User talk:Dank/Archive 49

FAC

Hi Dank, I'm not sure if you remember me, but your comments on Kangana Ranaut's article, during its FAC were highly beneficial to the article. I have recently nominated another article on an Indian film celebrity for FA, and it would be awesome if you could review it. No problem at all if you are unable to. Cheers! :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I won't have time. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Endorheic basin

Hello, Dank -- I have a question about lists: what's your opinion about the use of periods at the end of items that are not sentences? See the lists in Endorheic basin, in which many of the items in the various lists are not sentences, but nearly all items end with a period.  – Corinne (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, I've wondered about that myself. - Dank (push to talk)

P.S. Your note at the end of your talk page that is highlighted in light blue hides the last line or two of the last comment on the page. How can you (or anyone) read the entire comment?  – Corinne (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No one has mentioned that bug to me before, and a lot of other user talk pages borrow the same code. - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Corinne asked me to stop by to look at this question. In case you're interested in my opinion, my view is that as long as an article is formatted consistently within that article and doesn't look ridiculous, I usually leave list formatting as is. Music articles, for example, use all sorts of formatting when listing musicians and their roles – hyphens, colons, dashes of various sorts, semicolons, you name it. I think it's too much trouble to change it unless there is a mix of formats. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey. - Dank (push to talk) 11:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well, Jonesey.  – Corinne (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I usually have my screen at 150% resolution (because it's a small screen), but after I saved my first comment here, I looked at it in smaller resolutions. Only when I got it down to 75% resolution did the message not copy the last line or two of my comment. However, this time, it did not cover even one line of your last comment, so I don't know what happened before.  – Corinne (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Well, at 150%, the message does cover the last line of the last comment. At 125% it doesn't, so I guess it's all right.  – Corinne (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Does 125% work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean can I edit at 125% resolution? I can, but with difficulty. I really need it to be at 150% to see well. My vision is fine; it's just that my screen is so small that the letters are very small at 100%, 110%, and 125%. At 125%, the last part of the date-time stamp of your last comment (that is, your question) was covered by the message.  – Corinne (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I moved the message down a little. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that. Now it cuts off the lower half (about 50%) of the last line. It cuts it right in half horizontally. It's the same at 150%, 125% and 110%. I didn't look at 100%.  – Corinne (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Águas de São Pedro

About an hour ago I finished copy-editing Águas de São Pedro in response to a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. It took some time to get through it and put non-standard English into standard English sentences, and I know there are two or three things that are still a bit unclear and about which I plan to leave a comment on the requester's talk page tomorrow, but I don't feel like reading all the way through the article again. If you have nothing to do, perhaps you could read through the article and see if there is anything I missed.  – Corinne (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I won't have time. - Dank (push to talk) 12:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been rather non-communicative recently

I'll get better, promise. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP.

Hi Dank. This is the newest of 50+ databases in The Wikipedia Library (TWL)‍—‌all with free access to qualified Wikipedians who apply for access. If you could benefit, please apply. If not, please pass this message along to your colleagues on Wikipedia. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

William Sterndale Bennett as TFA

Hi! Thanks for this, but the following is not quite accurate:

" he was admired by Felix Mendelssohn. He moved to Germany, where he performed as a pianist and composed, befriending Robert Schumann. In 1842 he returned to teach at the RAM, with which he was associated for most of the rest of his life."

How about:

" he was admired by Felix Mendelssohn, who invited him to come to Germany. In three long visits there in the period 1836-1842 he performed as a pianist and composed, befriending Robert Schumann. In 1837 he began teaching at the RAM, with which he was associated for most of the rest of his life."

Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. - Dank (push to talk) 08:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops - I've now corrected my correction (see above).--Smerus (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 09:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

2003 Atlantic hurricane season as TFA

Hey there! I'm glad you want to make 2003 AHS as TFA on April 20th, but the project has been toying off and on whether the article on List of storms in the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season (itself an FL) should be merged, which would cause the 2003 AHS article to massively change. Therefore, I think it would be inappropriate for 2003 Atlantic hurricane season to be TFA, since it could be a totally different article, pending on whenever we decide to hold a vote to merge the other article, and go through the WP:FLRC process, which is my own personal goal for the articles. I know no one WP:OWNs the articles, but speaking as someone who is heavily invested in that article (getting 2003 AHS and List of the 2003 AHS storms to their featured status), could you possibly postpone using that one? If you need another one, might I suggest Hurricane Gonzalo? There is a TFA on Typhoon Sudal on April 9, which itself is for an anniversary of some sort (April 20th is the 13th anniversary of the first storm, no more notable than Sudal's 12 year anniversary). I would be fine if you replaced 2003 AHS's TFA with anything really, considering Sudal is also an FA of my own, but I think it would be helpful to see such a recent storm, that is much more likely to be remembered? Gonzalo was only 18 months ago, and it could be helpful on Wikipedia to show such a recent event to be featured, showing how relevant Wikipedia still is, and how successful we still are? Just a thought that I hope you consider. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hink. That makes sense, but I don't do the scheduling. Pinging Chris. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Hink. I deliberately scheduled a season article since the previous two hurricane articles (or even further back) were on individual storms. We do want some variety in our main page fare. As for the question of merging: If it's still in the "toying off and on" stage (i.e. under discussion, but not being implemented) I do not see how this affects the TFA. Discussion could last another two weeks, or another two years. Unless we have something concrete to follow, I don't think the discussion is enough to select another article. Now, if there's another season article that you'd rather run, I'm all ears. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Then could you perhaps consider 1994 Atlantic hurricane season? I think it is one of the best season articles we have, and it would be a fine article to have on the main page. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging Chris. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hurricanehink, that looks fine. I'll switch them. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please restore Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 6, 2016

Please restore Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 6, 2016.

