Open main menu


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

Sure, you're quite welcome as always. - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@WP:TFA coordinators: Note Ceoil's request to run his articles on weekends. I think I can remember to check each month. - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


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

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

TFA blurbs?Edit

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

Well, actually doing it, for now, so that we can gauge the response. I was thinking of asking at WT:TFA in a week or two whether people think the experiment is a success, and where they'd prefer to have the discussions. I'm doing this immediately after the FACs are promoted, so that everyone who has the page watchlisted will see it. That may help to deflect the potential criticism that it's some kind of secret discussion, only visible to the noms and supporters. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
It's not my area, but I would have thought this approach has disadvantages. There's a notification to both the FAC nominator(s) and at the article talk page with the existing system, and the nominator notification certainly makes it clear where the blurb is and that it can be collaboratively edited. So it seems there would be little benefit there. I don't watchlist all my old FACs, and I'm sure that's true for others, which may make a difference; one can't not watch one's talk page. And it's not really a FAC discussion; it's a TFA discussion -- it relates to the article's status as an FA, but not to its candidacy, so the FAC talk page seems the wrong place on organizational grounds. The established approach seems fine to me, but if people are complaining about lack of notifications it might be better to see if that can be fixed with more notifications in some way. I might be a bit biased since I read old FACS for statistical data and have found it annoying to have to go to the talk page, so that no doubt influences my opinion. However, as someone who gets these notifications I don't think I'd care much either way, so if those involved at TFA think this is better I wouldn't oppose the change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Mike. Over the last couple of months, the atmosphere at ERRORS has changed a lot from what it's been the previous 4 years, and I've tried notifications everywhere I can think of to get people involved ... no luck, so far. Maybe this will work, maybe it won't. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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


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

Nothing has changed, so far, except for those 5 articles that just passed FAC, and they won't show up at TFA until March and April. When that happens, there will be lots of notice directing people to the discussions. Check the history of the FAC page to see which articles are getting promoted. - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Following up, Art ... the March TFAs have been scheduled. I've done the first half of March so far, and I put a link to the vetting discussions in the page history of the blurb pages. This is all new to me ... I don't know, or care, where discussions will happen, as long as people are happy with the result. (And ERRORS/TFA has been pretty quiet lately, so I'm assuming people are happy for now.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that means that you want me to post discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/[article name]/archive 1, the link you put on the history pages of March 2, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 21, 22, 23, 27, and 31, although March 19 and 28 don't fit that pattern. The place where discussions happen often affects my happiness with the result. In particular, see several of my unanswered objections at Template talk:POTD, and a lulu at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list#Tuesday's list. Art LaPella (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, no, I'm saying that I don't know where people want to talk in the present if issues come up, but I'm sure people will point to the discussions that already happened. I get that if you post a question and no one answers (such as at Template talk:POTD), then that's not doing anyone any good. I'm basically saying that I don't have any answers yet. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Siege of AiguillonEdit

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

Hi Gog. You're doing a great job at Milhist, btw. The 3 TFA coords who do the scheduling are happy to see requests any time at WP:TFAP or WP:TFAR or both (unless the requested day has been scheduled already; you can see from WP:TFAA that Wehwalt has scheduled March, but Jim hasn't scheduled April yet). I'm writing a suggested blurb these days for every article that's promoted at FAC, and putting it on the talk page of the FAC nomination. If you suspect there will be competition for a particular day, then it's a good idea to add your suggestion to TFAR ... or you can add it if you just want to see how people will respond. Otherwise, it's not necessary to go to the trouble of a TFAR nom ... simply listing something at TFAP almost always works to secure that day for your article. If you do list it at TFAR, then yes, use whatever blurb we're currently working on. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Dank. I have listed it on the main requests page using the blurb you wrote. Writing a blurb for every FA as it passes sounds like a brilliant idea, it also sounds like a lot of work for you. Especially given how high quality they are. And thanks for the kind words re MilHist. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
It's a lot of work now because I also have the monthly blurbs to do and other jobs, but it's not any more work in the long run ... I'd have to do them sooner or later. People seem to be happier participating when I do them right after the FAC nom. So, thanks for the compliment, although I guess I wasn't so brilliant during the previous four years when I hadn't figured this out :) - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, this is Wikipedia. Why hadn't several thousand other editors figured it out and suggested it? Why hadn't every editor of a FA who found themselves editing the blurb months or years down the road figured it out? You seem as busy as a three legged dog with two fleas, but so long as you are happy to do it I am grateful. Gog the Mild (talk)

Inadequete, but all we haveEdit

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
It gives me great pleasure to present this totally inadequate token of appreciation on behalf of the Wikipedia community for truly tireless contributions to the common weal. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks kindly. "weal" is a funny word. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I can't help it. It comes of doing too much work at GOCE.   Gog the Mild (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Proximity of military-related TFAs in AprilEdit

