. YMMV. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
All of that sounds good, I'll throw more of these your way as I run across them. - Dank (push to talk) 22:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Btw, they may well request a mention of "Cretaceous" ... I'm fine with "during the Cretaceous", "during the Early Cretaceous epoch", "during the Cretaceous Period", and "early in the Cretaceous Period" (with suitable links). "during the Early Cretaceous period" is an abomination. - Dank (push to talk) 22:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  Agreed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Pre-2016 July blurbs-to-do are up at User:Dank/Sandbox/3. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "Colonel James Hagerstrom" isn't what we used to do, but I admit that it makes some sense if you want to save space (assuming that readers interpret it correctly), and I don't have a preference. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that it works better in this particular case, for reasons which I won't explicate if you are content with it.
You are right of course. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The Minute Man and Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor have just been promoted. They're not tagged by Milhist, but similar articles are. If you'd like to do blurbs for them, great. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Btw, see my last post on WT:TFA .... starting July 1, John (I think) and I will be putting off doing blurbs for recently promoted FACs until the end of September. I'll continue to collaborate with you and anyone else who does blurbs, and continue to work on the monthly scheduled blurbs. If you want to take 3 months off from doing recently promoted FACs as well, great, if not, great. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    Dank, I'll do them as they come up, it's easier than facing a couple of dozen at once. I may take a slightly more relaxes attitude though. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    I keep an eye on FAC talk pages, and people have been very happy with your blurbs ... a remarkable achievement. Whatever approach you take will be fine, I'm sure. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Gosse: my mistake, edit at will. - Dank (push to talk) 12:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    Dank, no problem. More than happy for you to tell me to stop, a proposed blurb is good enough. Fabian Ware is awaiting your attentions. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Any interest in Sergo Ordzhonikidze? It's tagged as "... History/Military". - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "Sir Fabian Ware": your call. We haven't done it that way so far, and there are people who don't like it, but we can always re-litigate it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    Dank, I like it - in this specific case, not necessarily more generally. But, as always with blurbs, I don't much care if you or anyone else wants to change it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm going to busy working on my plant lists for a while. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Dank, no worries. We are well ahead of the game. Enjoy. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The only pre-2016 Milhist blurb I see in Victoria's emailed list is Surrender of Japan. Please and thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gog_the_Mild/Blurbs/Archive_1&oldid=976420192"