This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Valereee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Need help and don't know where to find it? Help!

non-regulars answering edit requests at articles that have plenty of regulars[edit]

Copy-paste from Talk:Killing of George Floyd

EEng wrote:

  • (Idea 1) One way would be a template with parameters X and Y. When present on a talk page, it causes edit requests on that page to not appear in the patrol queue (or whatever they call it) if there have been at least X edits (non-bot edits) to the talk page within the last Y days. Something like that.
  • (Idea 2) Or maybe that should be the default all the time, no template needed.
  • (Idea 3) Or maybe either of the above, plus if the request remains unanswered after Z days, then it goes in the general queue of edit requests needing answering.
Unfortunately this will take some technical work, not sure how much though. How about you and I commit to remembering to raise this at VP.

I really like 2+3, but 1+3 might be an easier sell. An added benefit is that this represents lessening the burden on editors patrolling requested edits.

Is there any perceived benefit to noninvolved editors responding to edit requests? It's possible the regulars at an article could be owny enough that they just mark all requested changes as answered/not done. Right now they'd have to answer those requests within minutes to ensure no fresh set of eyes shows up. Changing it to at least Z days might be seen as a downside? —valereee (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the right question is Is there any perceived benefit to noninvolved editors responding to edit requests when there are editors active on the article's talk page on a daily basis? Answer: No, and in fact it's a net negative. Semi-protected articles (and semi is, I suspect, by far the most common form of protection) are that way because there're (shall we say) lots and lots of people editing, and therefore available for handling edit requests.
So on reflection, I wonder how useful this patrolling-by-drive-by-editors actually is. Unless there's some flaw in my logic above (and I stand ready to be corrected on it), I would think that the vast majority of edit requests, if patrollers would just leave them alone, would be answered within 24 to 48 by editors active on the page. EEng 21:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
((_*_) Buttinsky) - noninvolved is defined in a few dictionaries, but not in Oxford. I checked to see how it's trending and it flatlined. ??? Just curious...maybe it's just me being picky but wouldn't uninvolved editors be the better choice? Atsme Talk 📧 18:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, totally —valereee (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:UNEVOLVED. EEng 01:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
EEng, there are 10,000+ semiprotected articles. Orinx has 2 watchers, 1 of whom visited recent edits. —valereee (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
And interestingly...there are ~20 current requests at semiprotected edit requests. One, at Balkans, is a month old. Eight are from today. I'm sure some patrollers come in and start with the fresh requests, figuring some of them will be easy to handle. And there doesn't seem to be any instructions for people on how to handle requests, unless it would be somewhere other than Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Responding_to_requests_and_mandatory_copyright_attribution —valereee (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

(Saw the comment on the article's Talk Page, and followed the discussion here) As another possible idea (independent from the ones above), might it help to write a polite essay on the problem of drive-by patrolling editors who flip edit requests to "answered" while posting useless and/or unhelpful comments that frustrate newbies? The intended audience would be the problematic drive-by editors themselves, explaining to them why they cause more problems than they solve by their behavior (including examples). Then create a WP shortcut to that essay page (perhaps "WP:EDITREQUESTFAIL" or something more catchy), and when you see a drive-by editor make a problematic edit like that, just revert them with a polite edit summary like "Reverted good faith but unhelpful comment per WP:EDITREQUESTFAIL". Doing so would 1) remove their useless post, 2) flip the "Y" back to "N" on the answer (to attract a better answer from a more knowledgeable editor), and 3) politely direct the drive-by editor to a well written page where he or she can learn why their short-sighted and problematic edit was reverted. I suspect most of the problematic editors would learn quickly and stop doing that after a single instance; only obtuse patrollers would go right back to the Talk Page in question to combatively revert your revert of their useless post. Would instituting something like this be worthwhile, and gradually educate the community over time to stop making those kinds of unhelpful posts that mess up the edit request process? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

