Co-Lead Coordinator, Military History Project, 2012/2013
Lead Coordinator, Military History Project, 2011/2012
I co-write the Today's Featured Article section on the Main Page
Administrator

User talk:Dank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Please leave a message, and I'll reply here.
Copyediting Library Links Milhist Alerts Policy update RFA RFCs Scripts Shiny things
My talk page is watched by friendly talk page stalkers. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
Material in the New Orleans city archives.jpg

(2007-4/08), (5-7/08), (8-11/08)
(12/08-2/09), Mar, Apr, May, Jun
Jul/Aug 2009 - Sep/Oct - Nov/Dec
Jan/Feb 2010 - Mar/Apr - May/Jun
Jul/Aug 2010 - Sep/Oct - Nov/Dec
Jan/Feb 2011 - Mar/Apr - May/Jun
Jul/Aug 2011 - Sep/Oct - Nov/Dec
Jan/Feb 2012 - Mar/Apr - May/Jun
Jul/Aug 2012 - Sep/Oct - Nov/Dec
Jan/Feb 2013 - Mar/Apr - May/Jun
Jul/Aug 2013 - Sep/Oct - Nov/Dec
Jan/Feb 2014 - Mar/Apr - May/Jun
Jul/Aug 2014 - Sep/Oct - Nov/Dec
Jan/Feb 2015 - Mar/Apr - May/Jun


Rodent TFA[edit]

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)

Crisco makes those calls, but it looks great to me, I'll go add it. Gratz on getting Rodent through FAC ... it's a lot harder to do with the top-level articles, but they really add a lot to the Main Page and make all of us ... and Wikipedia ... look good. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

TFA 21 May[edit]

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)

Thanks Brian. - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: at T the T's request I am deferring the rescheduling until May 2017, to coincide with the albums 50th anniverary. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

January-March 2015 Milhist reviewing award[edit]

WikiChevrons.png 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)
Thanks PM. - Dank (push to talk) 11:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

TFA 17 May[edit]

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)

ping. Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your co-nom work in it, - precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 24, 2015[edit]

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 Hink. Brian is in charge of scheduling for May. Check out recent discussions regarding rescheduling at User talk:Brianboulton. If it's a problem of the article needing more work that can't get completed in time, that's one thing; if the subject isn't exciting, that's another thing. - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't sure about the procedure. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ping[edit]

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)

Thanks, I saw that, it's helpful. At some point I need to find someone who can write the requested patch. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in[edit]

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:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

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)

TFA 24 May[edit]

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)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Jesus and Nicodemus[edit]

  • "Jesus und Nikodemus" is the title I know of the scene, they have a discussion, not a teacher-pupil relationship. I wasn't enthusiastic about the changes, but it looked like the last thing in the way of promotion ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've changed it to "Jesus and Nicodemus", since the description of the image doesn't say anything about teaching. I'm confused about who painted this (from the description: "the work of the forger Van Meergeren"). - Dank (push to talk)
  • Thank you for better flow, but can the promotion come first, as the cause of the monthly compositions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure, I swapped those two elements, but I had to delete Schloss Weimar to make it work. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Great. The Schlosskirche was pictured last time, no need to mention it again ;) - I hope that I will write at least a stub Jesus und Nikodemus (Pepping) by then, following the Missa, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I'll mention the forgery issue to Crisco. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

TFA blurbs and article leads[edit]

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)