I did this expressly after getting permission from Brianboulton.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Diff please? Looking quickly, I don't see that on his talk page, or yours. - Dank (push to talk) 13:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Undelete the page. I cited the DIFF itself, on the page you deleted. Did you read the DIFF comment before deleting the page where the DIFF comment was displayed ? — Cirt (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw that one, but I thought he meant on the TFA's talk page. I have to be away for 2.2 hours. Brian, where did you want the note inserted? - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"I would have no objection to a "date requested" note being inserted into the date in question." -- Please note "into the date in question". Did you see that before you deleted the page, Dank ? — Cirt (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Cirt, this is a minor housekeeping matter. I have to be away for 2.2 hrs, I'll fix it when I get back. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the emergency was to delete the page mere seconds after I'd created it, even after I backed it up with two DIFFs from two different users. Did you note that I cited the comment "into the date in question" ? Can we please restore the page, please? — Cirt (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear - I did mean in the Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 6, 2016 page. I stress this is not a reservation, merely a reminder to me when I schedule November. Cirt should nominate at TFAR in the normal way, when nominations for that month are open. Brianboulton (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Brianboulton, this is most helpful just in case I may be preoccupied at that point in time in the future. I will strive to nominate at TFAR in the normal way as well. — Cirt (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies to both of you, I misunderstood, restoring the page now. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Dank, much appreciated !!! — Cirt (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Enable Hovercards by default

There is currently a request to close the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Enable Hovercards by default. You previously indicated that you might be willing to help out with this. If you're not too busy at the moment, that would be much appreciated. Cheers, —Ruud 14:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I need a link to that request, please; it's not in the last 100 edits to the page, and I'm not getting a hit on "hovercards" at WP:AN (where closing requests usually show up). - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It's here. —Ruud 15:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Working on it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

January to March 2016 Quarterly Article Reviews

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 27 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period January to March 2016. Thank you for your efforts! Anotherclown (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting these done AC. - Dank (push to talk) 11:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thunder and Pharoah TFA

Please see my request at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 6, 2016. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 20:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

British contribution to the Manhattan Project

Re: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 12, 2016. I have edited the entry. The only major problem was that Oliphant and Akers had been confused. I added that Chadwick was pictured (I think that is the right format). The electromagnetic and gaseous processes were separating the uranium-235 from the uranium-238, a process that is technically called "enrichment", so I switched to this and linked it. I had originally intended to nominate the article to run on 16 July, the anniversary of the Trinity nuclear test. Would you consider running Mark Oliphant on 12 May instead? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

May and July are both Brian's months for scheduling ... but before I ping him, there's a lot of digital paperwork involved in rescheduling and he prefers not to. I know you've put FA stars on a megaton of Manhattan Project articles ... isn't there another article that would suffice on 16 July? (Going forward, you may want to use WP:TFARP as a way of getting a message to the coords about scheduling up to a year in advance ... it's not a guarantee, and sometimes they miss things, but it helps.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I intended for Chicago Pile-1 to be run in December 2017, which will be the 75th anniversary of it going critical, but its not at FAC yet, so Enrico Fermi is in reserve. That leaves only eight Manhattan Project articles (another dozen would be eligible to be nominated, but none would pass before July). None are suitable for 16 July, although Silverplate, 509th Composite Group or Deak Parsons could be run on the more controversial 6 August. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for checking. Pinging Brian. - Dank (push to talk) 00:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

As Hawkeye has also raised objections here to my scheduling of Battle of the Coral Sea on 4 May, I'll deal with both issues here, if I may.

• On the battle, it clearly makes more sense to show this on the 75th rather than the 74th anniversary – I think I perhaps slipped up in my mental arithmetic. Hawkeye7, can you suggest a replacement from the MilHist stable that isn't going to give offence/outrage elsewhere? As a general point, I'm afraid that with TFA we've become rather too hung up on anniversaries, many of which are of no significance whatever to the vast majority of our readers. There are too many articles chasing too few available anniversary dates, and we are going to have to get used to limiting anniversary TFAs to major national/international events, centenaries etc.

  Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier? Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm happy to go with that – I'll be scheduling this weekend. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• On the Manhattan Project article, it's a pity you didn't take advantage of the WP:TFARP page to forewarn us of your intentions – or, indeed, that you didn't nominate it for the 50th anniversary of the Trinity test last year. It seems odd to object to a 74th anniversary, yet request a 51st. Would it really make any difference if this scheduling stands as it is, and Oliphant appears on the anniversary? Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Repinging Hawkeye. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • FYI, Brian, that ping you just did generally doesn't work. I know, I know. I always stick to one paragraph, one edit, signed. And it still doesn't always work. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I had a much better nominee for the 50th last year: the Trinity Nuclear Test article itself. Oliphant would be inappropriate on 16 July, as he wasn't involved. Isidor Isaac Rabi or Deak Parsons are possibilities for 16 July. (The former hasn't been promoted yet though) I gave up adding to WP:TFARP after articles were repeatedly passed over. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry about that ... but you still have to nominate TFARP notifications at WP:TFA. They wouldn't get passed over then. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
        • It certainly helps, but you can still get turned down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Dan: I have rescheuled 4 May but a blurb needs to be written. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead with British contribution to the Manhattan Project. Looking at Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page was an eye-opener. The backlog drops by 20 articles per month. So the whole stock of FAs will be gone in six years. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Eega/archive1

Dank, when you are really free, can you please leave your comments there? I wish to make Eega a FA and i opine that your suggestions would help me improve it. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I won't have time to do it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Its okay. Thanks for the reply. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)