AzureCitizen, it's not a bad idea. The problem here was that the person patrolling, who was just trying to help, probably should have just recognized the situation for what it was: a requested edit that may or may not be a reasonable change to ask for, to an article currently being heavily edited and with hundreds of active watchers. I believe the correct decision is move on, as someone brand new to this article is unlikely to be able to answer almost any edit request better than someone already working here. —valereee (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng invited me here from the article talk because I was "missing the point". Conceptually, I have no problem if we want to optimize the edit request process site wide. However, the edit request response that spurred this was fine. While the request did not cite any sources, we don't need a response that "us regulars know everything there is to know, it's been discussed ad nauseaum, and consensus ain't changing." Perhaps there is something we missing before, there is new information, or this editor has a new angle? Or maybe they're just wrong or trolling. In any event, inviting them to establish consensus is a neutral response that encourages good-faith editors and does not feed any would-be trolls.—Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I guess I don't agree that the response was fine. It felt to me like someone who decided to help out at requested edits, dropped in, made their best guess as to what might be a halfway reasonable response, and moved on to the next request. It wasn't helpful to someone making their first edit. What does 'please gain consensus before suggesting this alteration' even MEAN to someone making their first edit, much less their first edit request? That is a very high-traffic article with HUNDREDS of watchers, so there are many people available who understand the article, and answering an edit request there right now probably requires some level of familiarity or willingness to become familiar with it. This isn't some West Texas high school protected because someone keeps changing the name of the principal from Patsy to Pussy and someone's making an edit request to ask we change the stated location because they just put up a new building. —valereee (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
... made their best guess as to what might be a halfway reasonable response ... Maybe, maybe not. I as a semi-regular on that page would likely have said something as neutral and avoided outright saying the OP was wrong or assume I was necessarily up-to-date on the latest sources. You do have a point of regulars throwing the word "consensus" around, which might not be accessible to a complete newbie, but neither is pointing them that a way to an FAQ or giving them the impression that consensus cannot change because I am all wise (well ... I am, but ...) While I'm not saying edit request patrolling can't be improved, I am saying that the response in this specific case was fine, even if the (speculated) rationale behind it might not have been.—Bagumba (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba, believe me, I've seen regulars at a page give unfriendly and unhelpful and sometimes deliberately obtuse responses to edit requests. Let's for the sake of argument leave aside the quality of this particular response; I'm not even sure it's important. My feeling is that on a page that is currently being heavily edited and is actively watched by hundreds, an edit request response from someone who is unfamiliar with the article isn't likely to be as on point as the most-helpful response that could be given by the most-well-intentioned regular, and so when a patroller lands on a talk page at such an article, it's highly likely the best move is to move on to the next edit request. Would you be more likely to agree with that? —valereee (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
If we move away from this particular response, I'm indifferent on any process changes. Cheers. —Bagumba (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand. What does move away from this particular response mean, exactly? EEng 17:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
EEng, it was in response to Valereee's ... leave aside the quality of this particular responseBagumba (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Got it. EEng 01:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

an edit request response from someone who is unfamiliar with the article isn't likely to be as on point as the most-helpful response that could be given by the most-well-intentioned regular, and so when a patroller lands on a talk page at such an article, it's highly likely the best move is to move on to the next edit request – Yes, though I'd put it a bit more strongly: Even a mediocre response from a regular is likely to be at least as good as any response make by someone unfamiliar with the article. I've bolded part of your post because it's pretty much what we want, though I'd add that even better than the patroller recognizing they should move on would be for the system to never take the patroller to the page at all. EEng 17:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that would be a training issue. Having the edit request just not show up at the various lists for 24 hours would likely fix the problem without instruction creep and retraining of every new patroller. There's just really very little reason for an edit request to be funneled to a random patroller before 24 hours have gone by. Any page that has an urgent change needed is likely to have multiple editors headed there or working there already. —valereee (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with everything you just said, with the exception that I don't know what it is you're saying would be a training issue. EEng 01:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
EEng, sorry, by 'training issue' I just meant that trying to get patrollers to recognize when their help isn't needed means 1. adding to the instructions and 2. getting each new patroller to actually read and internalize the instructions.
If instead requested edits simply don't show up at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable and wherever else they transclude to for say 24 hours, we don't have that same issue. We don't have to train patrollers. —valereee (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Right. That's what you said and that's what I agreed was the best thing to happen. We are in violent agreement. EEng 12:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I was responding to with the exception that I don't know what it is you're saying would be a training issue. —valereee (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you must be reading something I said backwards, but no matter. So... shall we summarize the possible changes to the process we're contemplating, and then where do we raise this? EEng 17:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That would be not unheard of, and yes. I think we could raise it at Wikipedia talk:Edit requests or at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). My best guess would be Village pump policy; only 39 watchers visited last edits at the talk page for edit requests.

drafting proposal[edit]

