Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 26, 2018
Today at ERRORS[edit]
Modulus12, Floquenbeam, Amakuru: I just want to be clear that I'm not trying to be a jerk here. The only chance ERRORS has of working (for me, anyway) is if I say as little as possible ... and I don't generally explain why I'm not saying a lot, but then people don't know why I'm not saying a lot. I tried to explain a little bit of my general reasoning for why I don't like to discuss these things ... maybe that didn't go over well, I don't know. It's not really a conversation I'm burning to have ... Wikipedia only works in practice, not in theory ... and any theory anyone tries to construct for how it's supposed to work inevitably blows up. If people are generally happy, then there's nothing to do. If we get repeated discussions at TFA/ERRORS about words in blurbs that can be figured out from context but that might not be the best choices, then we'll probably have to take our chances with launching a discussion at TFA and inviting all the interested parties to weigh in (groan). - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sharpening my pitchfork, if that's what you mean... I kind of disagree with a portion of what you said at ERRORS, but I agree with most of what you're saying here. You're not being a jerk, and I think people are generally happy. I don't dread a conversation at TFA or elsewhere as much as you seem to, but I've no burning desire to start one either, over a rare, minor disagreement. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. Don't think for a moment that I'm criticising you, Dank - you do a fine job at TFA, and keep the main page ticking over nicely with your well-written synopses. That said though, I don't think we should be shy to improve the text when good suggestions are made at ERRORS, like the one today. Particularly when, as in this case, the text in question wasn't from the featured version of the article and wasn't actually subject to the FAC process anyway. The readers come first, over and above process. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks kindly. - Dank (push to talk) 23:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. Don't think for a moment that I'm criticising you, Dank - you do a fine job at TFA, and keep the main page ticking over nicely with your well-written synopses. That said though, I don't think we should be shy to improve the text when good suggestions are made at ERRORS, like the one today. Particularly when, as in this case, the text in question wasn't from the featured version of the article and wasn't actually subject to the FAC process anyway. The readers come first, over and above process. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)