![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
Hi. Can File:Goldmantelziesel.jpg please be the pic for the rodent TFA? It is used to represent Wikiproject:Rodents and is also in the collage. Gerda Arendt doesn't mind. LittleJerry ( talk) 21:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I am changing my original pick for this date ( Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)) to a just-promoted article that has been specifically requested for this date. See "This month's queue" for the blurb. The Ray Charles number will run later in the month, probably 27th. I have left a note on Tony the Tiger's talk. Brianboulton ( talk) 08:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
For completing 34 reviews during January-March 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 09:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC) |
Dan, you'll see from the WP:TFAR page that I've agreed to schedule Rivadavia-class battleship on 17 May, in place of Common Starling which I'm moving to 28 May. If you're online now, can you acknowledge this with a ping, so I know you know what I'm doing? Thanks. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey there. So, I'm not the most proud of that FA. I'm not saying it shouldn't be on TFA, but I was wondering, is there a possibility of changing it? If there is gonna be a tropical cyclone one, there are others I am far more proud of, such as Hurricane Iris, Hurricane Lenny, or Typhoon Maemi? Erika was a very run-of-the-mill storm, and I think there are some more exciting ones to put up. I'd happily do the blurb if you'd need. If this is a problem, I totally understand though. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan,
I don't know if you're watching this, but it might have good news for you: phab:T69784 Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) (who is clearing out her backlog of unread e-mail) 03:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello!
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
At the principal editor's request (see my talkpage) I have changed this day's TFA from Hurricane Erika (2003 to Hurricane Lenny. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan,
Last month, you asked me for an example of a TFA blurb that includes information that was not deemed sufficiently central to the article to be included in the article's lead. Today's TFA blurb is a good example. Much of the content does not appear in the lead of the Texas Revolution article, and for good reason; this information is excessively focused on details, resulting in a TFA blurb that does not provide the kind of general overview that the article's lead does. The large portion of the blurb devoted to minor details of a single battle (San Jacinto) could have been removed to provide space for an explanation of the effects of the revolution, for example. I do not mean to criticize the editors who developed the blurb; I only bring it up because you asked me to clarify this point back in April, and I do believe that TFA blurbs would better serve our readers if they were restricted to information presented in the corresponding article leads. Neelix ( talk) 02:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
On March 31, Houston paused his men at Groce's Landing, roughly 15 miles (24 km) north of San Felipe.[Note 13] Two companies that refused to retreat further than San Felipe were assigned to guard the crossings on the Brazos River.[222] For the next two weeks, the Texians rested, recovered from illness, and, for the first time, began practicing military drills.directly from the article, a shortened version now in the lead. — Maile ( talk) 12:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not a problem at all Ed. You didn't break any hard rules because we haven't had any hard rules ... intentionally. I wanted to go for a while letting people do whatever they wanted to do so we could see what would happen (and to give me time to learn the ropes). At this point, I'm ready to make some recommendations to Brian and Crisco ... I'll go do that, at WP:TFACO. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
And a belated apology from me - I saw the thread on the article talk, responded, then fell asleep before seeing any other response and/or pings for me. Karanacs ( talk) 17:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
To your general points about backlogs... There might be some disagreement with whether a given backlog is really a backlog. However, there really is no room to debate that Wikipedia is in decline. As it declines, various processes will begin to breakdown (and in some cases already have). Much of Wikipedia was built upon the model of an ever expanding editor base. This model failed many years ago. It's taking time for the ramifications of that to settle in, but settle in it will. What's sad is the WMF insists on trying to reverse the inevitable trend of reduced editorship on the project. I made comments to this effect here.
The reality is the model could never have worked. When Wikipedia was young, there were millions of articles to be written. Now, there are almost 5 million articles. There just isn't that much work that a new editor can find to do that is 'sexy', i.e. creating new articles. Instead, it's clean up, verification, citations, etc. The dirty work, if you will. That kind of stuff doesn't tend to draw passion from people about the project. It's easier to see someone bragging thus; "See that article on XYZ? Yeah? I made that article!" as opposed to "See that article on XYZ? Yeah? I did some copyediting on it".
Further, the bureaucracy has been constantly expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. The ability to successfully edit in this atmosphere is far, far lower than it was ten years ago. There are all sorts of pitfalls that befall new editors. The system is insanely complex, with a very steep learning curve. Sure, anyone can edit it. Well, some of it. But the system almost actively works against people editing. There's supposed help, but a new editor out of the gate? I would guess most of their work gets rapidly reverted.