Something like:
Patrollers of requested edits at semiprotected articles sometimes are the first to visit a request at even heavily-edited talk pages. Often some familiarity with the article and recent talk page discussion would allow for more helpful response, and on pages that are currently being heavily edited, there are usually many editors available to help. We’re suggesting that edit requests on talk pages that are currently being heavily edited simply not show up at at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable for 24 hours, or that they're greyed out for the first 24 hours to indicate they aren't in urgent need of help from patrollers, to give regulars at high-traffic articles a chance to respond. This will lessen the burden on patrollers at edit requests and increase the likelihood new editors’ requests will be answered by someone familiar with ongoing discussions at that article.
That's terrible, but as a draft. —valereee (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
EEng,I've given it a copyedit. —valereee (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Will be distracted for the next week or so but don't let me forget to get back to this. EEng 02:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I still have this in my ping list. Right now I'm busy grinding someone into a grease spot. EEng 00:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
EEng, same —valereee (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, you're grinding someone into a grease spot as well? That's a side of you I haven't seen before. EEng 01:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Not my choice; they're pretty much forcing me to. —valereee (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng is this still on the radar? —valereee (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Funny, I was just looking guiltily at it last night. The answer is yes, but I'm still just too distracted to concentrate on it. Don't worry, I never forget a commitment. EEng 00:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Not that I remember, anyway.
Zero worries, there's no urgency. —valereee (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Still on my mind. EEng 05:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The elephant never forgets. EEng 02:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, I really wish I'd followed up on this before now. Every day at T:Joe Biden we've got people swooping in out of nowhere saying the same stupid thing over and over: Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, like they've helped by saying that. I'm so sick of people doing mindless things that help not at all and waste others' time. EEng 04:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Silver lining: we now have another really good example of why it makes sense to propose something like this. —valereee (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Arbor-treeish break[edit]

I have another thought on how to go about this, but first I need to understand something. Where do these protected edit requests come from? What I mean is, how do IP editors stumble into the place where they're told "You can't edit this article, but if you fill in this box that will make a post to the talk page, with this little template attached"? I had imagine that it pops up when they try to edit the article, but I logged out just now and I realize that, in fact, when an IP tries to edit a protected article, there is simply no edit button for them to click. So where, exactly, do these templated posts come from?

The reason I ask is that, it seems to me, the way to fix our problem is just to make is so the edit-request template is omitted from the post. In other words, we don't need options for how the request will be handled, what we need an option to make the post just a simple post, without the request template. EEng 19:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I think these must be people who are used to being able to edit, or people sophisticated enough to realize viewing source might let you edit. If you log out and click view source, you get an edit request button. —valereee (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, it's all coming back to me now. OK, so we need to investigate how that template pops up, and what mechanism can be inserted to modify that on an article-by-article basis, perhaps based on some magic word or template inserted on the article's talk page. EEng 20:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
So, I've already poured myself a glass of wine. Don't judge. But why is that better than having edit requests for articles (that have 400+ watchers who visited recent edits/have 50 edits per day) or edit requests less than 24 hours old simply not show up at the edit requests dashboard? That's probably where most of these eager beavers are coming from. —valereee (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Not to butt in, but I saw "investigate how that template pops up". I'm thinking you may be referring to the set of templates that is MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext (shown when clicking "view source"). The one shown in the header after you click "submit an edit request" and are redirected to the talk page is Template:Edit extended-protected/editintro. The template popping up in the post itself is the preload: Template:Submit_an_edit_request/preload. Mobile editors can't see any of this, though, and when they click the pencil they just see "This page is protected to prevent vandalism", so how on earth they're submitting requests I don't know...
Regarding the "no consensus" replies, probably just a habit of using the userscript and giving the generic responses I think. I've been guilty of it too, but now that you mention it, I suppose it is a pretty unhelpful thing to reply with. Also worth noting Module:Protected edit request shows the banner. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
PR, butt in any time. :) —valereee (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

EEng, found this one today: Special:Permalink/1006579385#Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021. The request was answered in seven minutes with canned "unclear what you're asking" response to someone's first edit. —valereee (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Believe it or not, in my little ding-a-ling bell notification thingamajig at the top of every page, every day I skip over an open item I leave there reminding me to get back to this. Do not lose hope. EEng 18:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
No worries! Sorry to ping unnecessarily! —valereee (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
It's still on my to-do list. EEng 03:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thinking of this problem again after recent events. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, sorry, not enough coffee yet...recent events? —valereee (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
lol nevermind, REALLY not enough coffee! haha —valereee (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


25 May 2021 —valereee (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (media) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 29, 2021)[edit]

Tratado de kadesh.jpg

The Hittite version of the Treaty of Kadesh, among the earliest extant examples of an international agreement

Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

International law

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: International Army Games • Organized religion

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

DYK for Women's National Basketball Players Association[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 20 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Women's National Basketball Players Association, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Women's National Basketball Players Association was the first trade union for professional women athletes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Women's National Basketball Players Association. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Women's National Basketball Players Association), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Kishwar Chowdhury for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kishwar Chowdhury, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kishwar Chowdhury until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Women in Green Editathon[edit]

Hello Valereee -- With the goal of helping to progress the WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) women’s rights-themed GA nomination goal for 2021, I’m proposing that WiG hold a special editathon event in the fall (maybe October/November?). I can assist with logistics, but I need to know how much interest/support there might be from WiG participants first. Please let me know what you think in the talk page conversation! All the best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Your revisions to Richard Cheese[edit]

Wow. I mean....

omg, wow.

Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Yappy2bhere, can't decide if you're yappy or unyappy. :D —valereee (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Mostly I'm astonished, speechless. It's like seeing a tornado suck up debris and set down a cottage.
I'm happy with the result; changes always make someone unhappy, but I can't imagine anyone will be terribly unhappy with what you made. I'm happy I can leave the article behind in good conscience; I fell into it by accident and then couldn't get out again. I'm very happy that it's properly sourced and tagged. It would have taken me ages to approach what you achieved in hours, and I wouldn't have left behind a history with such clarity. Thank you; you're a hero. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Wow, that is such a nice thing for you to say, thank you, and I love the picture of a tornado sucking up debris and setting down a cottage rather than the opposite. I fell into it by accident, too, and just decided to edit boldly. I'm sure there will be people who aren't happy. :) —valereee (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add my thanks for cleaning up that article. I am monitoring the article in an administrative capacity since I saw it at ANI. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 01:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Richard Cheese page[edit]

Thank you for making those updates to the Richard Cheese page, you did a great job. I can't make any edits, so I'm glad that there is someone conscientious doing the work!

I spotted one typo in this sentence:

In 2019, the band released Richard Cheese's Big Swingin' Organ, an album of instrumental organ versions of 9 of songs.

But, since there is a discography section later in the article, I wonder if that entire "Releases" section is even necessary?

Perhaps that entire "Releases" section could be shortened to just this:

Richard Cheese's debut album Lounge Against The Machine was released in 2000. Since 2000, the Richard Cheese & Lounge Against the Machine band has released 28 albums.

And maybe move the discography section earlier?

Thanks again :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:9442:6d00:7437:241a:924f:df7 (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

IP, it looks to me like you're blocked from the article, but not from Talk:Richard Cheese? You can make suggested edits there using the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. You should use the 'conflict of interest' button, probably -- you've said you aren't being paid to edit, but are just a fan, but because Richard Cheese canvassed on twitter, we pretty much treat any new editor who comes in immediately afterwards as a COI editor. I have nearly zero experience with music articles, so an edit request at the article talk is your best choice. —valereee (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Before it was changed to "9 of songs" in this edit, it said "9 of his songs". I've changed it to "nine of their songs". MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 15:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that's what I probably thought I was doing lol...Thanks! —valereee (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:9442:6D00:7437:241A:924F:DF7 (talkcontribs)

August Editathons with Women in Red[edit]

WiR Indigenous women.png
Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207

Online events:

See also:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I'm a cobbler now![edit]

DYK: the Hebrew translation of Glen Cook's The Black Company calls Croaker (the Company's doctor and historian, and the book's protagonist) Cobbler for some reason? (Rhetorical. There's no way you'd know.) Unusually, the book credits a linguistic editor in a addition to the translator. So, reasons, I guess... El_C 03:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Huh, that's an interesting one. Character names in English sf/f are often so carefully chosen for their symbolism it can seem a bit precious, and the character names in our plot summary certainly seem to indicate this book was if anything more than usually over the top on that. :D In English those two words have such vastly different additional connotations. Is there anything about 'to croak' in Hebrew that connotes something other than to talk (maybe by telling a secret, usually to authorities) or to die? And what the heck is a linguistic editor? —valereee (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Same in Hebrew, so it is for sure an odd choice — not sure why she didn't just call him Croaker in Hebrew, because I think that would have worked just fine. The greater point, though, is that I'm a huge fan of The Black Company. Definite recommend. El_C 14:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Just downloaded it! —valereee (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Yay!Face-smile.svg It is dark, I'd stress, but such a great read. El_C 15:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't mind dark, but I hope the abuse of the little girl doesn't mean child rape. Some of these 1960s-1980s sf novels can be problematically salacious. I don't want to read things that pedophiles, locking their bedroom doors before reading. —valereee (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Darling's abuse is described in no more than a sentence or two within the context of her rescue. It's difficult to tell from that description to what extent (if any) this was also sexual abuse. But, regardless, it isn't that kind of fantasy novel. I've never read one that was like that. I didn't even know it was a thing. And now that I do, I wish I didn't.Face-sad.svg But on a more positive note, it looks like that a TV series may be in the works, with Eliza Dushku (who is great!) cast as The Lady. Please let it happen, gods of TV, and please let it not suck... El_C 17:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Been a fan of Dushku since Buffy/Angel, then Dollhouse. :) —valereee (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Never seen Buffy, but definitely am a fan of Dollhouse (and Banshee, for that matter). Anyway, I'm wary of revealing any more due to spoilers, but I'll sharpen a bit by noting that Darling largely serves as a redemption arc in this grim military fantasy (grim, though by no means devoid of humor). El_C 17:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a thing that Tolkien termed "the potency of spirit," which I find can be quite difficult to balance in fantasy fiction. That problematic is largely about how to still have stakes when characters of vastly differing abilities interact (think from the demigod to the normal). I think this is a challenge in which Glen Cook really excels at... El_C 17:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)