Small comment here. It does not focus on a single battle. It mentions the three major events - the Battle of the Alamo, the Goliad Massacre, and the Battle of San Jacinto. Personally, and I'm the one who wrote the blurb, it was written to grab the reader's nano-second attention. I'm guessing that today's audiences aren't going to stop and read a blurb about the after effects of the Revolution. I've added some information from the body into the lead, so it now coordinates with the blurb.— Maile (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I added a bit to the blurb. Where did the training ground part come in? I can't find it in the Battle of San Jacinto article, much less Texas Revolution. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:51, 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)
Just got up; I see all this happened about 8 hours ago. Three points: 1. at 1410 characters, we're now way over the sort-of-negotiated limit of 1250 (the WP:ITN guys sometimes have to scramble around to make their column work when our column runs over, so at the least, we would need to give them some notice if we had to go over for some reason), and 2. Karanacs and Maile and I collaborated closely on yesterday's version of today's TFA column, and they're the experts, so I'm hesitant to make changes on TFA day. 3. I agree that additional context makes it seem more readable, and that people who aren't particularly into warfare may feel that the details of warfare are unnecessary details. Of course, people who aren't into X think that the details of X aren't necessary, for all X; that's why we have continual conflict at FAC (and theoretically, we should have even more conflict at TFA, though it hasn't worked out that way for some reason).
So, as a first step, I'm going to revert, and post a note on Karanacs' and Maile's talk pages and see how close we can get to what you guys want. - Dank (push to talk) 10:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Also see WT:ITN#A little help; I'm checking to see how much of a problem it would be today if we have to go over. - Dank (push to talk) 10:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Dank, I just rolled out of bed, I just added the Brazos river training in the lead, and included the Goliad massacre and the "Remember the Alamo!" and "Remember Goliad!" battle cries. Hopefully, Karanacs will log on today and add her Two Cents.— Maile (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Maile, on the specific points Ed raises: the ITN guys are okay with going over a little, can we get in any of his text, and is there anything we can subtract? In general terms, as I look over the edits that admins made on TFA day since Jan 1 without first posting at WP:ERRORS, there have been problems of one sort or another. Rather than trying to cover all the bases in an editnotice, I think some kind of negotiated settlement might be best ... just one possibility would be: we have to expand the lead if we want more than what's in the lead for TFA, but admins are requested to post at ERRORS rather than making edits directly to the TFA on TFA day. That's not really a suggestion, just a rough idea what I think the issues are; this will require a lot of discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I really would like Karanacs to weigh in on this. Are you referring to what Ed had on the template that you reverted? I have no problem with This version. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, since you and WT:ITN are on board with Ed's edits (and Karanacs has at least seen the longer version, she fixed a misspelling in it), I reverted to a slightly shorter version of what Ed did. Now that we're 5 months into our term at TFA (Brian, Crisco and me), this is probably a good time to think about rules designed to do a better job of fixing potential problems before TFA day, I'll talk with them. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
So we're good, then. 15:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Until someone complains, yes, I think so. See if you agree with what I said at WP:ERRORS. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm fine with your response at WP:ERRORS. — Maile (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Not following ... at ERRORS you say you're fine with the new wording (Maunus's wording?), here you say you're fine with my response (that his wording isn't in the articles, though I see his point that it's less prone to misinterpretation). Do you like Maunus's wording? - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Pinging Maile66. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm OK with what you personally wrote on WP:ERRORS, and how you reworded the TFA template. Maunus took your advice and posted on the article's talk page, so I wasn't responding to him. Karanacs took over the conversation on the article's talk page. I'm willing to let her handle that thread. — Maile (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all this, and I'm sorry that I forgot about the 1250 character limit! My bad. The "training ground" wasn't obvious to me, Maile66; to me, that implies an area that is bought and purposely shaped to be used for training troops. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:55, 26 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)

[Continued on Ed's talk page] - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 27 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)

You and Maile have been great, giving me a lot more help than I usually get. - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Backlogs[edit]

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)

One of my advantages in maintaining the neutrality necessary for RfC work is my ignorance ... even after all this time, I really only understand how a few corners of Wikipedia work. So you may be right ... I don't know. Up at the top of my userpage, you'll see a list of some of the articles that Milhist (the Military History project) currently has up for review, and I haven't seen those numbers shrinking over time; our members never seem to run out of articles to work on, including top-level articles. The last time I checked, editing rates had been dropping on the English Wikipedia at about 10% a year for several years. That's certainly a decline, but not embarrassing. The drop in admin numbers, on the other hand, is unsustainable (unless we figure something else out). I agree with you that the recent plateau in admin numbers, while welcome, is probably unsustainable as well, and I'd like to see the breakdown of how many left and how many returned from inactivity before I read too much into it. Of course, the best place for you to make these points would be in the discussion section of the next relevant RfC ... I'll try my best to take all POVs into account and represent them proportionately in part of the closing statement. - Dank (push to talk) 12:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Re:Flight Unlimited wording[edit]

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)

Part of this I understand, part I don't. What do you think of "such as Lomcevak tumbles and the Immelmann turn"? - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
"Lomcevak" generally appears as a proper noun, so either "the Lomcevak tumble" or "a Lomcevak tumble", where "a" relates to "tumble", would be correct. Juxtapositioning "Lomcevak tumbles" (plural) with "the Immelmann turn" (singular) makes it sounds like the player can pull one Lomcevak after another, but only one Immelmann turn. A bit confusing. I see two options: either pluralize both maneuvers ("Immelmann turns and Lomcevak tumbles") or singularize them ("the Immelmann turn and Lomcevak tumble"). The second reads better to me. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
From Lomcovak (either spelling is fine): "The Lomcovak is a family of freestyle maneuvers performed at airshows", followed by descriptions of different Lomcovak maneuvers. I'll go with your first option. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone heard of the "North Carolina Triangle Wikipedians"?[edit]