So, the backlog problems you are seeing are only going to get worse over time. The plateauing we've seen in admin counts is, I think, temporary. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be rephrased: "A virtual instructor teaches basic and advanced flight techniques, such as the Immelmann turn and Lomcevak tumble." The Immelmann turn is neither a pivot nor a tumble, and "Immelmann turn pivot" (which is what the current phrasing produces) is odd, inaccurate and sort of redundant. The Lomcevak isn't a pivot either, but it's definitely a tumble. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 18:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
So apparently this is now a thing. It was approved by AffCom a few days ago. Have you or any other editors heard of this? I think they're related to these meetups, not that you'd know it from their meta page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Dan, how are you? This is just a note to let you know, as someone who took part in the peer review for Mutiny on the Bounty recently, that the article is now at FAC here. Thank you again for your contributions at the PR stage and I hope you're well. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Today, we chatted on dreams, which reminded me of the old one linked from my user page, and I realized that you part of making it come true, - thank you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan. This is probably going to demonstrate ignorance on my part, but what RFCs is the title of that section referring to? You launch right in with "I'm pretty sure I want to get more involved", but involved in what? Everyone there seems to know what they're talking about, so I must be missing something, but what? Cheers, Simon. -- Stfg ( talk) 14:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Your wisdom is sound and your comments are welcome there as far as I'm concerned. I had wanted more discussion first but some things take on a life of their own. When I read your comments earlier, I found them insightful. I didn't know that it was going to take off into an RfC while I was gone.
You're the one that managed to convince me that Pending changes was a good thing and I use that part of the toolset. :)
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
02:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Sorry I haven't responded to your e-mails. For some reason gmail is just utterly refusing to send mail ("save failed") on the new account I created for actually using e-mail here. Would you prefer to wait until I figure it out or just converse here? Hobit ( talk) 17:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan,
I noticed that you reverted my edit to today's TFA blurb with an edit summary stating that the sentence should be in parentheses because it is a parenthetical comment. The article itself does not have parentheses around the sentence in question. Is there any reason you feel that they should appear in the blurb but not in the article?
Neelix ( talk) 16:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
Hi. Can File:Goldmantelziesel.jpg please be the pic for the rodent TFA? It is used to represent Wikiproject:Rodents and is also in the collage. Gerda Arendt doesn't mind. LittleJerry ( talk) 21:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I am changing my original pick for this date ( Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)) to a just-promoted article that has been specifically requested for this date. See "This month's queue" for the blurb. The Ray Charles number will run later in the month, probably 27th. I have left a note on Tony the Tiger's talk. Brianboulton ( talk) 08:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
For completing 34 reviews during January-March 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 09:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC) |
Dan, you'll see from the WP:TFAR page that I've agreed to schedule Rivadavia-class battleship on 17 May, in place of Common Starling which I'm moving to 28 May. If you're online now, can you acknowledge this with a ping, so I know you know what I'm doing? Thanks. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey there. So, I'm not the most proud of that FA. I'm not saying it shouldn't be on TFA, but I was wondering, is there a possibility of changing it? If there is gonna be a tropical cyclone one, there are others I am far more proud of, such as Hurricane Iris, Hurricane Lenny, or Typhoon Maemi? Erika was a very run-of-the-mill storm, and I think there are some more exciting ones to put up. I'd happily do the blurb if you'd need. If this is a problem, I totally understand though. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan,
I don't know if you're watching this, but it might have good news for you: phab:T69784 Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) (who is clearing out her backlog of unread e-mail) 03:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello!
