User talk:ImaginesTigers/Archives/2021/August


Your GA nomination of Dracula

The article Dracula you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dracula for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Colin M -- Colin M (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Dracula

On 4 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dracula, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although Vlad the Impaler (pictured) and Elizabeth Báthory are popularly believed to have inspired Dracula, Bram Stoker's notes mention neither figure? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dracula. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dracula), 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.

Schwede66 12:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Wild Rift

Hello. Can you see the gameplay section of the article Wild Rift? I'm still not satisfied with the gameplay section, but I don't know yet what I shall to improve. Best regards. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@A.WagnerC: Hi, friend. Although it shares its gameplay with the parent game for the most part, Wild Rift still needs to function as a standalone article. Right now it’s failing readers who have never heard or played League of Legends—that's a problem that needs to be fixed (given that many of its players no doubt migrated from other mobile MOBAs). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

A "Thank you" note

Thank you again for your gracious assistance with helping The Great Gatsby attain Featured Article status, ImaginesTigers. Throughout the review process, I found your guidance to be invaluable, and the article would not have reached this important milestone without you. — Flask (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Flask: This one's your win, my friend. Congratulations, sincerely, on a monumental undertaking and success. You deserve it. Whatever article catches your eyes next is a lucky page indeed. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 Core Contest

Hello. Congratulations on winning second place in the 2021 Core Contest. Could you contact me at karla.marte@wikimedia.org.uk to sort out your prize? Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course :) — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Great Gatsby

Hello,

I tried to ping you in my edit summary but apparently got it wrong, so I just wanted to let you know that I did revert your edit at The Great Gatsby, restoring the sentence in the lead about antisemitism-- section 6.2 of the article, "Antisemitism", devotes two well-sourced paragraphs to this aspect of the book's reception, so I think a short sentence in the lead is appropriate 'summary style'. You might have missed it because it's in a different section from the other "major themes" (antisemitism not being an explicit theme of the work even though it is a relevant factor). Thank you for helping at this article! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: There is no mention, in the rest of the article, of Fitzgerald's other works having been described as antisemitic. That isn't reflected in the "antisemitism" subheading. I did not miss a major section of the article — I've spent a considerable amount of time helping with this article (which you'll see, if you look above, or on the article's Talk, or at its FAC nom). I removed the sentence and drew Flask's attention to the oversight. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 06:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I’m sorry for misunderstanding. I think I see what you mean now. I assumed you objected to the whole sentence, but now that you explain, it sounds like it’s just the transitional clause at the beginning which was unsupported by the rest of the article. Now that I look just at that part, you’re definitely right; I made an edit removing it. I’m sorry if my comments sounded patronizing, I knew you were very involved with the FAR, so I was pretty confused by your edit, but I thought you might not have had time to re-read it closely. I really was sincere in my thanks for all your help at this article, I was a very minor player in the review and the final result of your and Flask’s hard work is great. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)