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

Hi PM. Pinging Jim. - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
(Jim's traveling so it may be a few days.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Jim, I just noticed I've got Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer) in my Sandbox/1 ... we don't have to run it, but it's there ... I've got a vague memory that Ian was waiting for more information before we ran it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Dan, Peacemaker67 I just got back from Seville last night, so it will take me a day or two to get up to speed. I often run more than one MH as long as they aren't too similar, so no problem in principle, but I can't be more definitive until I'm back up to speed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. No issue, as I can knock something together at relatively short notice if you think it will fly. Let me know? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, it's only recently that we have allowed two FAs by one author in a single month, and there is another date-linked military biography too, so I'm only likely to run Jensen and the plane in April Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance, Jim, I wasn't aware of the articles per month restriction. April is a busy time for Yugoslavia in WWII, my main area of interest, so it'll take a few years to get through the FAs I already have that fit best into April. I'll do a blurb for the plane. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Eliza ActonEdit

Hi Dan, I've swapped the image for the TFA for a different book, as the first one (the main one in the IB) is possibly the most boring image we have on WP! This is particularly a problem when it's at the small TFA size we have. The new image we have is for a different book, but we don't refer to it in the blurb. Is this a problem? If you're too short on words to add the new book, feel free to swap the image back to the previous one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gavin, I'll leave it up to David Levy. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Brie Larson on main pageEdit

Hey, so the main display image of Ms Larson’s blurb on the main page was changed without prior discussion or comment by an uninvolved editor. Could you please restore the version that’s currently being used in the article info box ? Thanks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging David Levy. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 4, 2019Edit

Hi, Dan. I hadn't realized that you previously edited the word order. (My apologies for unknowingly reverting without explanation.)

The problem with "professional Canadian ice hockey goaltender" is that "professional" is intended to modify only "ice hockey player". (He isn't a professional Canadian or a player of a sport called "Canadian ice hockey", nor does most of his professional play occur in Canada.) This differs from instances in which the person's nationality is part of the sport's name (e.g., "professional Canadian football player", which refers to a professional player of Canadian football).

The current wording seems fine to me, but I'm curious as to what issue exists with "Canadian professional ice hockey goaltender" and whether the article's lead should be edited as well. I believe that's a standard construct for such biographies at Wikipedia, as documented at MOS:OPENPARABIO and in the "American professional player of carom billiards" example cited therein, but I assume that valid exceptions arise. —David Levy 00:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit. The question has come up at ERRORS before. Former Australian Olympic swimmer, or Australian former Olympic swimmer? First Australian gold medalist, or Australian first gold medalist? Little Red Riding Hood, or Red Little Riding Hood? I mean, the whole outfit is red, so how can Red Little Riding Hood be wrong? (A fun link for the answer to that one is here.) There are competing considerations, the rules are shifting over time, and for some of these questions, no matter what order you use, it will sound wrong to some readers. Bottom line: I don't want any part of this fight. "Canadian" can almost always be reworded as "from Canada", and we don't even need "from Canada" if there's some other sentence that does a better job of saying that ... there was in this case, so I moved that sentence up. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much for this background. I'm a firm believer in sidestepping such issues through neutral rewording/reorganization (particularly on the main page, where material derived from numerous articles coexists at any given time), so the current version seems like a good solution. —David Levy 01:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to build a case against you or cause any trouble. I'm just trying to help and I guess I got too defensive when I thought you were making fun of me. I'm sorry. (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'll explain a bit more there. - Dank (push to talk) 04:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Having just read the WP:ERRORS thread, I suggest the following:

Roberto Luongo (born April 4, 1979) is a professional ice hockey goaltender from Canada. Employing the butterfly style, he plays for the Florida Panthers of the National Hockey League and previously played for the NHL's New York Islanders and Vancouver Canucks. Luongo is a two-time NHL Second All-Star (2004 and 2007) and a winner of the William M. Jennings Trophy for backstopping his team to the lowest goals against average in the league (2011). He has been a finalist for the Vezina Trophy as the league's best goaltender (2004, 2007 and 2011), the Lester B. Pearson Award as the top player voted by his peers (2004 and 2007) and the Hart Memorial Trophy as the league's most valuable player (2007). Luongo is second all-time in games played as an NHL goaltender, and is third all-time in wins. He was named to the 2014 Canadian Olympic Hockey Team, where he won his second Olympic gold medal in a largely backup role to Carey Price. (Full article...)