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)

I was looking at that yesterday, I plan to go to one of their meetups and check them out. - Dank (push to talk) 11:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me know how it goes—if it's worth it, perhaps I'll make a pilgrimage out there. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Bligh[edit]

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)

Sure, I'll come have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 02:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very kind of you. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Dank an Dank[edit]

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)

I don't think a Wikipedian ever told me I make dreams come true before, that's very sweet of you. Thanks for all you do for TFA, Gerda. - Dank (push to talk) 22:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure, and doing a bit of the work P, R and T would have done if they were still here, - well, T is but not very active in the field you cultivate now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RFCs[edit]

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)

You're right, Simon. A section title of "RFCs" is unclear, it makes my copyeditor fingers twitch. The problem is that, in my (still undefined) role, announcing or launching an RfC would be overreaching, so all I could do was to leave the question hanging that, one of these days, we might get some RfCs. It would make me happy if it happens not too long after we get answers to the two questions I posed. - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I understand it now. --Stfg (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

WT:RFA[edit]

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)

Really happy to read that, I thought I might have drifted into obnoxious territory, but I felt it had to be said, even though I've more than used up my time in the spotlight there. Thanks for replying here. - Dank (push to talk) 04:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Email[edit]

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)

This is good. Dave, this is for you too. What I sent was: "Okay, if there were a problem we probably would have heard about it by now. I have just one request: if I get my way, then we'll have an initial few days or a week of discussing among ourselves before the RfC starts, then we'll probably leave it alone for at least 3 weeks, then there will be a lot to do again. Are you okay with that? Do you have time some time over the coming week? (Or if you don't, are you okay with Dave and me doing [most of] what I see as the initial part?)" The first steps (if this is agreeable) are:
    • If no one does anything about my two requests at WT:RFA (finding out if we have fewer admins doing important admin-y things since November, and surveying to find out why so few people show up at RfA these days), then I suggest we either do that stuff ourselves or beg the participants in the RfC to do it;
    • For important, difficult RfCs like this one is likely to be, in cases where I signed on as a closer early on, I've been able to get away with making some kind of mildly reassuring or informative statement up front. If we can agree on a statement, I think it might help, because the history of RfA reform discussions shows that talking about the problem generally makes the problem worse.
    • I've already thought about this problem a lot, and kept track of discussions. You two, maybe not. It wouldn't be very Wikipedian of me to just dump all my thoughts on you, I'd prefer that you guys take some time to study the problem and come up with your own recommendations, so we can all share at the same time.
Of course, Dave has said he didn't have a lot of time and you've said you'll be available in late June ... I'd like to get started sooner than late June if possible, especially if someone launches the RfC sooner than that. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Just got your email, Hobit, I'll reply to that. Welcome aboard. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Parentheses[edit]

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)

I have already replied on your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for responding so promptly to my question. I do, of course, attempt to make changes prior to the day, but I will inevitably not catch everything. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning with respect to the parentheses; I understand why you think them necessary in the blurb, but not why you think them unnecessary in the article. The sentence in the blurb (Several Lichtenstein works contain text referring to an absent "Brad".) and the sentence in the article (It is one of several Lichtenstein works that mention a hero named Brad who is absent from the picture.) communicate the same information, but the first is in parentheses and the second is not. Why include them in the blurb and not in the article? Neelix (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
There are lots of things that are different in the TFA column than in the articles, partly because I have only one paragraph, and partly because I follow a range of standard copyediting conventions. When I have to squeeze everything together, sometimes (as here) the text has the feel of a storyline, but there's another bit I want to include that doesn't make sense in the context of that storyline. There are different tricks I can use when that happens. Sometimes I put the bit that doesn't belong at the end, but then, that may violate the informal rule that it's a good idea to finish strong; or, it might be completely out of context at the end. Sometimes (as here), I'll shorten it so that it's not so jarring, even though it's a parenthetical thought. Sometimes (as here), I'll signal the reader that it's a parenthetical thought by putting parentheses around it. FAC writers have up to four paragraphs to work with in the lead; they can put separate thoughts in separate paragraphs, and they can have some paragraphs that have the feel of a storyline and others that don't. In a non-storyline context, and in more relaxed contexts, I'm less likely to need parentheses. Hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)