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
At the principal editor's request (see my talkpage) I have changed this day's TFA from Hurricane Erika (2003 to Hurricane Lenny. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan,
Last month, you asked me for an example of a TFA blurb that includes information that was not deemed sufficiently central to the article to be included in the article's lead. Today's TFA blurb is a good example. Much of the content does not appear in the lead of the Texas Revolution article, and for good reason; this information is excessively focused on details, resulting in a TFA blurb that does not provide the kind of general overview that the article's lead does. The large portion of the blurb devoted to minor details of a single battle (San Jacinto) could have been removed to provide space for an explanation of the effects of the revolution, for example. I do not mean to criticize the editors who developed the blurb; I only bring it up because you asked me to clarify this point back in April, and I do believe that TFA blurbs would better serve our readers if they were restricted to information presented in the corresponding article leads. Neelix ( talk) 02:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
On March 31, Houston paused his men at Groce's Landing, roughly 15 miles (24 km) north of San Felipe.[Note 13] Two companies that refused to retreat further than San Felipe were assigned to guard the crossings on the Brazos River.[222] For the next two weeks, the Texians rested, recovered from illness, and, for the first time, began practicing military drills.directly from the article, a shortened version now in the lead. — Maile ( talk) 12:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not a problem at all Ed. You didn't break any hard rules because we haven't had any hard rules ... intentionally. I wanted to go for a while letting people do whatever they wanted to do so we could see what would happen (and to give me time to learn the ropes). At this point, I'm ready to make some recommendations to Brian and Crisco ... I'll go do that, at WP:TFACO. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
And a belated apology from me - I saw the thread on the article talk, responded, then fell asleep before seeing any other response and/or pings for me. Karanacs ( talk) 17:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
To your general points about backlogs... There might be some disagreement with whether a given backlog is really a backlog. However, there really is no room to debate that Wikipedia is in decline. As it declines, various processes will begin to breakdown (and in some cases already have). Much of Wikipedia was built upon the model of an ever expanding editor base. This model failed many years ago. It's taking time for the ramifications of that to settle in, but settle in it will. What's sad is the WMF insists on trying to reverse the inevitable trend of reduced editorship on the project. I made comments to this effect here.
The reality is the model could never have worked. When Wikipedia was young, there were millions of articles to be written. Now, there are almost 5 million articles. There just isn't that much work that a new editor can find to do that is 'sexy', i.e. creating new articles. Instead, it's clean up, verification, citations, etc. The dirty work, if you will. That kind of stuff doesn't tend to draw passion from people about the project. It's easier to see someone bragging thus; "See that article on XYZ? Yeah? I made that article!" as opposed to "See that article on XYZ? Yeah? I did some copyediting on it".
Further, the bureaucracy has been constantly expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. The ability to successfully edit in this atmosphere is far, far lower than it was ten years ago. There are all sorts of pitfalls that befall new editors. The system is insanely complex, with a very steep learning curve. Sure, anyone can edit it. Well, some of it. But the system almost actively works against people editing. There's supposed help, but a new editor out of the gate? I would guess most of their work gets rapidly reverted.
So, the backlog problems you are seeing are only going to get worse over time. The plateauing we've seen in admin counts is, I think, temporary. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be rephrased: "A virtual instructor teaches basic and advanced flight techniques, such as the Immelmann turn and Lomcevak tumble." The Immelmann turn is neither a pivot nor a tumble, and "Immelmann turn pivot" (which is what the current phrasing produces) is odd, inaccurate and sort of redundant. The Lomcevak isn't a pivot either, but it's definitely a tumble. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 18:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
So apparently this is now a thing. It was approved by AffCom a few days ago. Have you or any other editors heard of this? I think they're related to these meetups, not that you'd know it from their meta page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Dan, how are you? This is just a note to let you know, as someone who took part in the peer review for Mutiny on the Bounty recently, that the article is now at FAC here. Thank you again for your contributions at the PR stage and I hope you're well. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Today, we chatted on dreams, which reminded me of the old one linked from my user page, and I realized that you part of making it come true, - thank you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan. This is probably going to demonstrate ignorance on my part, but what RFCs is the title of that section referring to? You launch right in with "I'm pretty sure I want to get more involved", but involved in what? Everyone there seems to know what they're talking about, so I must be missing something, but what? Cheers, Simon. -- Stfg ( talk) 14:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Your wisdom is sound and your comments are welcome there as far as I'm concerned. I had wanted more discussion first but some things take on a life of their own. When I read your comments earlier, I found them insightful. I didn't know that it was going to take off into an RfC while I was gone.
You're the one that managed to convince me that Pending changes was a good thing and I use that part of the toolset. :)
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
02:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Sorry I haven't responded to your e-mails. For some reason gmail is just utterly refusing to send mail ("save failed") on the new account I created for actually using e-mail here. Would you prefer to wait until I figure it out or just converse here? Hobit ( talk) 17:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan,
I noticed that you reverted my edit to today's TFA blurb with an edit summary stating that the sentence should be in parentheses because it is a parenthetical comment. The article itself does not have parentheses around the sentence in question. Is there any reason you feel that they should appear in the blurb but not in the article?
Neelix ( talk) 16:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)