User talk:Ravenpuff/Archives/2021/February
 | This page 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. |
Adminship
I don't suppose you've considered a Request for adminship? I never seem to get enough time to field The Rambling Man's comments on WP:ERRORS and so it would be good to get somebody else who can tackle the main page stuff effectively. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Well, although I suppose the adminship might come in useful, I haven't felt that my ability to contribute (on Main Page content in particular) is impeded by not being an admin – TRM now flags OTD errors two days in advance, which at least gives me an opportunity to step in if required, and there are certainly other admins and regular users present at ERRORS who regularly respond to reports.
- Additionally, even though I've had an account here since 2014, I've only been this active for just about two years, which might seem a bit low from what I've noticed from previous RfAs. Being fairly busy in real life at the moment (university, etc.) also means that I'd don't really see myself being substantially more active here as an admin, not to mention having to deal with the challenges of an RfA. Also, I'd ideally like to get back into some content creation (eventually) before potentially thinking of the adminship. Cheers — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I'd oppose now, given your recent conduct in moving a new page without discussion, just before it was due to go on main page! As soon as it's off, I'll move it back. Yes you should get more content creation, & more experience generally. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Johnbod, I presume you're referring to Assumption of [the Virgin] Mary in art – I'd be willing to justify this further. The new title is both more concise and consistent with the article Assumption of Mary (both listed at WP:CRITERIA), so I considered it uncontroversial enough to proceed without a move request. In any case, if you do decide to revert the page move, we might need a RM to sort it out with consensus. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 19:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- A very mistaken assumption, but I'm willing to put it down to inexperience & lack of knowledge of the subject area. Art titles follow the usual name in art history eg Nativity of Jesus in art vs Birth of Jesus for the event. If you'd asked on talk as you should have done that would have been explained. Feel free to launch a RM after it goes back. There's also the courtesy issue with a very new page just about to go on MP. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Johnbod, I presume you're referring to Assumption of [the Virgin] Mary in art – I'd be willing to justify this further. The new title is both more concise and consistent with the article Assumption of Mary (both listed at WP:CRITERIA), so I considered it uncontroversial enough to proceed without a move request. In any case, if you do decide to revert the page move, we might need a RM to sort it out with consensus. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 19:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I'd oppose now, given your recent conduct in moving a new page without discussion, just before it was due to go on main page! As soon as it's off, I'll move it back. Yes you should get more content creation, & more experience generally. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- As you know, Ravenpuff, I beat Ritchie to this, (by a lot, Ritchie!) and have only gained confidence you'd make a good admin since then. But I'll never second guess people who decline to go thru the RFA gauntlet, where (for example) someone who is upset with one page move can oppose and cancel three supporters. Even though I suspect, from a brief review, that the page move was a mistake, hopefully it does some good to let you know I think you'd make a fine admin, even if we don't always agree on every single decision you or I make? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
DYK prep hook rewrite
Hi Ravenpuff, regarding your tweaks here, specifically the netball one, I had organised the hooks to try and spread the bold dark blue links out and thus reduce wall-of-textyness. I don't see a significant difference in clarity or interest between the two placements of the COVID-19 clause, so would prefer it earlier to reduce the sea of blue. This is the first prep I've built, so I'm interested in your thoughts. Best, CMD (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Chipmunkdavis, I've swapped the hook's phrasing around as suggested to what it was before. It seemed a little unnatural to me to place the dependent clause at the beginning of the hook, but I understand the desire to avoid seas of blue, although I suppose it isn't too bad here since the bold links aren't all immediately after "... that". (As an aside, I believe other editors also prefer to have the bold link nearer to the beginning of the hook for greater emphasis, but this definitely isn't a hard and fast rule.) Thanks! — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)