In addition to appending "from Canada" and restoring the Olympic information's original placement, this eliminates "of goaltending" (superfluous because "butterfly style" now appears almost immediately after the first of three instances of "goaltender") and consolidates the three NHL teams into one sentence. Overall, the character count (including spaces) is reduced by 13. —David Levy 05:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I've suggested that at ERRORS. And you're right that I wasn't overruling you. - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


When you have time, could you please advise me with regard to this question about hiding edits on a user page? Just don't want to take a mis-step with the bit. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi AC, how's it going? I have no idea. - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) (and a non-Admin one too). I've had my user page wiped a couple of times (see here) with no problems at all. It's different for a talk page, but a user page is fine to delete if a user requests it, AFAIK. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@SchroCat: I'm going to proceed based on that. I thought it was probably OK, but I don't use the tools super often, and I know one or two users who seem to be waiting for me to make a mistake. Just want to do my due diligence. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
You've done the right thing in asking others, and it is something that has been done before (on nothing more than a user request too). Cheers and glad to have been of help. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for everything you do!Edit

  "In Defence of the Blurb"
Das Blurbmeister! "It was a straight blurb against a slogging FAC" :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Enjoyed this a lot, I'm a big Holmes fan. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm kinda retired, but I saw this and had to agree. Thanks for everything you do, Dan. PS I also am or was a HUGE freaking Holmes fan. When I was a kid. I have no copies of the stories now. Probably can find them on the Internet. But whatever. Thanks for all you do. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Very kind! Thanks, I'm a big fan of your work at FAC as well. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Ha, thanks. If that's true, then you're the sole, lonely member of a one-person club. :-) Good luck in all things. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
"I wouldn't join a club that would have me as amember" :) so looks like you've got two at least Lingzhi :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a very broad appreciation for what Dan does here, in his less is more way, i think its fair to say. Certainly I appreciate all his help. Ceoil (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks kindly, guys. - Dank (push to talk) 11:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years agoEdit

Ten years!

Enjoy! Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks much, Gerda. - Dank (push to talk) 11:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I woke up thinking that would we say: "The Fallen Woman is an opera by Verdi." or "The Boheme is an opera by Puccini."? Offenbach deserves the same respect ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Either blurb review is a thing or it isn't ... if it's a thing, then I can't take a position, in this case. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 11:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Gerda, I've asked people if they can support your last suggestion. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
"Anything else"? I don't know yet, because I'd first have to read the article. Feast day today, and a busy week with travel, so I don't know when that will be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
No rush, although at some point my involvement ends, per WT:TFA#WP:Today's featured article/June 7, 2019. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Long thread, no time to study. - The Offenbach piece - whatever the genre - will not go to TFA before October, and I think the blurb doesn't have to be fixed until shortly before, this being a project in progress. I'm already amazed how long it kept the composer busy, from premiere to revised version. I'm completely unbiased and innocent, because I never had the pleasure of seeing it on stage. It seems not to be performed much in Germany, - that's why I was so surprised about the "most successful". And then "of his operas" while German textbooks will claim that he wrote only one, which we know as Hoffmann's Erzählungen, often performed in Germany, seen several times, and there's an iconic film. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Potential TFA for 1999 FIFA Women's World CupEdit

Hello, Dank. I just wanted to drop in and ask if you'd like to look over this FAC for 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup, which I'm hoping to get promoted in time for a TFA on July 10 (the 20th anniversary of the final, and only three days after this year's Women's World Cup final). I don't think it's too soon to be thinking about the TFA blurb, which I'd struggle to keep under the character limit. SounderBruce 06:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. Jim has already scheduled July 10. You can see what's scheduled at the archive page, WP:TFAA. - Dank (push to talk) 11:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Sounder, The current TFA is date-linked and went through WP:TFAR, so I'm reluctant to change that. What about 7 July, the date of this year's final, so actually a more prominent date for most potential readers? The current incumbent is a free choice, so could be moved if yours goes through in time. Any views on that, Dan? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Bruce's article hasn't been promoted yet, Jim. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
7 July would also work, and would pair nicely with the ITNR for this year's final (especially if the U.S. repeats as champion). SounderBruce 01:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Dan, I realise it hasn't been promoted yet, but Bruce is assuming that it will get promoted in time, so it's as well to have a contingency plan. If it doean't get through in time, then this discussion is of no effect. The horse on 7th can easily be put back in the stable if necessary. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Feedback RequestEdit

Hi, I'm currently involved in a dispute regarding the BLP article William Lane Craig. It's been quite heated at times, and I think I'm going to take a step back. However, I've outlined my positions at Talk:William_Lane_Craig#Lack_of_consensus_and_some_theses_about_this_biography_article, and was wondering if you could give me some feedback on them so I can know if I'm on the right track or not. - Thanks, GretLomborg (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any experience with philosophical and theological articles. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
You deserve this for all the good work on the FP. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Gavin! - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 18, 2019Edit

Perhaps the second instance of "Seattle" could be replaced with "the city". I'd rather not have the implication that the light rail line serves the entire state or is part of the state government. SounderBruce 05:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

There were two additional problems (it's not just in Seattle, and "Seattle, Washington, United States" hasn't completely entered the language yet, although I'm aware it has a lot of fans). The second sentence is specific about what part of the state it serves ... isn't it? Should it be more emphatic? I'm not seeing the state government connection ... thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to moving "16 stations in Seattle and its southern suburbs" into the first sentence, if that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
That would also work. "Central Link is a light rail line serving 16 stations in Seattle and its southern suburbs in the U.S. state of Washington. It is managed by Sound Transit and travels 20 miles..." SounderBruce 21:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Done, with "Managed by ...". - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Dank".